From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!sf-lovers Newsgroups: fa.sf-lovers Title: SF-LOVERS Digest V6 #16 Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8031 Posted: Fri Jul 16 10:45:10 1982 Received: Sat Jul 17 02:47:48 1982 >From JPM@Mit-Ai Fri Jul 16 10:39:51 1982 SF-LOVERS Digest Friday, 16 Jul 1982 Volume 6 : Issue 16 Today's Topics: SF Books - John W. Campbell Memorial Award & Forward's Next Book & Crystal Singer, SF TV - HHGttG, SF Music - Theme Songs, SF Topics - Hard SF & SF Ghetto & Brain Use, Humor - Brain Use & Genderless Video Games, SF Movies - Star Trek & Star Wars, Spoiler - Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Jul 82 11:44-PDT From: mclure at SRI-UNIX Subject: some awards Hoban Receives Award for ''Riddley Walker'' LAWRENCE, Kan. (AP) - Russell Hoban, a writer of children's books and science fiction, was named winner Saturday of the John W. Campbell Memorial Award for the best science fiction novel of 1981. Hoban, an American who lives in London, was cited for his novel ''Riddley Walker'' about life in a futuristic world 2,000 years after a nuclear holocaust. Neil Barron of Vista, Calif., a book company representative and former librarian, was named the 1982 winner of the Pilgrim Award for outstanding scholarship in science fiction. He was cited for his contributions to science fiction bibliography and criticism. The awards were presented at the annual meeting of the Science Fiction Research Association held in conjunction with the University of Kansas Intensive English Institute of the Teaching of Science Fiction. The Campbell award is named for the late John W. Campbell, who was editor of Astounding Science Fiction and its successor, Analog, for 34 years. The Pilgrim Award is sponsored by the research association. ------------------------------ Date: 14 July 1982 1001-EDT From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A Subject: Bob Forward's next book I believe that it will be serialized in Analog starting in December, or maybe he said November. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 1982 10:42:57-EDT From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX Subject: errors in CRYSTAL SINGER Sigh. I suppose I'll have to go read the foolish thing now, and I don't have full access to the MITSFS or the inclination to buy another book. Anne McCaffrey was an opera singer and director in Boston back when anybody who tried to do opera in Boston was considered crazy (i.e., even before Sarah Caldwell). She may not have the academic or technological background (I know she was a Cliffie but not her major (don't think it was music)) but she probably has a lot more practical experience than any newly-minted BS (BS?!? in music?!?!? (yes, I know that probably means from MIT; my point stands)). Now if you confined your disparagements to her knowledge of, say, the physics of music, that might be more believable. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 1982 07:40:59-PDT From: decvax!duke!uok!uokvax!mwm at Berkeley Subject: Crystal Singer I finished Crystal Singer not to long ago (about a week), and I didn't notice the parallel in plot line. But it's been a LONG time since I looked at Dragonor The Ship Who Sang. Once it was pointed out, yes, I have to admit that it's there. I think that the plot is more along the lines of `adapting to a new environment,' as opposed to `paying back one's dues' or `achieving in one's profession.' I guess its all in how you look at it. mike ------------------------------ Date: 13 July 1982 05:37-EDT From: "Richard H.E. Smith, II" Subject: Villiers in Asimov/Panshin Contrary to someone's comment in SFL V7#1, the Villiers who gets killed in Asimov's story "The Dying Night" has the first name Romero, so there is no conflict with Panshin's character Anthony Villiers. I don't have a copy of the Panshin right here, so I can't check the dates... the Asimov story first appeared in F&SF in July '56. [ This message is in reference the contribution that originally referenced a message in volume 5, issue 63, describing Anthony Villiers as a character in a series by Alexei Panshin. -- Jim ] ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 1982 0852-PDT From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin) Subject: HHGttG in St. Louis For anybody interested, Hitchhiker[etc] is carried in the St. Louis area and on related cable systems at 11 PM Sunday nights on KETC (Channel 9). An obvious plot to reduce Monday-morning productivity below its already-low level by depriving