Heinlein Readers Discussion Group
Thursday 12/07/2006 8:00 P.M. EST
Heinlein/Robinson's Variable Star

Return to Index
Go To Beginning of Discussion

Here Begin The Postings

There were several pre-discussion threads.

First

Second Thread
Third Thread
Fourth Thread

Ok, put on your asbestos outerwear. I'm gonna rant. And vent and bleat.

And, of course, this all has a huge "in my opinion, your mileage may actually have validity, void where prohibited by good taste" and so on. This is just me, and I don't feel any need for people to agree.

Ok, let's do the easy parts first. How many times in the book was something described as "indescribable?" How many times did we get the personality data-dump (loyal, trustworthy, brave, honest, etc. and etc.) from the description that the character had laugh lines or some such. This is a guy who won the JWC? Ah-huhn.

There's lots more I could say like that. Then there's the puns. Then there's the inordinate swearing. (Fucking hell, carrots again! That's the third time this month!)

There's the obligatory-rich-evil guy. I could rant for a couple hours on that. Mr. Robinson, you took a Heinlein story and you made a rich guy an *ineffective* bad guy. Sure.

Then there's the fact that, fundamentally, Joel is pretty dull. He can play the saxaphone. Great. And we need page after dull page of details about how to play the damn saxaphone.

Then he has a seemingly endless series of useless dates, proving that he isn't very wise about relationships. And that the general social content of the ship is fairly dysfunctional. Geeze, sounds like top-notch colony material. And it sounds like the covenant is functioning just spiffy! And that the ship's councilor is right on her game.

But then, Joel isn't very smart either. Viz: He realizes he needs to commandeer the faster-than-light ship out from under the obligatory-rich-evil guy. And, out of the seven occupants of this ship, all of whom are no-longer on board but are on the larger ship they are docked to, you have at least two and maybe three on your side. And your plan manages to get two people shot dead after one had already died.

Then there are the various things that are clearly tacked onto the plot just to make false drama. The one that stood out so painfully was that there are six "relativistis" on board. No way of attempting to make more was mentioned. The mission is 20 years subjective. And if you lose three, everybody on the ship probably dies. How many people have you known for 20 years, starting at adulthood? How many of them have, over that 20 years, died or become unable to work? And the ship can apparently fast-fry a relativist who makes a mistake. You have two spares and no way to make more? Sure. What's stopping the production of more relativists? False drama.

And then there's one of Mr. Robinson's signature chimney corners: Anger is just fear displaced. Well so what if it is? Does that mean that it's not valid? Not justified? There are things we should be afraid of in the universe. And actions we should be angry about.

But I could have overlooked all that. These are minor little flecks on the ocean, and if the ending had actually gone somewhere useful, I might have ignored them.

Mr. Robinson vaporizes the solar system. And it's pretty clear that this was some entity's deliberate attempt to eradicate the human race. The description of 90 percent conversion to energy is enough to be pretty much a smoking artillery squadron. Typical super novas only convert a small percentage of the star to energy. I can't think of a way that it could happen.

What do we get from this ending? We get some philosophy.

The guy in the star theatre who is expressing appropriate sentiments is escorted out by the proctors. Presumably he will have his personality chemically adjusted so as not to ever again disturb the serene contemplation of others who want to quietly enjoy the missing solar system.

The budhist on board has no room in his heart for hate. And he teaches this lesson by telling us how badly the human race messed up after 9/11. Did he tell us about other sneak attacks? Other wars? Nope. He reaches back a couple centuries and pokes at the USA right now. Not even in the context of other remembered attacks or other wars. It's just, hey, you remember how the USA messed up so badly when they acted in anger over 9/11? We shouldn't act in anger.

Look, buddy. The entire solar system is gone. Mountains and trees, lakes and clouds, volcanoes and traffic jams, kittens and boots and methane clouds on Jupiter. It's *all* gone. If it isn't on one of the colony ships or on one of the colonies, it's an expanding clound of plasma.

No more teacher, no more books, no more school, no more road to walk uphill both ways through the snow. No more snow.

And it's not clear that the colonies will survive either. This isn't an ordinary super nova.

The 9/11 attack is trivially unimportant in comparison. WWII is trivially unimportant in comparison. All the wars that the entire human race has ever fought, in total in combination, are trivially unimportant by comparison. Throw in all the deaths by murder, all the accidental deaths, all the deaths by hunger or plague, and it's *still* trivially unimportant.

What Mr. Robinson really did was, stand up on his tiny little stage and say that *NOTHING* is worth fighting back for. Why, you remember when my mom made me clean up my room? (Roughly as trivially unimportant as a little thing like 3000 people being killed on the scale of an entire solar system being fried.) Well, if I can do that without getting angry, then you can contemplate the killing of an entire solar system and remain serene.

If I had been there when this guy had started his little don't-be-angry riff, I'd have shouted him down right away. Then started a petition to have him shoved out the airlock. *OF*COURSE* we should be angry. We should be furious. The pricks who did this must be prevented from ever doing it again.

Your heart has no room for hate? Well, then, you don't have a big enough heart.

And Mr. Robinson, your book is going to the used book store.

Socks

In article <1163548043.883426.52570@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Your heart has no room for hate? Well, then, you
> don't have a big enough heart.

Compare:

    ... Puppet masters--the free men are coming to kill you!

   _Death and destruction!_

Nice rant, Sock.

-- 
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
     Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
     Lt.(jg), USN, R'td

David M. Silver wrote:
> In article <1163548043.883426.52570@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>  "Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Your heart has no room for hate? Well, then, you
> > don't have a big enough heart.
>
> Compare:
>
>       ... Puppet masters--the free men are coming to kill you!
>
>       _Death and destruction!_
>
> Nice rant, Sock.

Thank you David.

You've nailed it. I don't think a former USN officer would just lie down and take it if the entire solar system was obliterated. I don't think somebody who enjoyed the Lensman series would respond the way the buddhist in VS responded.

I was a bit afraid to vent so hotly. I've seen several "big name reviewers" gush over VS. Made me a bit hesitant when I found that my review-o-meter was registering mighty low. This is why it took me so long to post this.

Socks

Puppet_Sock wrote:
> Ok, put on your asbestos outerwear. I'm gonna rant. And vent and bleat.
>
> And, of course, this all has a huge "in my opinion, your mileage may
> actually have validity, void where prohibited by good taste" and so on.
> This is just me, and I don't feel any need for people to agree.
>
> And some spoiler space. I'm not going to be careful about spoilers.
>
>
> Ok, let's do the easy parts first. How many times in the book was
> something described as "indescribable?" How many times did we
> get the personality data-dump (loyal, trustworthy, brave, honest,
> etc. and etc.) from the description that the character had laugh
> lines or some such. This is a guy who won the JWC? Ah-huhn.
>
> There's lots more I could say like that. Then there's the puns.
> Then there's the inordinate swearing. (Fucking hell, carrots
> again! That's the third time this month!)
>
> There's the obligatory-rich-evil guy. I could rant for a couple
> hours on that. Mr. Robinson, you took a Heinlein story and
> you made a rich guy an *ineffective* bad guy. Sure.
>
> Then there's the fact that, fundamentally, Joel is pretty dull.
> He can play the saxaphone. Great. And we need page after
> dull page of details about how to play the damn saxaphone.
>
> Then he has a seemingly endless series of useless dates,
> proving that he isn't very wise about relationships. And that
> the general social content of the ship is fairly dysfunctional.
> Geeze, sounds like top-notch colony material. And it sounds
> like the covenant is functioning just spiffy! And that the
> ship's councilor is right on her game.
>
> But then, Joel isn't very smart either. Viz: He realizes he needs
> to commandeer the faster-than-light ship out from under the
> obligatory-rich-evil guy. And, out of the seven occupants of
> this ship, all of whom are no-longer on board but are on the
> larger ship they are docked to, you have at least two and
> maybe three on your side. And your plan manages to get
> two people shot dead after one had already died.
>
> Then there are the various things that are clearly tacked onto
> the plot just to make false drama. The one that stood out so
> painfully was that there are six "relativistis" on board. No way
> of attempting to make more was mentioned. The mission is
> 20 years subjective. And if you lose three, everybody on the
> ship probably dies. How many people have you known for
> 20 years, starting at adulthood? How many of them have,
> over that 20 years, died or become unable to work? And the
> ship can apparently fast-fry a relativist who makes a mistake.
> You have two spares and no way to make more? Sure.
> What's stopping the production of more relativists? False drama.
>
> And then there's one of Mr. Robinson's signature chimney
> corners: Anger is just fear displaced. Well so what if it is?
> Does that mean that it's not valid? Not justified? There are
> things we should be afraid of in the universe. And actions
> we should be angry about.
>
> But I could have overlooked all that. These are minor little
> flecks on the ocean, and if the ending had actually gone
> somewhere useful, I might have ignored them.
>
> Mr. Robinson vaporizes the solar system. And it's pretty
> clear that this was some entity's deliberate attempt to
> eradicate the human race. The description of 90 percent
> conversion to energy is enough to be pretty much a
> smoking artillery squadron. Typical super novas only
> convert a small percentage of the star to energy. I can't
> think of a way that it could happen.
>
> What do we get from this ending? We get some philosophy.
>
> The guy in the star theatre who is expressing appropriate
> sentiments is escorted out by the proctors. Presumably
> he will have his personality chemically adjusted so as
> not to ever again disturb the serene contemplation of
> others who want to quietly enjoy the missing solar system.
>
> The budhist on board has no room in his heart for hate.
> And he teaches this lesson by telling us how badly the human
> race messed up after 9/11. Did he tell us about other sneak
> attacks? Other wars? Nope. He reaches back a couple centuries
> and pokes at the USA right now. Not even in the context of
> other remembered attacks or other wars. It's just, hey, you
> remember how the USA messed up so badly when they
> acted in anger over 9/11? We shouldn't act in anger.
>
> Look, buddy. The entire solar system is gone. Mountains
> and trees, lakes and clouds, volcanoes and traffic jams,
> kittens and boots and methane clouds on Jupiter. It's
> *all* gone. If it isn't on one of the colony ships or on one
> of the colonies, it's an expanding clound of plasma.
>
> No more teacher, no more books, no more school,
> no more road to walk uphill both ways through the
> snow. No more snow.
>
> And it's not clear that the colonies will survive either.
> This isn't an ordinary super nova.
>
> The 9/11 attack is trivially unimportant in comparison.
> WWII is trivially unimportant in comparison. All the
> wars that the entire human race has ever fought, in
> total in combination, are trivially unimportant by
> comparison. Throw in all the deaths by murder,
> all the accidental deaths, all the deaths by hunger
> or plague, and it's *still* trivially unimportant.
>
> What Mr. Robinson really did was, stand up on his
> tiny little stage and say that *NOTHING* is worth fighting
> back for. Why, you remember when my mom made
> me clean up my room? (Roughly as trivially unimportant
> as a little thing like 3000 people being killed on the scale
> of an entire solar system being fried.) Well, if I can do that
> without getting angry, then you can contemplate the killing
> of an entire solar system and remain serene.
>
> If I had been there when this guy had started his
> little don't-be-angry riff, I'd have shouted him down
> right away. Then started a petition to have him
> shoved out the airlock. *OF*COURSE* we should
> be angry. We should be furious. The pricks who
> did this must be prevented from ever doing it again.
>
> Your heart has no room for hate? Well, then, you
> don't have a big enough heart.
>
> And Mr. Robinson, your book is going to the used book store.
> Socks

Did you happen to check out the website of Alex Grey, the "artist" Spider (excuse me - Joel) gushed over as being the most bestest ever philosopher in the known universe? Don't, unless you want another very excellent reason to throw up. I did, and it's one of those things that you will wish you could "un-see". Think cheap black velvet pseudo-art renderings.

Steve

"bajasteve" warns:

> Did you happen to check out the website of Alex Grey, the "artist"
> Spider (excuse me - Joel) gushed over as being the most bestest ever
> philosopher in the known universe? Don't, unless you want another very
> excellent reason to throw up. I did, and it's one of those things that
> you will wish you could "un-see". Think cheap black velvet pseudo-art
> renderings.
>

Too late, went and looked...<barf>

Had to go check out some Ansell Adams to get the "flavor" out of my minds eye.

E!

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:51:13 -0700, "TreetopAngel"
<treetopangel@bresnan.net> wrote:

>
>"bajasteve" warns:
>
>> Did you happen to check out the website of Alex Grey, the "artist"
>> Spider (excuse me - Joel) gushed over as being the most bestest ever
>> philosopher in the known universe? Don't, unless you want another very
>> excellent reason to throw up. I did, and it's one of those things that
>> you will wish you could "un-see". Think cheap black velvet pseudo-art
>> renderings.
>>
>Too late, went and looked...<barf>
>
>Had to go check out some Ansell Adams to get the "flavor" out of my 
>minds eye.

_That_ was "art"? EEEeeeewwww!

I've seen better art on ABPED!

Regards,

--
Rusty the bookman
WWFSMD?
http://www.venganza.org/ 

"The difference between food and beer is that beer 
has some food value, while food has no beer value"
- Linda the waitress

Bookman wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:51:13 -0700, "TreetopAngel"
> <treetopangel@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"bajasteve" warns:
> >
> >> Did you happen to check out the website of Alex Grey, the "artist"
> >> Spider (excuse me - Joel) gushed over as being the most bestest ever
> >> philosopher in the known universe? Don't, unless you want another very
> >> excellent reason to throw up. I did, and it's one of those things that
> >> you will wish you could "un-see". Think cheap black velvet pseudo-art
> >> renderings.
> >>
> >Too late, went and looked...<barf>
> >
> >Had to go check out some Ansell Adams to get the "flavor" out of my
> >minds eye.
>
> _That_ was "art"?  EEEeeeewwww!
>
> I've seen better art on ABPED!
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Rusty the bookman

Actually, I think it would be best described as "Graphic Philosophy," albeit pretty lame philosophy. Somehow, the word "sophomoric" comes to mind.

Steve

On 15 Nov 2006 09:54:04 -0800, "bajasteve"
<stevenspence@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>Bookman wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:51:13 -0700, "TreetopAngel"
>> <treetopangel@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"bajasteve" warns:
>> >
>> >> Did you happen to check out the website of Alex Grey, the "artist"
>> >> Spider (excuse me - Joel) gushed over as being the most bestest ever
>> >> philosopher in the known universe? Don't, unless you want another very
>> >> excellent reason to throw up. I did, and it's one of those things that
>> >> you will wish you could "un-see". Think cheap black velvet pseudo-art
>> >> renderings.
>> >>
>> >Too late, went and looked...<barf>
>> >
>> >Had to go check out some Ansell Adams to get the "flavor" out of my
>> >minds eye.
>>
>> _That_ was "art"?  EEEeeeewwww!
>>
>> I've seen better art on ABPED!


>
>Actually, I think it would be best described as "Graphic Philosophy,"
>albeit pretty lame philosophy. Somehow, the word "sophomoric" comes to
>mind.

Well, rather a different word comes to my mind, but perhaps better not to use it in mixed company....

Regards,

--
Rusty the bookman
WWFSMD?
http://www.venganza.org/ 

"The difference between food and beer is that beer 
has some food value, while food has no beer value"
- Linda the waitress

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:51:13 -0700,  an orbital mind-control laser
caused "TreetopAngel" <treetopangel@bresnan.net> to write:

>
>"bajasteve" warns:
>
>> Did you happen to check out the website of Alex Grey, the "artist"
>> Spider (excuse me - Joel) gushed over as being the most bestest ever
>> philosopher in the known universe? Don't, unless you want another very
>> excellent reason to throw up. I did, and it's one of those things that
>> you will wish you could "un-see". Think cheap black velvet pseudo-art
>> renderings.
>>
>Too late, went and looked...<barf>
>
>Had to go check out some Ansell Adams to get the "flavor" out of my 
>minds eye.
>
>E! 

For whatever it's worth, one of the ladies at work--totally out of the blue--asked me if I knew who "that artist who does those pictures with the people in the energy fields" was. I said "Alex Grey?" and hunted up his website for her.

*She* was quite impressed with the work, as was another of the therapists. De gustibus non disputandem est, I suppose.

	-Chris Zakes
		Texas

Luck is a tag given by the mediocre to account for the accomplishments of genius.

	-The "Old Man" in "The Puppet Masters" by Robert Heinlein

"Chris Zakes" adds:

> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:51:13 -0700,  an orbital mind-control laser
> caused "TreetopAngel" <treetopangel@bresnan.net> to write:
>
>>
>>"bajasteve" warns:
>>
>>> Did you happen to check out the website of Alex Grey, the "artist"
>>> Spider (excuse me - Joel) gushed over as being the most bestest ever
>>> philosopher in the known universe? Don't, unless you want another 
>>> very
>>> excellent reason to throw up. I did, and it's one of those things 
>>> that
>>> you will wish you could "un-see". Think cheap black velvet 
>>> pseudo-art
>>> renderings.
>>>
>>Too late, went and looked...<barf>
>>
>>Had to go check out some Ansell Adams to get the "flavor" out of my
>>minds eye.
>>
>>E!
>
> For whatever it's worth, one of the ladies at work--totally out of the
> blue--asked me if I knew who "that artist who does those pictures with
> the people in the energy fields" was. I said "Alex Grey?" and hunted
> up his website for her.
>
> *She* was quite impressed with the work, as was another of the
> therapists. De gustibus non disputandem est, I suppose.

I guess I like my art to look more like nature and real people. I'd rather look at Rubins, Degas, etc. than some of what is offered today.

E!

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:36:19 -0700,  an orbital mind-control laser
caused "TreetopAngel" <treetopangel@bresnan.net> to write:

>
>"Chris Zakes" adds:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:51:13 -0700,  an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused "TreetopAngel" <treetopangel@bresnan.net> to write:
>>
>>>
>>>"bajasteve" warns:
>>>
>>>> Did you happen to check out the website of Alex Grey, the "artist"
>>>> Spider (excuse me - Joel) gushed over as being the most bestest ever
>>>> philosopher in the known universe? Don't, unless you want another 
>>>> very
>>>> excellent reason to throw up. I did, and it's one of those things 
>>>> that
>>>> you will wish you could "un-see". Think cheap black velvet 
>>>> pseudo-art
>>>> renderings.
>>>>
>>>Too late, went and looked...<barf>
>>>
>>>Had to go check out some Ansell Adams to get the "flavor" out of my
>>>minds eye.
>>>
>>>E!
>>
>> For whatever it's worth, one of the ladies at work--totally out of the
>> blue--asked me if I knew who "that artist who does those pictures with
>> the people in the energy fields" was. I said "Alex Grey?" and hunted
>> up his website for her.
>>
>> *She* was quite impressed with the work, as was another of the
>> therapists. De gustibus non disputandem est, I suppose.
>
>I guess I like my art to look more like nature and real people.  I'd 
>rather look at Rubins, Degas, etc. than some of what is offered today.
>
>E! 

Well, if you're talking Jackson Pollock or his ilk, I agree. But I don't find Alex Grey quite *that* bad.

	-Chris Zakes
		Texas

Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of 
directions. It's the only way to make progress.

	-Havelock Vetinari in "The Truth" by Terry Pratchett

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 13:05:08 GMT, Chris Zakes <dontivar@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:36:19 -0700,  an orbital mind-control laser
>caused "TreetopAngel" <treetopangel@bresnan.net> to write:
>
>>
>>"Chris Zakes" adds:
>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:51:13 -0700,  an orbital mind-control laser
>>> caused "TreetopAngel" <treetopangel@bresnan.net> to write:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"bajasteve" warns:
>>>>
>>>>> Did you happen to check out the website of Alex Grey, the "artist"
>>>>> Spider (excuse me - Joel) gushed over as being the most bestest ever
>>>>> philosopher in the known universe? Don't, unless you want another 
>>>>> very
>>>>> excellent reason to throw up. I did, and it's one of those things 
>>>>> that
>>>>> you will wish you could "un-see". Think cheap black velvet 
>>>>> pseudo-art
>>>>> renderings.
>>>>>
>>>>Too late, went and looked...<barf>
>>>>
>>>>Had to go check out some Ansell Adams to get the "flavor" out of my
>>>>minds eye.
>>>>
>>>>E!
>>>
>>> For whatever it's worth, one of the ladies at work--totally out of the
>>> blue--asked me if I knew who "that artist who does those pictures with
>>> the people in the energy fields" was. I said "Alex Grey?" and hunted
>>> up his website for her.
>>>
>>> *She* was quite impressed with the work, as was another of the
>>> therapists. De gustibus non disputandem est, I suppose.
>>
>>I guess I like my art to look more like nature and real people.  I'd 
>>rather look at Rubins, Degas, etc. than some of what is offered today.
>>
>>E! 
>
>Well, if you're talking Jackson Pollock or his ilk, I agree. But I
>don't find Alex Grey quite *that* bad.
>

It wasn't *that* bad, but damn it was close. Amazingly enough, I found two artists I like from prints hanging in the doctor's office: Henry Peeters, http://tinyurl.com/ykq23k, but unfortunately only that one seems good to me. The image of it on that site makes it look a LOT more pink than it really is. Basically the only reason I like it is because it reminds me so much of something from my childhood, not necessarily because I think it's pretty.

The other is Galasso, one painting is this: http://tinyurl.com/yeyj5x another is this: http://tinyurl.com/ygzzb8. He does lots of beaches with boats, but that doesn't really do much for me; it's the ones like these that I like. Something about the play of light on water... I just love it.

-- 
~teresa~
 AFH Barwench

    =^..^=  "Through the walls! The heck with doors!"  =^..^=
              Volunteer Coordinator and Database Wrangler
                   The Heinlein Centennial, July 7 2007
                    http://www.HeinleinCentennial.com 
                    http://www.forget-me-knotts.com
               email my first name at pixelmeow dot com

On Nov 17, 7:05 am, Chris Zakes <donti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:36:19 -0700,  an orbital mind-control laser
> caused "TreetopAngel" <treetopan...@bresnan.net> to write:

> >I guess I like my art to look more like nature and real people.  I'd
> >rather look at Rubins, Degas, etc. than some of what is offered today.
>
> >E!Well, if you're talking Jackson Pollock or his ilk, I agree. But I
> don't find Alex Grey quite *that* bad.

Grey is the Head version of poker playing dogs. Not only bad, but trite.

cheers

oz, fan of: a) classical: the Hudson River School b) contemporary: Edward Hopper

On 14 Nov 2006 22:39:12 -0800,  an orbital mind-control laser caused
"bajasteve" <stevenspence@sbcglobal.net> to write:

(snip)

>Did you happen to check out the website of Alex Grey, the "artist"
>Spider (excuse me - Joel) gushed over as being the most bestest ever
>philosopher in the known universe? Don't, unless you want another very
>excellent reason to throw up. I did, and it's one of those things that
>you will wish you could "un-see". Think cheap black velvet pseudo-art
>renderings.
>
>Steve

Oh, come on... it wasn't quite *that* bad. Not to my taste, but kind of interesting.

(Although if you didn't like that, you probably shouldn't check out the audio link with Spider singing the "On the Way to the Stars" song, either. "Underwhelming" might be the best description.)

	-Chris Zakes
		Texas

The Roman writer Juvenal's phrase "panem et circenses" is usually translated as "bread 
and circuses". A more accurate modern rendering would be "pork barrel projects".

bajasteve wrote:
[snip]
> Did you happen to check out the website of Alex Grey, the "artist"
> Spider (excuse me - Joel) gushed over as being the most bestest ever
> philosopher in the known universe? Don't, unless you want another very
> excellent reason to throw up. I did, and it's one of those things that
> you will wish you could "un-see". Think cheap black velvet pseudo-art
> renderings.