us poor addicts of sleep... Will ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 1982 09:38:56-EDT From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX Subject: hard sf suggestions One of the problems with hard SF is that it can become dated so easily. Consider (since it's not on your list) the Venus Equilateral stories of George O. Smith, harking back (as a recent reviewer put it) to when precision adjusting tools for electronics included hammers, 12" wrenches, and welding torches. You can also try digging 1940's and 50's issues of ASTOUNDING out of your local library, or out of the MITSFS if you're in Boston, or the Ackerman collection if you're in LA, or . . . . The market for and interest in hard SF has died off (although that same reviewer notes that it was never very coherent---in the 40's, for instance, Hubbard and van Vogt were central figures \in/ \ASTOUNDING/!). Other George O. Smith is tolerable. ------------------------------ Date: 13 July 1982 05:34-EDT From: "Richard H.E. Smith, II" Subject: Authors who aren't SF-authors I heard on the radio the other day that Indianapolis was holding a giant Vonnegut festival, and the guest-of-honor refused to attend. He's supposed to have said something like "seems like the kind of thing you do when an author is dead...". The festival also honored Kurt Vonnegut (the non-SF-author) 's parent and grandparent, both of which were architects who contributed to Indy in some noticeable fashion. I guess SF isn't the only thing that Vonnegut denies... seems to me he's picked on Hoosiers in at least one of his books. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 1982 2148-PDT From: Henry W. Miller Subject: Movie songs, etc. During the All Star game last summer, the soundtrack for "Star Trek - The Motion Picture" was used. -HWM ------------------------------ Date: 07/09/82 11:57:33 From: JGA@MIT-MC Subject: 10% of brain When someone says to you (in a serious manner), "Did you know that the average person only uses 10% of their brain?", the correct response is to look them straight in the eye, and say (in an even more serious tone of voice): "Of course. The other 90% is the operating system." Practice this in front of the mirror a couple of times first - one little giggle can destroy all credibility. John. ------------------------------ Date: 11 July 1982 01:00-EDT From: Andrew Scott Beals Subject: Genderless Video Games Q: How do PacMan games communicate with each other? A: In PacKets. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 82 1:28:10-EDT (Thu) From: the Boris Subject: Trek and Star Wars. Why was Star Trek I bad, Star Trek II OK, but Star Wars great? Star Trek started as a TV series. The secret of a TV series is to establish a Formula which allows entertaining fare to be produced by technically competent but less than inspired people. Trek has a (by now) well developed universe, set of characters, and a good notion of what makes a good story. If the formula is followed, entertaining fare will result. Star wars, on the other hand, was made by Lucas. Star Trek I was very, very, bad because it violated the formula. It dragged - Trek was built on pace and action. It violated character - at the start of the movie, Kirk acted like a jerk. Kirk is the eternal Hero, and he makes a very poor anti-hero. Also, they were recycling a past script - no one really wanted to see NOMAD again. Finally, the film just wasn't very well made. The Earth was seconds from destruction, and the director STILL couldn't get us us the slightest bit upset or apprehensive. When I saw the movie, I paid $1.50 at the Campus movie house, and didn't feel I was getting a particularly good deal. Star Trek II was a reasonable film. Now don't get me wrong - I'm not complaining. Most Science Fiction films are Horrid (e.g. The Thing, The Black Hole, etc.). Trek II worked, and I look forward to shelling out $4 ($6? $10? $100 if the economy ...) every year or two to see another Trek Episode. The movie worked because it followed the Trek formula: Bad guys get the upper hand. Kirk outsmarts them. Good guys win. And, along the way, we see the characters being people, not cardboard imitations. Of course, there was some sloppy film making. I won't go into the technical things - space battles, scale, and that sort of stuff, or into dramatic things - Scotty carrying a dead crewman to the bridge. Sure, it could have been better. But the movie followed the Trek formula faithfully, and was technically competent enough to not lose us. It gave us what we