You know, I was afraid it was just me. I looked at that stuff and thought it was cheez-whiz. But I don't have the confidence to assert myself on artistic issues. All I can say is, I know what I like.

The kind of art I like is typified by the cover of one edition of _Friday_. It's the one by Michael Whelan. It shows Friday in kind of a jump suit, with the zip down to there, and a port hole of a space ship over her shoulder. That's art for me. I've got a signed-but-not-numbered print of that.

I've liked pretty much every cover of a RAH book, and all the interior art (for the precious few that had interior art). I recall some of the interior art showing sketches of move-overs (from _Between Planets_ IIRC) with great fondness.

Maybe it's because I've never done psychadelic drugs. But I don't get this guy with the melting mandelas.

Socks

In article <1163572751.950433.15360@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
bajasteve <stevenspence@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Did you happen to check out the website of Alex Grey, the
>"artist" Spider (excuse me - Joel) gushed over as being the
>most bestest ever philosopher in the known universe? Don't,
>unless you want another very excellent reason to throw up. I
>did, and it's one of those things that you will wish you could
>"un-see". Think cheap black velvet pseudo-art renderings.

Back in the 60s (er, early 70s) I recall seeing a whole bunch of posters that looked just like this stuff in various "head shops" around campus, blurred by a haze of incense smoke, on the wall right behind the display case full of bongs and roach clips.

I guess I didn't "do enough LDS" to properly appreciate this stuff. ("Not enough" in my case == "zero")

-- 
Mike Van Pelt       |  Wikipedia. The roulette wheel of knowledge.
mvp at calweb.com   |             --Blair P. Houghton
KE6BVH

I think all-in-all I liked it better than I thought I would. I tried to go in with an open mind. I didn't find it a page-turner, it took me several days to slog through but I wasn't counting the pages to the end as I have with too many books recently.

I don't think the ending was bad. I think it was hurried-up-and-wrapped-up-with-a-bow after some other parts had really dragged. I wish more had been done with some of the other characters. There were a lot of things that didn't make sense.

I suspect that RAH didn't finish it because he couldn't get a good grasp on the story. In Spider Robinson's defence, nobody can write Heinlein like Heinlein and even Heinlein didn't always pull it off.

I will re-read it sometime soon but am not sure who I would recommend it to. I am happy to say that I can't renew it because others have requested it--a good sign for RAH (or maybe SR) IMO.

Jeanette

Come on, Socks, don't hold back. Tell us what you REALLY think. <bseg>

Puppet_Sock wrote:
> Ok, put on your asbestos outerwear. I'm gonna rant. And vent and bleat.
>
> There's lots more I could say like that. Then there's the puns.
> Then there's the inordinate swearing. (Fucking hell, carrots
> again! That's the third time this month!)

I liked "Prophet's Dick!"

Maybe we could do without the swearing, but in that way Joel reminds me of my brother-in-law who liberally peppers his conversation with "fuckin'". He uses it so much I don't think he realizes it.

> Then there's the fact that, fundamentally, Joel is pretty dull.
> He can play the saxaphone. Great. And we need page after
> dull page of details about how to play the damn saxaphone.

I have to agree with you here. If I ever get Spider Robinson as a captive audience I solemnly swear to regale him with model rocket stories, with minute tech detail concerning motor selection and the characteristics of black powder vs. Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant.

> Then there are the various things that are clearly tacked onto
> the plot just to make false drama. The one that stood out so
> painfully was that there are six "relativistis" on board. No way
> of attempting to make more was mentioned. The mission is
> 20 years subjective. And if you lose three, everybody on the
> ship probably dies. How many people have you known for
> 20 years, starting at adulthood? How many of them have,
> over that 20 years, died or become unable to work? And the
> ship can apparently fast-fry a relativist who makes a mistake.
> You have two spares and no way to make more? Sure.
> What's stopping the production of more relativists? False drama.

The whole "Quantum Ramjet" drive smelled like Brown Kryptonite to me. And it ignored the law of Conservation of Momentum. Somebody else in this group referred to it as "Hand Wavium." Sorry, a zen drive doesn't cut it.

> The budhist on board has no room in his heart for hate.
> And he teaches this lesson by telling us how badly the human
> race messed up after 9/11. Did he tell us about other sneak
> attacks? Other wars? Nope. He reaches back a couple centuries
> and pokes at the USA right now. Not even in the context of
> other remembered attacks or other wars. It's just, hey, you
> remember how the USA messed up so badly when they
> acted in anger over 9/11? We shouldn't act in anger.

Yeah, this point got a bit more preachy than I could stand. I had to hold my nose and try to convince myself that Spider was only using the incident to explain the ascendancy of Nehemiah Scudder in terms of some contemporary events, something we could relate to. I hate it when an author decides to editorialize.

> If I had been there when this guy had started his
> little don't-be-angry riff, I'd have shouted him down
> right away. Then started a petition to have him
> shoved out the airlock. *OF*COURSE* we should
> be angry. We should be furious. The pricks who
> did this must be prevented from ever doing it again.

In here I think I must disagree. The idea that I got from it was that our first priority should be finding a way to preserve humanity. As far as these folks knew, the gene pool had just been reduced considerably. First let's build up an appreciable biomass, then let's find the motherless pond scum that sucker punched us. For all we know, Sol going nova might have been collateral damage, an unintentional byproduct of some far more complex operation. The motives of whatever caused it might be so alien to us that we could never begin to understand them. For all we know it could have been some alien's way of disinfecting the vessel of a failed experiment. Or maybe it was a transdimensional weenie roast that got a little out of hand. Or it might be an initiation stunt for the Aldeberan branch of the Delta house. So maybe I could hate whatever did it, but just what could I DO about it? Nothing. Not right away, anyhow. So that hatred needs to be put aside, or at least directed into something more useful. Like survival.

Anyway, that was my take on it.

> Your heart has no room for hate? Well, then, you
> don't have a big enough heart.
>
> And Mr. Robinson, your book is going to the used book store.
> Socks

I'm keeping mine. But I respect your opinion.

Bill Sullivan

Good evening,

The Rocket Scientist wrote:
[...]
> The whole "Quantum Ramjet" drive smelled like Brown Kryptonite to me.
> And it ignored the law of Conservation of Momentum.  Somebody else in
> this group referred to it as "Hand Wavium."  Sorry, a zen drive doesn't
> cut it.
[...]

The thing that has me scratching my head is that we're told how essential it is to get the jet restarted within a certain amount of time after it stops, or you won't be able to start it again. (Presumably this is only important at relativistic speeds, or you'd never be able to start it in the first place.) That must make the mid-course turnabout pretty dicey.

I suppose the alternative is to leave the jet running during turnabout. This would make the math a bit more challenging - your thrust vectors during the ten years before and the ten years after will need to account for the lateral delta-V produced during the maneuver.

Other questions that may never be answered:
- Is this time limit absolute or relative time?

- Is it any more challenging to re-start the jet when thrusting against the direction of travel? If not, why is the fusion jet required to build up speed in the first place?

A question that fandom might be able to answer:

- From an observer's perspective, would there be a particle beam shooting out of the QRjet? That'd be one helluva wake. Probably not enough to damage another ship that passes through the wake, but the resulting ionizing radiation may not be terribly healthy for that other ship's crew.

Take care,

cb

EngrBohn wrote:
> ...
> - Is this time limit absolute or relative time?

absolute??

Good morning

lal_truckee wrote:
> EngrBohn wrote:
>> ...
>> - Is this time limit absolute or relative time?
> 
> absolute??

By "absolute time", I mean "time as experienced by a stationary observer".

Or were you guessing the answer?

Take care,

cb

EngrBohn wrote:
> Good morning
> 
> lal_truckee wrote:
>> EngrBohn wrote:
>>> ...
>>> - Is this time limit absolute or relative time?
>>
>> absolute??
> 
> By "absolute time", I mean "time as experienced by a stationary observer".

Still no cigar.

"Stationary observer??"

OK, I won't belabor it. Except there is NO "absolute time" NOR any "stationary observer" - that's the whole point of relativity theory.

It's also the fun part.

Good afternoon,

lal_truckee wrote:

>> By "absolute time", I mean "time as experienced by a stationary 
>> observer".
> 
> Still no cigar.
> 
> "Stationary observer??"
> 
> OK, I won't belabor it. Except there is NO "absolute time" NOR any 
> "stationary observer" - that's the whole point of relativity theory. 
> It's also the fun part.

Uh... Okay, let's try this (please forgive the stubbornness of someone with only slightly better than a lay person's knowledge of relativity)...

Time, as experienced by someone who:
- if he's in a vacuum and experiencing no acceleration

- and if he selects an object that unwaveringly is 299,792,458 meters away (that is, the object's stationary relative to the someone)

- and if he directs a laser toward the object will detect the reflection two seconds later, as measured by his clock, regardless of the direction toward the object

Thanks,

cb

On 15 Nov 2006 07:27:30 -0800,  an orbital mind-control laser caused
"The Rocket Scientist" <bill.the.rocket.scientist@gmail.com> to write:

>Come on, Socks, don't hold back.  Tell us what you REALLY think. 
>
>Puppet_Sock wrote:
>> Ok, put on your asbestos outerwear. I'm gonna rant. And vent and bleat.
>>
>> There's lots more I could say like that. Then there's the puns.
>> Then there's the inordinate swearing. (Fucking hell, carrots
>> again! That's the third time this month!)
>
>I liked "Prophet's Dick!"
>
>Maybe we could do without the swearing, but in that way Joel reminds me
>of my brother-in-law who liberally peppers his conversation with
>"fuckin'".  He uses it so much I don't think he realizes it.
>
>> Then there's the fact that, fundamentally, Joel is pretty dull.
>> He can play the saxaphone. Great. And we need page after
>> dull page of details about how to play the damn saxaphone.
>
>I have to agree with you here.  If I ever get Spider Robinson as a
>captive audience I solemnly swear to regale him with model rocket
>stories, with minute tech detail concerning motor selection and the
>characteristics of black powder vs. Ammonium Perchlorate Composite
>Propellant.

Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but how does that compare with the page-after-page of genetics in "The Tale of the Twins Who Weren't" in TEFL or the several pages of astrophysics that *Heinlein himself* says you can skip over in "Friday"?

	-Chris Zakes
		Texas

The Roman writer Juvenal's phrase "panem et circenses" is usually translated as "bread 
and circuses". A more accurate modern rendering would be "pork barrel projects".

This is old business and may have already been suggested--there was some discussion of the miracle breakfast. It occurs to me that it was done using the shimmery air field. Have a variety of breakfast foods ready to go just outside the door--put them on the cart as they are being ordered.

Jeanette

In article <13225-455C0E2A-322@storefull-3114.bay.webtv.net>,
 wolfj@webtv.net (jeanette) wrote:

> This is old business and may have already been suggested--there was some
> discussion of the miracle breakfast.  It occurs to me that it was done
> using the shimmery air field.  Have a variety of breakfast foods ready
> to go just outside the door--put them on the cart as they are being
> ordered.
> 
> Jeanette

I've been a short order cook since I was fourteen, making breakfasts, starting at six in the morning in downtown L.A., across from Pershing Square back before MacDonald's existed, in my first summer job. How hard is it to have several breakfasts near ready to go? Have four fried eggs, four scrambled eggs, four poached eggs (it would amaze you how fast I can turn four fried into a four egg omelette--they're just eggs and elastic unless I've cooked 'em hard--you want some ready I've whipped, I can do that too--one more aluminum restaurant supply egg pan); and sausage, both kinds of bacon, ham, even salmon, whitefish and kippers. Having chopped red and green peppers and onions ready, even cooked translucent in butter or olive oil, isn't hard or particularly expensive. Make a little pile of Potatoes O'Brien in advance, hot and ready on the back of the grill. All you've got to do is boil the potatoes, chop them along with the onions and peppers, and drop them in oil on the grill until they start to brown. Hollandaise and other sauces can be prepared a few minutes in a blender in advance, fresh. You're not going to let it set for an hour. Have a variety of chilled fresh fruit available, just like a good breakfast restaurant. Coffee, tea, juice, milk, and what else would you like? Oatmeal. There's the pot, already measured and boiling. Takes one minute after you bring it to a boil. Dry cereal? just like the old time dinner, in the racks. Toasted bread, I've got the cafeteria style toaster toasting every thing you've ever heard of. With a properly heated grill I can have eight pancakes ready in two minutes, particularly if I half pre-cook them, starting a minute before the room service waiter walks in the door; and the same for a waffle. Hot rolls--that's easy. How 'bout something harder to bake, a coffee cake? Helms Bakeries used to deliver them fresh every morning about 7 a.m. Pop it in a 500 degree pre-heated oven for two minutes. Butter it just like mom used to do when she wasn't hung over.

Two other fathers and I used to do about three or four hundred breakfasts to order in three hours, every time our daughters' high school aged sorority had a "Pancake Breakfast" fund raiser. Eggs, side meat, potatoes, pancakes, fruit, sweet roll, coffee, tea, milk, biscuits and gravy. (George, the one from Midland, Texas, liked to make biscuits and gravy. We humored him. Some bacon ends, flour and water in a big pan.) We made the eggs any breakfast way you wanted, including whites only. I don't remember anyone asking for hard boiled, but they'd have got them that way if they asked. Basted takes a little trick with the broiler and a little more hot butter. Not as long as you think.

Don't come wandering through the kitchen while we're dancing around--you're likely to get skewered and cooked yourself, but we thought we were pretty good for a real estate syndicator, a tin can manufacturer executive, and a lousy lawyer. We always made over a thousand dollars for the girls every time we did it, at $3 or $4 a breakfast.

Ask Jinnia what this one orders when they have breakfast, or when he cooks for himself, or asks her to cook. That'll narrow the odds.

If he orders something like a kidney chop, well, he can get it, but it'll take five minutes. Win some, lose some. Have one out, fresh. Or precook it along with the pancakes--it's only a couple bucks and this is the richest man in the world. I could do it under thirty bucks, for the cost of the food, very easily.

-- 
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
     Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
     Lt.(jg), USN, R'td

"David M. Silver" explains fast food cooking:

(snip immediately previous long passage)

People seem to think cooking is tough! When I did work study in the dorm cafeteria, I convinced the Dining Services manager we could serve cook to order steaks (they had always broiled them to well-done)...he turned the grill over to me. We served over 500 steaks that night! All cooked to order! Most fun I ever had for two hours in a long time. Yes, I do miss cooking for the masses!

E!

TreetopAngel wrote:
> "David M. Silver" explains fast food cooking:
> >

(snip repeat of long passage)

>
> People seem to think cooking is tough!   When I did work study in the
> dorm cafeteria, I convinced the Dining Services manager we could serve
> cook to order steaks (they had always broiled them to well-done)...he
> turned the grill over to me.  We served over 500 steaks that night!  All
> cooked to order!  Most fun I ever had for two hours in a long time.
> Yes, I do miss cooking for the masses!
>
> E!

Out here at the lanai we should have David cooking us breakfast and you grilling steaks to order and I will be decorative. Or something.

Seriously, my stepfather found cooking four different breakfasts for four different people so trivial after cooking for a ship in WWII (Merchant Marine) that he used to read while he did it. David's post reminded me of that.

When I had my second summer job as a kid, in the card room at the country club, I used to cook steaks to order at lunchtime, even though I wasn't on the kitchen staff. It was just that the cooks would NOT take a rare or medium-rare steak off the broiler. "You can't eat that Miz Walters, it will make you sick." So everyone who wanted a steak that wasn't medium or more asked me, and tipped me to do it.

Will in New Haven

--

Will writes:

> Out here at the lanai we should have David cooking us breakfast and 
> you
> grilling steaks to order and I will be decorative. Or something.

LOL! I was going to offer to cook you breakfast...but that could easily be mis-construed. However, my breakfast making skills are on par with David's.

And I bake fresh cinnamon rolls.

>
> Seriously, my stepfather found cooking four different breakfasts for
> four different people so trivial after cooking for a ship in WWII
> (Merchant Marine) that he used to read while he did it.
> David's post reminded me of that.

The only problem I have at home with cooking several breakfasts is lack of space and making all the breakfasts come out at the same time.

Breakfast is my favorite meal to cook...and eat!

E!

TreetopAngel wrote:
> Will writes:
>
> > Out here at the lanai we should have David cooking us breakfast and
> > you
> > grilling steaks to order and I will be decorative. Or something.
>
> LOL!  I was going to offer to cook you breakfast...but that could easily
> be mis-construed.  However, my breakfast making skills are on par with
> David's.
>
> And I bake fresh cinnamon rolls.

>
> >
> > Seriously, my stepfather found cooking four different breakfasts for
> > four different people so trivial after cooking for a ship in WWII
> > (Merchant Marine) that he used to read while he did it.
> > David's post reminded me of that.
>
> The only problem I have at home with cooking several breakfasts is lack
> of space and making all the breakfasts come out at the same time.
>
> Breakfast is my favorite meal to cook...and eat!

Breakfast is the most important meal of the day before lunch.

Will in New Haven

--

Will  anticipates:
>
> TreetopAngel wrote:
>> Will writes:
>>
>> > Out here at the lanai we should have David cooking us breakfast and
>> > you
>> > grilling steaks to order and I will be decorative. Or something.
>>
>> LOL!  I was going to offer to cook you breakfast...but that could 
>> easily
>> be mis-construed.  However, my breakfast making skills are on par 
>> with
>> David's.
>>
>> And I bake fresh cinnamon rolls.
>
> <sits at table with knife and fork>

LOL! I cheat...get my rolls ready the night before and let them rest in the fridge over night!

Jumbo or regular size...jumbo fills a salad plate.

>
>>
>> >
>> > Seriously, my stepfather found cooking four different breakfasts 
>> > for
>> > four different people so trivial after cooking for a ship in WWII
>> > (Merchant Marine) that he used to read while he did it.
>> > David's post reminded me of that.
>>
>> The only problem I have at home with cooking several breakfasts is 
>> lack
>> of space and making all the breakfasts come out at the same time.
>>
>> Breakfast is my favorite meal to cook...and eat!
>
> Breakfast is the most important meal of the day before lunch.

Breakfast should be available anytime of day!

E!

TreetopAngel wrote:
> Will  anticipates:
> >
> > TreetopAngel wrote:
> >> Will writes:
> >>
> >> > Out here at the lanai we should have David cooking us breakfast and
> >> > you
> >> > grilling steaks to order and I will be decorative. Or something.
> >>
> >> LOL!  I was going to offer to cook you breakfast...but that could
> >> easily
> >> be mis-construed.  However, my breakfast making skills are on par
> >> with
> >> David's.
> >>
> >> And I bake fresh cinnamon rolls.
> >
> > <sits at table with knife and fork>
>
> LOL!  I cheat...get my rolls ready the night before and let them rest in
> the fridge over night!
>
> Jumbo or regular size...jumbo fills a salad plate.

<thinks briefly> Jumbo, but just one.

> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Seriously, my stepfather found cooking four different breakfasts
> >> > for
> >> > four different people so trivial after cooking for a ship in WWII
> >> > (Merchant Marine) that he used to read while he did it.
> >> > David's post reminded me of that.
> >>
> >> The only problem I have at home with cooking several breakfasts is
> >> lack
> >> of space and making all the breakfasts come out at the same time.
> >>
> >> Breakfast is my favorite meal to cook...and eat!
> >
> > Breakfast is the most important meal of the day before lunch.
>
> Breakfast should be available anytime of day!
>
> E!

The reason for diners. Diner breakfast foods might not be good but they are breakfasts.

Will in New Haven

Will requests:

> <thinks briefly> Jumbo, but just one.

Jumbo cinnamon roll...hot w/butter>>>>

Top off your coffee?

E!

TreetopAngel wrote:
> Will requests:
>
> > <thinks briefly> Jumbo, but just one.
>
> Jumbo cinnamon roll...hot w/butter>>>>
>
> Top off your coffee?
>
> E!

No thanks. Don't want to mess with the ratio of coffee to rum. Too much coffee could keep me awake through an afternoon of work.

Will in New Haven

--

David Silver: Very interesting short-order cook information (well, interesting to me, but I'm funny that way). Catering, the branch I'm more familiar with, is somewhat different.

One supplemental fact you might add is that breakfast menus tend to be somewhat more restricted than other meals (not just with us -- seems to be generally true around the world. You could re-run that same explanation for Jook, for instance). So the cook gets a little assist unless -- as you pointed out -- your diner wanders over to another cuisine, like wanting deviled kidneys (English breakfast) when you're set up for American midwest.

Parenthetically, English breakfasts seem about the broadest single palate, French the most restricted.

In article <1163695555.216576.326550@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "Bill Patterson" <WHPatterson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Parenthetically, English breakfasts seem about the broadest single
> palate,

Exactly. You want beans and bangers and mash--I give you them.

> French the most restricted.

A Gaulloises and some foul coffee you can chew--that too.

-- 
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
     Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
     Lt.(jg), USN, R'td

Chris Zakes wrote:
[snip]
> Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but how does that compare
> with the page-after-page of genetics in "The Tale of the Twins Who
> Weren't" in TEFL or the several pages of astrophysics that *Heinlein
> himself* says you can skip over in "Friday"?

Page after page of genetics that was important to the plot. Captain Long had to decide if his adopted children could be permitted to have children together.

-vs-

Page after page of the background and context of saxaphone details that were incidental to the plot. Joel had to be established as having not much in his life other than the saxaphone.

I'm not talking about the pages of description of the spiffy way of playing a single phrase of arbitrary length. I'm talking about the first time Joel played in the ship's pub and the (then) anonymous person played a piano with him. And then he dated her once. Joel had to be established as pretty dull.

A more equivalent genetics discussion would have been page after page of a geneticist showing off to some young lady on the ship. "Oh, I can make the DNA sing and dance!" Then having a failure of a date with her and never seeing her again.

Geeze, I better throttle back or I'll be in full rant again.

Socks

On 16 Nov 2006 09:11:25 -0800,  an orbital mind-control laser caused
"Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> to write:

>Chris Zakes wrote:
>[snip]
>> Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but how does that compare
>> with the page-after-page of genetics in "The Tale of the Twins Who
>> Weren't" in TEFL or the several pages of astrophysics that *Heinlein
>> himself* says you can skip over in "Friday"?
>
>Page after page of genetics that was important to the plot.
>Captain Long had to decide if his adopted children could be
>permitted to have children together.

Yes-and-no. "Lazarus spent a long night going over all the material the slave dealer had given him, and applying everything he knew about genetics to the problem. In the end, he decided that Llita could have her baby." would have worked about as well.

	-Chris Zakes
		Texas

Luck is a tag given by the mediocre to account for the accomplishments of genius.

	-The "Old Man" in "The Puppet Masters" by Robert Heinlein

>On 16 Nov 2006 09:11:25 -0800,  an orbital mind-control laser caused
>"Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> to write:
>
>>Chris Zakes wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but how does that compare
>>> with the page-after-page of genetics in "The Tale of the Twins Who
>>> Weren't" in TEFL or the several pages of astrophysics that *Heinlein
>>> himself* says you can skip over in "Friday"?
>>
>>Page after page of genetics that was important to the plot.
>>Captain Long had to decide if his adopted children could be
>>permitted to have children together.
>
>Yes-and-no. "Lazarus spent a long night going over all the material
>the slave dealer had given him, and applying everything he knew about
>genetics to the problem. In the end, he decided that Llita could have
>her baby." would have worked about as well.
>

It's the difference between music fiction and science fiction.

-- 
Index to free SF: <http://www.mindspring.com/~jbednorz/Free/>.  The 
Thunder Child's SF links to Project Gutenberg, Baen Free Library and 
CDs, the Sci-Fi Channel's archive of classic & original SF & more.
   All the best,                 Joe Bednorz

Sorry to jump back in with such a bang, but here I go...