expected. Star Wars was a great film. There is only one reason for this: George Lucas is a genius. No formula can substitute for excellence. Lucas is not a literary marvel; he could have stolen the plot out of any of (all of?) a hundred different books. He is a master of film. The movie moves: it is full of action, and the characters pop into focus instantly. How long does it take us to recognize Darth Vadar as an Evil Heavy? All of two seconds? And every time we turn around there is something unexpected or somehow marvelous: Sand-crawlers? Taverns with 50,000 flavors of aliens? THE DEATH STAR! Finally, Star Wars was well edited - it has no time to waste on gratuitous anything. Lucas would have cut the gratuitous shot of Scotty carrying the dead crewman onto the bridge. The result is a movie which demands, gets, and rewards your constant, undivided attention. I look forward to more Star Trek movies. The formula works. As long as competent people follow the formula, and don't try to be geniuses when they're not, we will continue to get reasonable, watchable films that don't leave us feeling cheated. But don't expect another Star Wars, because you won't get it - genius is, after all, a rare commodity. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 1982 05:18:43-PDT From: harpo!floyd!rjs at Berkeley Subject: Roddenberry and Star Trek In V6 #1 of SF-LOVERS Digest George Otto asked about the involvement of Gene Roddenberry in Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. At Balticon 13 (April '82), prior to a showing of Star Wreck: The Commotion Picture the creator of this video tape editing spoof showed some slides of the then upcoming ST:TWoK. During this preview, she said that Roddenberry's only involvement with ST:TWoK was to receive a royalty. He did, however, reserve the right to pull his name from the movie if he didn't approve of the final product. Thus his appearance as Executive Consultant in the credits simply indicates his approval of the movie as a whole. Marcia Snyder / rjs (harpo!floyd!rjs) ------------------------------ Date: 14 July 1982 21:47-EDT From: Phillip C. Reed Subject: Star Trek - TWOK Non-Spoiler I was talking with some friends about the Koborashi Maru (sp?) test, and Kirk's "cheating", when somebody pointed out that based on the evidence, Kirk must have gotten into Star Fleet Academy on a football scholarship. ...phil ------------------------------ Date: Friday, July 16, 1982 3:51AM From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) Subject: SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING! All of the remaining messages in this digest discuss some plot details in the movie and the book Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Some readers may not wish to read on. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 1982 15:35:31-PDT From: decvax!duke!mcnc!idis!mi-cec!rwg at Berkeley Subject: Re: Chekov in ST2 (slight spoiler - haven't you seen it YET?) It's been pointed out already that the novel fills in many of the movie's gaps: Chekov had to go outside because beaming was impossible inside (the atmospheric conditions were such that it would be "iffy" even in the open). When Chekov sees Khan's people, he indeed screams to be beamed up, but the ship gets little more than static. Besides, if Reliant's crew heard Chekov shout "Beam us up, Enterprise!," they may have been too confused to act in time (yes, picky picky picky...). ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 8 July 1982 15:32-EDT From: Vince Fuller Subject: SPOILER WARNING - comment on ST-II TWOK I suggest that you read the novel ST-II for an answer for this and other apparent inconsistencies. The reason given in the book is that the sand and turbulence in the atmosphere of Ceti Alpha (or Alpha Ceti) V made transporter use marginal even in the open, and definitely impossible from within a closed structure. (sorry if this has already been answered earlier) --vaf ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 8 July 1982 15:42-EDT From: Vince Fuller Subject: STII:TWOK Again, you should take a look at the novel version. In the novel, the bridge crew is decimated so one additional, experienced albeit injured officer, is a great help. Also, I believe Chekov is explicitly referred to as a Commander in the book. --vaf ------------------------------ Date: 9 July 1982 00:18-EDT From: "James Lewis Bean, Jr." Subject: Tears in Mr. Saavik's eyes I saw one at the funeral.. ------------------------------ End of SF-LOVERS Digest ***********************