On 14 Nov 2006 15:47:23 -0800, "Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Ok, put on your asbestos outerwear. I'm gonna rant. And vent and bleat.
>
>And, of course, this all has a huge "in my opinion, your mileage may
>actually have validity, void where prohibited by good taste" and so on.
>This is just me, and I don't feel any need for people to agree.
>

(snip)
>
>Ok, let's do the easy parts first. How many times in the book was
>something described as "indescribable?" How many times did we
>get the personality data-dump (loyal, trustworthy, brave, honest,
>etc. and etc.) from the description that the character had laugh
>lines or some such. This is a guy who won the JWC? Ah-huhn.

Yep. And tell me how many times you can have some snippets of RAH thrown in (I guess to say yeah, it really IS RAH's style, see?? see??? see what I wrote in here???) before you want to throw the book across the room?

>There's lots more I could say like that. Then there's the puns.
>Then there's the inordinate swearing. (Fucking hell, carrots
>again! That's the third time this month!)

Yep again. The first swear word startled me right out of the *almost* suspension of my DISbelief, and I never got it back. Then oh.my.GOD he wrote THE F WORD. Then he did it AGAIN.

I'm sorry, but that really did it. RAH would never have done that, IMNSHO. And that ain't the end of it for me.

>There's the obligatory-rich-evil guy. I could rant for a couple
>hours on that. Mr. Robinson, you took a Heinlein story and
>you made a rich guy an *ineffective* bad guy. Sure.
>
>Then there's the fact that, fundamentally, Joel is pretty dull.
>He can play the saxaphone. Great. And we need page after
>dull page of details about how to play the damn saxaphone.

This was an incredibly dull character. I couldnt' get a handle on him. I liked how he walked out at the beginning, but only some. It didn't *feel* right, for some reason. It didn't have the heat of Colin/Richard, or Oscar, or Sam, or fer gossakes, *Woodie*.

Can you see any of them being that way? I mean, sure, he was mad, but not in the same sort of way. I don't know how to say what I mean, other than it's just flat and not believable. You can see the righteous anger of RAH's characters. You *get* it. You understand why Richard says to cut the foot off, and you see he *means* it, he's not just saying it to look big in everyone else's eyes, or whatever.

I got sick of it before I got as far as you got. It's sitting out there face down with Harry Turtledove laying on it, which I just put down because it's so good that if I don't put it down I'll sit reading all night. It sat under Stirling for a long time before I picked it up, and rightly so, in retrospect.

>Then he has a seemingly endless series of useless dates,
>proving that he isn't very wise about relationships. And that
>the general social content of the ship is fairly dysfunctional.
>Geeze, sounds like top-notch colony material. And it sounds
>like the covenant is functioning just spiffy! And that the
>ship's councilor is right on her game.
>
>But then, Joel isn't very smart either. Viz: He realizes he needs
>to commandeer the faster-than-light ship out from under the
>obligatory-rich-evil guy. And, out of the seven occupants of
>this ship, all of whom are no-longer on board but are on the
>larger ship they are docked to, you have at least two and
>maybe three on your side. And your plan manages to get
>two people shot dead after one had already died.
>
>Then there are the various things that are clearly tacked onto
>the plot just to make false drama. The one that stood out so
>painfully was that there are six "relativistis" on board. No way
>of attempting to make more was mentioned. The mission is
>20 years subjective. And if you lose three, everybody on the
>ship probably dies. How many people have you known for
>20 years, starting at adulthood? How many of them have,
>over that 20 years, died or become unable to work? And the
>ship can apparently fast-fry a relativist who makes a mistake.
>You have two spares and no way to make more? Sure.
>What's stopping the production of more relativists? False drama.

Right, I remember that now. One of those places that felt like a bit of RAH added as an afterthought. Like random bits of RNA or something that are supposed to somehow meld with everything else and create a whole story that we will accept as RAH come again or something.

>And then there's one of Mr. Robinson's signature chimney
>corners: Anger is just fear displaced. Well so what if it is?
>Does that mean that it's not valid? Not justified? There are
>things we should be afraid of in the universe. And actions
>we should be angry about.
>
>But I could have overlooked all that. These are minor little
>flecks on the ocean, and if the ending had actually gone
>somewhere useful, I might have ignored them.
>
>Mr. Robinson vaporizes the solar system. And it's pretty
>clear that this was some entity's deliberate attempt to
>eradicate the human race. The description of 90 percent
>conversion to energy is enough to be pretty much a
>smoking artillery squadron. Typical super novas only
>convert a small percentage of the star to energy. I can't
>think of a way that it could happen.
>
>What do we get from this ending? We get some philosophy.
>
>The guy in the star theatre who is expressing appropriate
>sentiments is escorted out by the proctors. Presumably
>he will have his personality chemically adjusted so as
>not to ever again disturb the serene contemplation of
>others who want to quietly enjoy the missing solar system.
>
>The budhist on board has no room in his heart for hate.
>And he teaches this lesson by telling us how badly the human
>race messed up after 9/11. Did he tell us about other sneak
>attacks? Other wars? Nope. He reaches back a couple centuries
>and pokes at the USA right now. Not even in the context of
>other remembered attacks or other wars. It's just, hey, you
>remember how the USA messed up so badly when they
>acted in anger over 9/11? We shouldn't act in anger.
>
>Look, buddy. The entire solar system is gone. Mountains
>and trees, lakes and clouds, volcanoes and traffic jams,
>kittens and boots and methane clouds on Jupiter. It's
>*all* gone. If it isn't on one of the colony ships or on one
>of the colonies, it's an expanding clound of plasma.
>
>No more teacher, no more books, no more school,
>no more road to walk uphill both ways through the
>snow. No more snow.
>
>And it's not clear that the colonies will survive either.
>This isn't an ordinary super nova.
>
>The 9/11 attack is trivially unimportant in comparison.
>WWII is trivially unimportant in comparison. All the
>wars that the entire human race has ever fought, in
>total in combination, are trivially unimportant by
>comparison. Throw in all the deaths by murder,
>all the accidental deaths, all the deaths by hunger
>or plague, and it's *still* trivially unimportant.
>
>What Mr. Robinson really did was, stand up on his
>tiny little stage and say that *NOTHING* is worth fighting
>back for. Why, you remember when my mom made
>me clean up my room? (Roughly as trivially unimportant
>as a little thing like 3000 people being killed on the scale
>of an entire solar system being fried.) Well, if I can do that
>without getting angry, then you can contemplate the killing
>of an entire solar system and remain serene.
>
>If I had been there when this guy had started his
>little don't-be-angry riff, I'd have shouted him down
>right away. Then started a petition to have him
>shoved out the airlock. *OF*COURSE* we should
>be angry. We should be furious. The pricks who
>did this must be prevented from ever doing it again.
>
>Your heart has no room for hate? Well, then, you
>don't have a big enough heart.
>
>And Mr. Robinson, your book is going to the used book store.
>Socks

God, what a review! I'm glad I haven't read that far, I *would* throw it across the room, then get pissed the damn thing put a hole in the wall. Hell with the used book store, trash sounds better. :-(

I stayed away from the threads about the book earlier, but not this, and I'm so glad to see thoughts that so closely mirror my own. Thanks,

Socks.

-- 
~teresa~
 AFH Barwench

    =^..^=  "Through the walls! The heck with doors!"  =^..^=
              Volunteer Coordinator and Database Wrangler
                   The Heinlein Centennial, July 7 2007
                    http://www.HeinleinCentennial.com 
                    http://www.forget-me-knotts.com
               email my first name at pixelmeow dot com

pixelmeow wrote:
[snip]
> God, what a review!  I'm glad I haven't read that far, I *would* throw
> it across the room, then get pissed the damn thing put a hole in the
> wall.  Hell with the used book store, trash sounds better.  :-(
>
> I stayed away from the threads about the book earlier, but not this,
> and I'm so glad to see thoughts that so closely mirror my own. Thanks,
> Socks.

Blush! And I was afraid of being shunned for not liking it.

As to the used bookstore: Each used book store sale represents an avoided royalty for S.R. Hmmm...?

Plus, I have an aversion to putting books in the trash. It takes a veritable "war crime" of a book before I will put it in the trash. Dunno. Maybe it's a failing, maybe it's that I've fell victim to a certain kind of propaganda.

Socks

"Puppet_Sock" writes:

> pixelmeow wrote:
> [snip]
>> God, what a review!  I'm glad I haven't read that far, I *would* 
>> throw
>> it across the room, then get pissed the damn thing put a hole in the
>> wall.  Hell with the used book store, trash sounds better.  :-(
>>
>> I stayed away from the threads about the book earlier, but not this,
>> and I'm so glad to see thoughts that so closely mirror my own. 
>> Thanks,
>> Socks.
>
> Blush! And I was afraid of being shunned for not liking it.

What? We are vapid, no-brains who would even consider shunning you for not liking a book? "To each his own," "YMMV," etc. If we all liked the same things this place would be BORING!

You posted an excellent review of your opinion of the book. Kudos!

>
> As to the used bookstore: Each used book store sale represents
> an avoided royalty for S.R. Hmmm...?
>
> Plus, I have an aversion to putting books in the trash. It takes a
> veritable "war crime" of a book before I will put it in the trash.
> Dunno. Maybe it's a failing, maybe it's that I've fell victim to a
> certain kind of propaganda.

Same aversion here and for burning a book...I can't think of any book I would throw away or burn. OTOH, I *have* mailed a book back to it's author with my feelings in writing. Some books make good spacers for shelving...to hold the good books.

E!

On 16 Nov 2006 07:58:10 -0800, "Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>pixelmeow wrote:
>[snip]
>> God, what a review!  I'm glad I haven't read that far, I *would* throw
>> it across the room, then get pissed the damn thing put a hole in the
>> wall.  Hell with the used book store, trash sounds better.  :-(
>>
>> I stayed away from the threads about the book earlier, but not this,
>> and I'm so glad to see thoughts that so closely mirror my own. Thanks,
>> Socks.
>
>Blush! And I was afraid of being shunned for not liking it.
>
>As to the used bookstore: Each used book store sale represents
>an avoided royalty for S.R. Hmmm...?
>
>Plus, I have an aversion to putting books in the trash. It takes a
>veritable "war crime" of a book before I will put it in the trash.
>Dunno. Maybe it's a failing, maybe it's that I've fell victim to a
>certain kind of propaganda. 

That's why I wrote *trash*. I have that same aversion, and like E!, to burning them. I have thrown *one* book away in my life, and it was one of my college texts. Damfino which one. I threw one book across the room because of how badly it made me feel: _Night_, by Elie Wiesel. Not bad because of him, but what he went through, and everything else. I threw one DVD across the room, then went and got it and stomped on it, bent it all to pieces meaning to break it, found out I couldn't break it but I *could* peel the thing into three slices, then cut those into confetti, and would have burned that if I could have. That all over the last 10 minutes or so of the movie. What movie? The last Star Trek: TNG movie. I won't tell you why, but if you have *any* idea of how much of a fan I am, you know what it says that I did that. You'll know why, and how bad it hurt. Hell, I'm tearing up right now.

ahem. Anyway, that's my aversion to any sort of book destruction. I donated that one book, BTW.

-- 
~teresa~
 AFH Barwench

    =^..^=  "Through the walls! The heck with doors!"  =^..^=
              Volunteer Coordinator and Database Wrangler
                   The Heinlein Centennial, July 7 2007
                    http://www.HeinleinCentennial.com 
                    http://www.forget-me-knotts.com
               email my first name at pixelmeow dot com

Innocent question -- don't throw rocks: is the Heinlein book exchange still going? I'm sure people there would like the opportunity to read the book . . .

PS Teresa - the things I found most objectionable about that movie were spread throughout. That was a movie that did not need making, IMO

On 16 Nov 2006 18:47:20 -0800, "Bill Patterson"
<WHPatterson@gmail.com> wrote:

>Innocent question -- don't throw rocks:  is the Heinlein book exchange
>still going?  I'm sure people there would like the opportunity to read
>the book . . .

It's still up, but I haven't heard much from anyone in quite some time. I sent an email out some time back to find out who (of the donors) had what books, but only heard back from maybe two folks. E! has always been one of my best donors, as well as a few others who don't come around here anymore (from what I have seen, anyway).

>PS Teresa - the things I found most objectionable about that movie were
>spread throughout.  That was a movie that did not need making, IMO

You have a good point.

-- 
~teresa~
 AFH Barwench

    =^..^=  "Through the walls! The heck with doors!"  =^..^=
              Volunteer Coordinator and Database Wrangler
                   The Heinlein Centennial, July 7 2007
                    http://www.HeinleinCentennial.com 
                    http://www.forget-me-knotts.com
               email my first name at pixelmeow dot com

"pixelmeow" writes:
> On 16 Nov 2006 18:47:20 -0800, "Bill Patterson"
> <WHPatterson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Innocent question -- don't throw rocks:  is the Heinlein book exchange
>>still going?  I'm sure people there would like the opportunity to read
>>the book . . .
>
> It's still up, but I haven't heard much from anyone in quite some
> time.  I sent an email out some time back to find out who (of the
> donors) had what books, but only heard back from maybe two folks.  E!
> has always been one of my best donors, as well as a few others who
> don't come around here anymore (from what I have seen, anyway).

Thanks Pix! :)

I still have two stacks of books to mail to good owners.

E!

Second Thread

First Thread
Third Thread
Fourth Thread

Go to Postings
Go To Discussions

From: "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Reconsidering "Variable Star"
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 09:59:18 -0800

In article <742gn21lug9v26a72ic1g41aelc4rl5frb@4ax.com>,
 Chris Zakes <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:24:03 -0800,  an orbital mind-control laser
> caused "Robert A. Woodward" <robertaw@drizzle.com> to write:
> 
> >In article <tghdn25188sno9d2ao2bvpc0vgar8271b0@4ax.com>,
> > Chris Zakes <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 5 Dec 2006 12:13:35 -0800,  an orbital mind-control laser caused
> >> "MajorOz" <MajorOz@centurytel.net> to write:
> 
> (snippage)
> 
> >> >1.Chris disregarded inference and insisted on text references.
> >> 
> >> To be precise, I disregarded inferences that didn't have at least
> >> *some* textual backup. I was perfectly willing to accept the notion
> >> that Conrad was connected with the Kallikanzaros scholarships, for
> >> example, when David reminded me of the lead character's name (or one
> >> of them, anyway <G>) in Zelazney's "This Imortal".
> >> 
> >> The notion that that scholarship was Conrad's way of financing
> >> prospective grandsons-in-law struck me as unlikely and contradictory
> >> to what *was* in the text.
> >> 
> >
> >Since I haven't read _Variable Star_ yet, I am somewhat handicapped 
> >in this discussion. But I wonder if there was any real evidence 
> >that the Kallikanzaros scholarships actually existed.  Or evidence 
> >that it wasn't a way for him to fill out forms, write an essay, and 
> >give other evidence to evaluate his fitness of being a 
> >grandson-in-law.
> 

Outside the private utterances of Joel and Jinnia to each other, and an email Joel later receives, there is no actual evidence of the existence of the scholarship. No third party mentions it; there are no announcements, no listings of scholarship aid, no encounters with anyone else who has applied for one, no reference to it from the voice of the "junior college" they attend.

> I think there's more textual evidence that the scholarships actually
> existed than that they were some kind of behind-the-scenes method of
> scoping-out prospective grandsons-in-law.
> 

Chris supports his statement of opinion by omitting from his recital of facts below something that previously was pointed out to him. That's a concession he cannot explain or deal with what he ignores. See below.

> Joel mentions "Kallikanzaros Scholarships" plural, which means that a
> lot more people than just him were in line to get one.

Actually, Joel only refers to "a" scholarship he expects to receive. ("If, I say 'if,' all those bullocks I sacrificed to Zeus pay off and I actually win a Kallikanzaros Scholarship, it will be my great privilege to spend the next four years living on dishrag soup ... .") (p.13 of uncorrected proof). [Note: if he's going to be at SUNY the next _four_ years, I'm really beginning to question the value of the so-called degree Joel has received from the so-called junior college in Vancouver. Again, I think Spider probably started writing this opus with Joel and Jinnia in high school, but then changed it to a junior college without carefully proofing the changes. Most junior college degrees at least equate to the first two years of lower division undergraduate work.]

Which gets us to what Chris wants us to ignore.

It's Jinnia who mentions the scholarships in plural, only after Joel tells her he wishes to marry her but cannot because he thinks his financial future is too insecure: "Joel, suppose you knew for sure you had your scholarship in the bag? The whole ride?" (p.17)

He asks if she's heard something, for as far as he knows, decisions will not be made for another few weeks.

She states: "I'm just saying suppose you knew for a fact that you're among this year's Kallikanzaros winners." (p.17)

Immediately after that, she discloses to him that she is not Jinnia Hamilton, orphan, but Jinnia Conrad, the granddaughter of Richard Conrad, the world's richest man. (p.24) And, she takes him to her family's home to meet the patriarch.

Let's analyze what Jinnia has done: first, she's admitted to insider knowledge of the considerations of the Kallikanzaros Scholarship trustees; and, second, she's all but told Joel he's slated, according to her or someone whose wishes she certainly knows, to be a recipient of a scholarship. That implies that she, or someone very close to her whom she can influence, can actually make the choice or choices its trustees supposedly will make in "another few weeks." That implies the trustees are so controlled as to be Conrad's agents and the scholarship trust, of course, is Conrad's alter ego.

If I were proving in a court of law a crime (which could actually exist here), let's say conspiracy to embezzle trust funds and embezzlement of those funds by giving what purports to be a scholarship to someone's future son-in-law or husband, I'd have enough to indict Miss Conrad with the admissions she's made out of her own mouth for the conspiracy alone. A cautious prosecutor would simply wait for the award of the scholarship to be given from the charity's funds (not Conrad's anymore if they ever were--he likely took a deduction for a charitable contribution [or possibly is avoiding gift taxes]--they belong to the trust) to Joel to conclude the main crime, embezzlement itself. She's admitted knowledge, intent, and agreement to commit the crime with someone who controls those funds who is able to divert them to her fiancee, and all we need to clinch a conviction for both conspiracy and the underlying crime of embezzlement is the actual act of award of the scholarship.

> That seems like
> a too-elaborate scheme to me, if its sole purpose is to get a "first
> cut" of prospective grandsons-in-law. Conrad has *lots* of money (the
> setup resembles "Rudbek of Rudbek" in "Citizen of the Galaxy".) It'd
> be far easier to just hire a private detective or two to check him
> out.
> 

It might not seem too elaborate to Conrad, or his advisors. Who knows all the advantages an educational trust he wholly controls affords him, generally? I'd think the spate of recent disclosures of the activities of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal (which involved the use of 'educational charities' as 'pass-throughs' for recipients such as Ralph Reed) would suggest some interesting usages to someone inclined to do devious things.

> FWIW, there's no solid textual evidence of any connection between the
> Conrad empire and the Kallikanzaros Scholarships.

There's enough evidence to indict for a crime naming Jinnia Conrad as a defendent co-conspirator; and enough evidence for a jury to convict her and others beyond a reasonable doubt if they choose to accept it as fully credible and drawing the inferences the prosecution would argue--it's an admission tantamount to a confession by Miss "Hamilton." We call confessions pretty solid evidence.

> There are only two
> data points that show any connection at all:
> 
> 1. Once Joel has turned Conrad down, he gets an email saying his
> scholarship application has been denied (the official announcement of
> the winners is still a couple of weeks away at this point.) The
> implication is that Conrad pulled some strings to make that happen,
> but there's no direct connection shown.

Let's see now: it looks, acts, quacks, and waddles like Conrad's duck, but that isn't a "direct connection" shown. Why? Because there's no brand saying "Conrad" on its butt? Could you run that one by us again?

> 
> 2. The names. The main character in Roger Zelazny's "This Immortal"
> calls himself "Conrad Nomikos". He's also called a "kallikanzaros"
> because he was born on Christmas Day.
> http://www.newsfinder.org/site/more/kallikantzaroi_creatures_from_a_greek_lege
> nd/
> I presume that this is Spider Robinson having some fun

Unconnected literary allusions, I suppose, could constitute "having some fun," but I really think Robinson occasionally tries and does manage to connect to something while he dirties paper on one side. If he doesn't want people to draw apparent allusions, he has only to omit them, or write in such a way as to obviate the connection.

>, because the
> original Heinlein story outline was written a good ten years *before*
> "This Immortal" was published. (My best guess is that Heinlein called
> the rich guy "Conrad" and Robinson decided to use the "kallikanzaros"
> name for the scholarship. But that's only a guess. I *really* want to
> see the original Heinlein notes for this story and was disappointed
> that they weren't included in the book.)
> 
> 	-Chris Zakes
> 		Texas
> 
> There are no dangerous weapons, there are only dangerous men.
> 
> 	-Sgt, Zim in "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein

-- 
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
     Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
     Lt.(jg), USN, R'td

David M. Silver wrote:
  < snip >
>>Joel mentions "Kallikanzaros Scholarships" plural, which means that a
>>lot more people than just him were in line to get one.
> 
> 
> Actually, Joel only refers to "a" scholarship he expects to receive. 
> ("If, I say 'if,' all those bullocks I sacrificed to Zeus pay off and I 
> actually win a Kallikanzaros Scholarship, it will be my great privilege 
> to spend the next four years living on dishrag soup ... .") (p.13 of 
> uncorrected proof). [Note: if he's going to be at SUNY the next _four_ 
> years, I'm really beginning to question the value of the so-called 
> degree Joel has received from the so-called junior college in Vancouver. 
> Again, I think Spider probably started writing this opus with Joel and 
> Jinnia in high school, but then changed it to a junior college without 
> carefully proofing the changes. Most junior college degrees at least 
> equate to the first two years of lower division undergraduate work.]

As you suggest, perhaps, the fianl edit was not a thorough as it might have been. Contrariwise, perhaps, the Kalliwhatsis scholarship(s) were to defray the costs of a winner's upper division course work (3rd & 4th years in undergraduate school) AS WELL AS a couple of years of post-graduate work? Masters/Doctorate equivalencies?

> 
> Which gets us to what Chris wants us to ignore. 
> 
> It's Jinnia who mentions the scholarships in plural, only after Joel 
> tells her he wishes to marry her but cannot because he thinks his 
> financial future is too insecure: "Joel, suppose you knew for sure you 
> had your scholarship in the bag? The whole ride?" (p.17)
> 
> He asks if she's heard something, for as far as he knows, decisions will 
> not be made for another few weeks.
> 
> She states: "I'm just saying suppose you knew for a fact that you're 
> among this year's Kallikanzaros winners." (p.17)
> 
> Immediately after that, she discloses to him that she is not Jinnia 
> Hamilton, orphan, but Jinnia Conrad, the granddaughter of Richard 
> Conrad, the world's richest man. (p.24) And, she takes him to her 
> family's home to meet the patriarch. 
> 
> Let's analyze what Jinnia has done: first, she's admitted to insider 
> knowledge of the considerations of the Kallikanzaros Scholarship 
> trustees; and, second, she's all but told Joel he's slated, according to 
> her or someone whose wishes she certainly knows, to be a recipient of a 
> scholarship. 

IMHO, "big pot and little tea bag," Counselor.

You say "she's admitted . . . ."

I suggest, rather, that she WHAT SHE STATES is

"suppose you knew for sure . . . ." AND

"suppose you knew for a fact. . . ."

These are part of questions she presents to JJ regarding the HYPOTHETICAL situation in which he had certain knowledge of the outcome of the scholarship's presentation(s). She does not STATE NOR IMPLY that this is the case NOR THAT she has any "insider information."

> That implies that she, or someone very close to her whom 
> she can influence, can actually make the choice or choices its trustees 
> supposedly will make in "another few weeks." That implies the trustees 
> are so controlled as to be Conrad's agents and the scholarship trust, of 
> course, is Conrad's alter ego.

I don't believe I can agree with either of these inferences. That is, indeed, what they are: "your" inferences. THEY ARE NOT Jinnia's "implications."

Even in concert with her later statements/admissions concerning her family and connections; I don't believe she is implying what you've inferred.

But, as always, mileage varies, what, what?

Rufe

In article <PR_dh.7773$tM1.3783@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
 "Dr. Rufo" <baybus@mindspring.com> wrote:

> > Let's analyze what Jinnia has done: first, she's admitted to insider 
> > knowledge of the considerations of the Kallikanzaros Scholarship 
> > trustees; and, second, she's all but told Joel he's slated, according to 
> > her or someone whose wishes she certainly knows, to be a recipient of a 
> > scholarship. 
> 	IMHO, "big pot and little tea bag," Counselor.
> 	You say "she's admitted . . . ."
> 	I suggest, rather, that she WHAT SHE STATES is
> "suppose you knew for sure . . . ." AND
> "suppose you knew for a fact. . . ."
> 
> 	These are part of questions she presents to JJ regarding the 
> HYPOTHETICAL situation in which he had certain knowledge of the 
> outcome of the scholarship's presentation(s). She does not STATE NOR 
> IMPLY that this is the case NOR THAT she has any "insider information."
> 

Nonsense. Perhaps in your world of theatre people walk around spouting hypothetical statements to no purpose--perhaps their world's stage is so boring they must enliven it with fantasy; but Jinnia and Joel, purported inhabitants of a real world, are talking about something quite serious--whether they will get married. In my world, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, "hypothetical" statements in serious situations are always made to a purpose even between such naifs as junior college students. Now, if I believed Robinson were simply a truly poor writer cluttering up the pages with words to produce a final word count sufficient to get paid for writing a piece of work of a novel length, I might agree with you that he's dirtied paper on one side to no purpose or effect. But I don't think he's quite that desperate. He had a purpose in writing that scene: plainly to show to Joel that Jinnia knew somehow Joel was slated (or could be slated) to receive the scholarship, whether it was a valid competitive scholarship he arguably deserved or not. How "somehow" Robinson left for the reader to deduce. She plainly implies insider information. She insists upon it by reaffirming her statement implying knowledge when he asks her if she "has heard" something, which is a tacit admission of knowledge, not by any means a denial of insider information. She plainly implies the ability to control the outcome, directly, or through some other person--and we find out, wadda surprise, she's granddaughter to Conrad in the very next moment. The richest man in the world presumably can control a lot of things--as can his granddaughter through him. Do you want his brand on the scholarship? Conrad, in _This Immortal_, a Hugo winning SF novel, is the Kallikanzaros. Wadda coincidence.

> > That implies that she, or someone very close to her whom 
> > she can influence, can actually make the choice or choices its trustees 
> > supposedly will make in "another few weeks." That implies the trustees 
> > are so controlled as to be Conrad's agents and the scholarship trust, of 
> > course, is Conrad's alter ego.
> 	I don't believe I can agree with either of these inferences. That 
> is, indeed, what they are: "your" inferences. THEY ARE NOT Jinnia's 
> "implications."

Really? What purpose then, please answer me, does Jinnia have for bringing the situation up? No purpose? Idle chatter on the way home? She's decided to dump this loser and really wants to twist the knife when she puts it in by making him believe that if he'd played his cards right he'd have gotten the scholarship? She better be careful. She pushes this nutcase too hard he'll strangle her in the car. She brings him home where he's told by grandpop his educational goals have all been mapped out and will be paid for. Wadda 'nuther coincidence. If Conrad wants to use an alleged scholarship to pay for part of it, that's Conrad's business--and maybe the tax authorities' business, too.

> 	Even in concert with her later statements/admissions concerning her 
> family and connections; I don't believe she is implying what you've 
> inferred.
> 

Feel free to believe the sun will rise in the west if it suits you, Rufo. I'll continue to believe most people act consistent with reason and do things to a purpose. I'll also believe that some writers at times create plot situations, as here, where their characters emulate that real life reason and purpose.

> 	But, as always, mileage varies, what, what?

-- 
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
     Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
     Lt.(jg), USN, R'td

David M. Silver wrote:
> In article <PR_dh.7773$tM1.3783@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>  "Dr. Rufo" <baybus@mindspring.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Let's analyze what Jinnia has done: first, she's admitted to insider 
>>>knowledge of the considerations of the Kallikanzaros Scholarship 
>>>trustees; and, second, she's all but told Joel he's slated, according to 
>>>her or someone whose wishes she certainly knows, to be a recipient of a 
>>>scholarship. 
>>
>>	IMHO, "big pot and little tea bag," Counselor.
>>	You say "she's admitted . . . ."
>>	I suggest, rather, that WHAT SHE STATES is
>>"suppose you knew for sure . . . ." AND
>>"suppose you knew for a fact. . . ."
>>
>>	These are part of questions she presents to JJ regarding the 
>>HYPOTHETICAL situation in which he had certain knowledge of the 
>>outcome of the scholarship's presentation(s). She does not STATE NOR 
>>IMPLY that this is the case NOR THAT she has any "insider information."
>>
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Perhaps in your world of theatre people walk around spouting 
> hypothetical statements to no purpose--perhaps their world's stage is so 
> boring they must enliven it with fantasy; but Jinnia and Joel, purported 
> inhabitants of a real world, are talking about something quite 
> serious--whether they will get married. In my world, wink, wink, nudge, 
> nudge, "hypothetical" statements in serious situations are always made 
> to a purpose even between such naifs as junior college students. 

Okay, lookit here. I didn't say she had NO purpose in asking her hypothetical questions. I suggested that, on the basis of the information available, I didn't agree that *her* reasons were those *you* inferred.

IMHO, it's more reasonaable that she was asking a much simpler question: "Hey, JJ, if you already knew you'd won the K. scholarship, would you marry me right now?"

JJ ducks and weaves.

I do not mean to suggest at all that your derivations, deductions or conclusions are inaccurate but rather that they are more removed from the text than I can comfortably discern.

Of course, I'm only an egg and advance no claims to any sort of rigorous literary criticism in this or any other discussion.

> Now, 
< snip >

> I'll continue to believe most people act consistent with reason 
> and do things to a purpose. I'll also believe that some writers at times 
> create plot situations, as here, where their characters emulate that 
> real life reason and purpose. 

Once again, I heartily agree with your statement regarding "purpose" and purposeful actions but I do not agree with the inevitability of your deductions.

I also respectfully suggest that you've already demonstrated more ideation and rationalization than it appears to me that Mr. R. did in his writing of the novel. But, once again, YMMV.

By the way, in my admittedly sheltered experience, I've noticed that people who are insecure of the dependability/stability of their relationships [as, I submit, Jinnia is regarding JJ] are tentative in pushing forward their desires. That is, they "suggest" rather than "demand". Further, I note that such "demands" placed on new or tentative personal relationships tend to be ignored and become "deal breakers/relationship breakers." Mileage, etc?

Rufe

On Dec 7, 4:04 pm, "Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> David M. Silver wrote:
> > In article <PR_dh.7773$tM1.3...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> >  "Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>

(snip previous long passage)

Was it Tolstoy who said (paraphrased): "If you show a gun in act one, you had better fire it before the final curtain"? cheers oz

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 01:09:40 GMT,  an orbital mind-control laser
caused "Dr. Rufo" <baybus@mindspring.com> to write:

>
>
>David M. Silver wrote:
>
>> In article <1165531257.945346.246630@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
>>  "MajorOz" <MajorOz@centurytel.net>, answering Rufo, wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>>>>       These are part of questions she presents to JJ regarding the
>>>>>>HYPOTHETICAL situation in which he had certain knowledge of the
>>>>>>outcome of the scholarship's presentation(s). She does not STATE NOR
>>>>>>IMPLY that this is the case NOR THAT she has any "insider information."
>>>>
>>>>>Nonsense. Perhaps in your world of theatre people walk around spouting
>>>>>hypothetical statements to no purpose--perhaps their world's stage is so
>>>>>boring they must enliven it with fantasy; but Jinnia and Joel, purported
>>>>>inhabitants of a real world, are talking about something quite
>>>>>serious--whether they will get married. In my world, wink, wink, nudge,
>>>>>nudge, "hypothetical" statements in serious situations are always made
>>>>>to a purpose even between such naifs as junior college students.
>> 
>> 
>> You've snipped, Rufo, her reaffirmation of knowledge after Joel's 
>> question to her asking whether she's "heard something." You've also 
>> snipped the part that points out a reaffirmation is a tacit admission of 
>> insider knowledge; and you've further ignored her next disclosure, that 
>> she is Conrad's granddaughter and therefore likely to be able to control 
>> the award of a scholarship that even bears his brand--Kallikanzaros. 
>>     
>> 
>>>>Okay, lookit here. I didn't say she had NO purpose in asking her
>>>>hypothetical questions. I suggested that, on the basis of the
>>>>information available, I didn't agree that *her* reasons were those
>>>>*you* inferred.
>>>>        IMHO, it's more reasonaable that she was asking a much simpler
>>>>question: "Hey, JJ, if you already knew you'd won the K.
>>>>scholarship, would you marry me right now?"
>>>>        JJ ducks and weaves.
>> 
>> 
>> Except for one thing you've ignored: later that evening there's a 
>> conversation between her and Joel. She says: "I'm proposing marriage, 
>> Joel. ... And I'm offering to support us ... uh, at least until you get 
>> your degree and start to become an established composer and start 
>> earning. I can afford it. I'm _quite sure_ you'll get that Kallikanzaros 
>> Scholarship--but if you don't, it doesn't matter. ... " [emphasis added] 
>> (p.32). 
>> 
>> So it's not a hypothetical, Rufo. It's been fixed. She knows. If she's 
>> wrong, it doesn't matter. Grandfather Richard's money is there. 

>	Allrightee, then. In sequence, as you've displayed it. It seems 
>consistent with your deductions.

Thanks to David Silver for pointing this bit out--I'd missed it in our earlier discussion--but *my* reading of that sequence comes to just the opposite conclusion.

Why would Jinny say "but if you don't, it doesn't matter" if she already *knows* the fix is in. For that matter, why would Jinny *care* about a tuition-only scholarship when her family could probably buy the whole university if it suited them?

I read the "I'm quite sure" line as her confidence in Joel's musical ability, not because she knows he's getting the scholarship.

Furthermore, if we take this conversation at face value, Jinny has no clue what Conrad has in mind for Joel's life. She thinks he's going to be a composer and her husband, not a business magnate and heir to the Conrad empire.

	-Chris Zakes
		Texas

There are no dangerous weapons, there are only dangerous men.

	-Sgt, Zim in "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein

> >> Except for one thing you've ignored: later that evening there's a 
> >> conversation between her and Joel. She says: "I'm proposing marriage, 
> >> Joel. ... And I'm offering to support us ... uh, at least until you get 
> >> your degree and start to become an established composer and start 
> >> earning. I can afford it. I'm _quite sure_ you'll get that Kallikanzaros 
> >> Scholarship--but if you don't, it doesn't matter. ... " [emphasis added] 
> >> (p.32). 
> >> 
> >> So it's not a hypothetical, Rufo. It's been fixed. She knows. If she's 
> >> wrong, it doesn't matter. Grandfather Richard's money is there. 
> 
> >	Allrightee, then. In sequence, as you've displayed it. It seems 
> >consistent with your deductions.
> 
> Thanks to David Silver for pointing this bit out--I'd missed it in our
> earlier discussion--but *my* reading of that sequence comes to just
> the opposite conclusion. 

> 
> Why would Jinny say "but if you don't, it doesn't matter" if she
> already *knows* the fix is in.

Perhaps she feels the weak tool that Joel is needs further assurances? It's probably much like dealing with a stubborn baby. You know who I'm talking about: Joel "My Way or the Highway" Johnston.

> For that matter, why would Jinny *care*
> about a tuition-only scholarship when her family could probably buy
> the whole university if it suited them? 
> 

The plan seems to have been to have Joel strive to 'earn' a scholarship, whether or not that's Joel's general plan assisted by Jinny's suggestions ("Gosh, willikers, Joel, I just heard about the Kallikanzaros Scholarship for music students that seems right up your line. What luck! Maybe you would win if you applied.) I didn't write the dialogue or create the plot. I don't think Robinson is quite an idiot, but I don't have to say he writes very consistently with rationality (he's created an irrational subject in Joel)--and I haven't.

> I read the "I'm quite sure" line as her confidence in Joel's musical
> ability, not because she knows he's getting the scholarship.
> 

Feel free to twist and turn as much as you like. "I'm quite sure" could be intended to mean both, but certainly means one thing: "I'm quite sure."

> Furthermore, if we take this conversation at face value, Jinny has no
> clue what Conrad has in mind for Joel's life.

On the contrary--she could very well understand her grandfather to have his own plans. Nobody said she agrees--except Joel assumes that of her. She could have planned to fight her grandfather every inch of the way. She's lucky in a way she never did get married to him. She found a poor tool where she thought she might find a husband. I keep telling you that I pity poor Evelyn when she grows up to find her husband hasn't.

> She thinks he's going to
> be a composer and her husband, not a business magnate and heir to the
> Conrad empire.

-- 
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
     Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
     Lt.(jg), USN, R'td

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 21:03:33 -0800,  an orbital mind-control laser
caused "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> to write:

>In article <gb0jn21458d49vevk5jev5gup363b0dpb7@4ax.com>,
> Chris Zakes <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Except for one thing you've ignored: later that evening there's a 
>> >> conversation between her and Joel. She says: "I'm proposing marriage, 
>> >> Joel. ... And I'm offering to support us ... uh, at least until you get 
>> >> your degree and start to become an established composer and start 
>> >> earning. I can afford it. I'm _quite sure_ you'll get that Kallikanzaros 
>> >> Scholarship--but if you don't, it doesn't matter. ... " [emphasis added] 
>> >> (p.32). 
>> >> 
>> >> So it's not a hypothetical, Rufo. It's been fixed. She knows. If she's 
>> >> wrong, it doesn't matter. Grandfather Richard's money is there. 
>> 
>> >	Allrightee, then. In sequence, as you've displayed it. It seems 
>> >consistent with your deductions.
>> 
>> Thanks to David Silver for pointing this bit out--I'd missed it in our
>> earlier discussion--but *my* reading of that sequence comes to just
>> the opposite conclusion. 
>
>Why am I not surprised? You always have my permission to strain reason 
>as much as you like, Chris.

Same right back at you, David. My "straining" at least comes from the text, rather than my hat.

 
>> Why would Jinny say "but if you don't, it doesn't matter" if she
>> already *knows* the fix is in.
>
>Perhaps she feels the weak tool that Joel is needs further assurances? 
>It's probably much like dealing with a stubborn baby. You know who I'm 
>talking about: Joel "My Way or the Highway" Johnston. 

Yes, David. We've been told over and over again that your opinions trump whatever the poor, confused author actually wrote.

>> For that matter, why would Jinny *care*
>> about a tuition-only scholarship when her family could probably buy
>> the whole university if it suited them? 
>> 
>
>The plan seems to have been to have Joel strive to 'earn' a scholarship, 
>whether or not that's Joel's general plan assisted by Jinny's 
>suggestions ("Gosh, willikers, Joel, I just heard about the 
>Kallikanzaros Scholarship for music students that seems right up your 
>line. What luck! Maybe you would win if you applied.) I didn't write the 
>dialogue or create the plot. I don't think Robinson is quite an idiot, 
>but I don't have to say he writes very consistently with rationality 
>(he's created an irrational subject in Joel)--and I haven't.

Where is this "plan" actually stated in the text? There's nothing that says *who* first noticed the Kallikanzaros Scholarships (or that they're just for music students, either.) It's pure speculation to say that it was Jinny; it could just as easily have been Joel scrounging for a way to finance college after his father's investments for his future went south (page 97) or it could have been some unnamed guidance counselor at Fermi.

And where does Conrad say anything about the Kallikanzaros Scholarship during his description of the conditions under which Joel will be permitted to marry Jinny? Four years of college certainly doesn't equate to "degrees in engineering, law, business administration, one of the practical sciences and a language".

>> I read the "I'm quite sure" line as her confidence in Joel's musical
>> ability, not because she knows he's getting the scholarship.
>> 
>
>Feel free to twist and turn as much as you like. "I'm quite sure" could 
>be intended to mean both, but certainly means one thing: "I'm quite 
>sure."  

Yeah, so put in the *rest* of that sentence, rather than cherry-picking: "I'm quite sure you'll get that Kallikanzaros Scholarship--but even if you don't, it won't matter." That doesn't sound like someone describing the liklihood of the sun rising in the morning, it sounds like someone who has a solid backup plan (i.e. the family money) if Plan A doesn't work out.

>> Furthermore, if we take this conversation at face value, Jinny has no
>> clue what Conrad has in mind for Joel's life.
>
>On the contrary--she could very well understand her grandfather to have 
>his own plans. Nobody said she agrees--except Joel assumes that of her. 
>She could have planned to fight her grandfather every inch of the way. 

Okay, it's *possible* that Jinny doesn't agree with Conrad's plans for Joel's life. But even if that's true, there's no evidence that she had the guts to fight him over it, either. See my comments below, not to mention whose side she picks in the climax scene in the "Mercury."

>She's lucky in a way she never did get married to him. She found a poor 
>tool where she thought she might find a husband. 

No, she found a husband-prospect who wasn't interested in being a business magnate. "I honestly don't know if I have what it takes to be a Conrad, I admit that. But I don't know if *anybody* does, so I'm not afraid to find out. What I do know is, it's not something I *want* to be. I guess it seems self-evident to you that any rational man would. So you won't want an irrational husband."

Maybe you, too, consider that irrational, but *I* don't. Giving up everything I love and spending the rest of my life doing something that, at best, would be totally boring and at worst would be something I'd actively hate, in exchange for getting married...? Nope, I'll pass, too.

>I keep telling you that 
>I pity poor Evelyn when she grows up to find her husband hasn't. 
>
>> She thinks he's going to
>> be a composer and her husband, not a business magnate and heir to the
>> Conrad empire.
>
>Yep. Shame she never got to tell Joel that she would support him in that 
>goal. Joel, you'll recall, refused to return her calls until it was too 
>late. Wadda weak tool.

Incorrect. She calls him a couple of hours before the "Sheffield" leaves orbit and says basically "stop this foolishness and come home right now!"

There's not one word of "I agree with you that Grandpa Richard is being overbearing, but I think I can persuade him to change his mind." or "Look, is there some kind of compromise we can reach here?" It's all "Mine! Mine! Give it back!" Wadda spoiled brat.

Frankly, Evelyn--at the ripe old age of 7--shows more guts than Jinny at either 18 or 31.

	-Chris Zakes
		Texas

There are no dangerous weapons, there are only dangerous men.

	-Sgt, Zim in "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein

In article <5chln2pschf1gt1chrfkd8c0ed9rg99lj0@4ax.com>,
 Chris Zakes <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 21:03:33 -0800,  an orbital mind-control laser
> caused "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> to write:
> 
> >In article <gb0jn21458d49vevk5jev5gup363b0dpb7@4ax.com>,
> > Chris Zakes <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> Except for one thing you've ignored: later that evening there's a 
> >> >> conversation between her and Joel. She says: "I'm proposing marriage, 
> >> >> Joel. ... And I'm offering to support us ... uh, at least until you get 
> >> >> your degree and start to become an established composer and start 
> >> >> earning. I can afford it. I'm _quite sure_ you'll get that 
> >> >> Kallikanzaros 
> >> >> Scholarship--but if you don't, it doesn't matter. ... " [emphasis 
> >> >> added] 
> >> >> (p.32). 
> >> >> 
> >> >> So it's not a hypothetical, Rufo. It's been fixed. She knows. If she's 
> >> >> wrong, it doesn't matter. Grandfather Richard's money is there. 
> >> 
> >> >	Allrightee, then. In sequence, as you've displayed it. It seems 
> >> >consistent with your deductions.
> >> 
> >> Thanks to David Silver for pointing this bit out--I'd missed it in our
> >> earlier discussion--but *my* reading of that sequence comes to just
> >> the opposite conclusion. 
> >
> >Why am I not surprised? You always have my permission to strain reason 
> >as much as you like, Chris.
> 
> Same right back at you, David. My "straining" at least comes from the
> text, rather than my hat.
> 

See above. Repeat as often as needed.

>  
> >> Why would Jinny say "but if you don't, it doesn't matter" if she
> >> already *knows* the fix is in.
> >
> >Perhaps she feels the weak tool that Joel is needs further assurances? 
> >It's probably much like dealing with a stubborn baby. You know who I'm 
> >talking about: Joel "My Way or the Highway" Johnston. 
> 
> Yes, David. We've been told over and over again that your opinions
> trump whatever the poor, confused author actually wrote.
> 

Can't reply with a glib rejoinder to that one which is likely given the lack of self-esteem Robinson wrote into Joel, I suppose, so you avoid a reply with insult. Poor argument technique.

> 
> >> For that matter, why would Jinny *care*
> >> about a tuition-only scholarship when her family could probably buy
> >> the whole university if it suited them? 
> >> 
> >
> >The plan seems to have been to have Joel strive to 'earn' a scholarship, 
> >whether or not that's Joel's general plan assisted by Jinny's 
> >suggestions ("Gosh, willikers, Joel, I just heard about the 
> >Kallikanzaros Scholarship for music students that seems right up your 
> >line. What luck! Maybe you would win if you applied.) I didn't write the 
> >dialogue or create the plot. I don't think Robinson is quite an idiot, 
> >but I don't have to say he writes very consistently with rationality 
> >(he's created an irrational subject in Joel)--and I haven't.
> 
> Where is this "plan" actually stated in the text?

Your lack of willingness to even consider any reasonable inference that doesn't make Joel heroic has already been noted, and not just by me. You don't need to reaffirm it, Chris.

> There's nothing that
> says *who* first noticed the Kallikanzaros Scholarships (or that
> they're just for music students, either.) It's pure speculation to say
> that it was Jinny; it could just as easily have been Joel scrounging
> for a way to finance college after his father's investments for his
> future went south (page 97) or it could have been some unnamed
> guidance counselor at Fermi.
> 

Since you cannot figure out--so you say--how, you'd conclude it's a vast mystery, right? Rather than consider anything within a wide range of possibilities. It must be dull reading all those books without the imagination to speculate or suppose what the author hasn't expressly and literally written down for you. It rather robs your ability to think on topics an author raises, I fear.

> And where does Conrad say anything about the Kallikanzaros Scholarship
> during his description of the conditions under which Joel will be
> permitted to marry Jinny? Four years of college certainly doesn't
> equate to "degrees in engineering, law, business administration, one
> of the practical sciences and a language".
> 

Why does Conrad have to talk about a scholarship? Maybe he thinks he's still following Plan A, that which Jinny, through her impatience to get a commmitment from the dunce, made a mistake and revealed to Joel. You insist in equating what Jinny reveals with Conrad's plan to reveal. Conrad may think less of Joel's self-esteem than Jinny (he probably does) and believe it is even more crucial to allow Joel to think he is receiving some aid through his own abilities. I see no such congruence in a plan to reveal a fraud. Conrad would naturally be reticent to do so. He's more mature than his granddaughter, and he has no illusions about Joel loving him. My experience with people is contrary to that. Co-conspirators, plotters, frequently get their signals crossed. That's why they often get caught. Conrad has as much