From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!npoiv!npois!ucbvax!sf-lovers
Newsgroups: fa.sf-lovers
Title: 
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8150
Posted: Thu Jul 29 02:50:57 1982
Received: Fri Jul 30 03:50:35 1982

>From ucbc70:daemon Thu Jul 29 02:36:12 1982
Date: Wednesday, July 28, 1982 5:00PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) 
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V6 #26
To: SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI


SF-LOVERS Digest         Monday, 26 Jul 1982       Volume 6 : Issue 26

Today's Topics:
  SF Books - Here's the Plot...What's the Title & 2010 & Windhaven,
       SF Movies - Destination Moon & Computercide & The Thing,
           SF Topics - Short vs Long & Series & Brain Use,
                 Random Topics - Dolphin User Group,
         Humor - Genderless Video Games,  Spoiler - The Thing
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 July 1982 2056-EDT (Sunday)
From: Kevin.Dowling at CMU-10A
Subject: query (whats the title and author)


Someone recently (within the past few years) wrote a novel which 
discussed juggling among aliens with more than two arms..  Does
anyone remember this? I'm guessing Spider Robinson but am probably
wrong.

                                        nivek

[  You are probably thinking of Lord Valentine's Castle, by Robert
   Silverberg (1979).  The aliens were the Skandars, and they jugled
   with four arms.  --  Jim  ]

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 1982 at 1112-CDT
From: Clyde W. Hoover 
Subject: 2010 preview

        I just got my September issue of Playboy, which, in addition
to its' usual material, contains an excerpt from Clarke's '2010:
Odyessey Two', his sequel-in-progress to '2001: A Space Odyessey'.

        First impressions: Pretty good stuff. Clarke seems to have
gotten back to writing about fanastic worlds and life forms and less
about technological wonders (as in 'The Fountains of Paradise').
Clarke has a fine imagination about extraterrestial life forms (as in
'Meeting With Medusa').

        If the fleshed out book reads as good as this excerpt, it 
should be prime Clarke.

        I have one major problem with this story though. '2010' 
follows the movie rather than the book, (which I prefer as being a
polished version of the movie). The monolith is in orbit about Jupiter
(the mystery of Iatepus's differing brightness was very nicely used in
the '2001' book), but the most glaring deviation is that the book ends
with the Starchild detonating all of the orbital bomb platforms and
gazing down at his new domain. There is, at least in this excerpt (I
am waiting for the last installation in December), no mention of this.

        So this promises to be a good story (thankfully - I wince at
sequels to self-contained stories such as '2001').

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 82 12:03-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: review of WINDHAVEN

WINDHAVEN, by George R.R. Martin and Lisa Tuttle
           Timescape Books

This is a rather pleasant book which is actually three strongly linked
novella's with some additional padding material.  The first novella 
"Storms" was published in a 1975 Analog.  The second, "One-Wing" was 
published in a 1980 Analog, and presumably the last, "The Fall" and
the padding material were written most recently to form the book.
Considering all this, it hangs together fairly well as a
quasi-adventure.

Without giving away too much (most of this is on the cover), it's safe
to say that the book is about a female in a non-technical society on a
planet called Windhaven.  The inhabitants are actually descendents of 
space colonizers but seem to have lost most of the science the 
colonizers must have possessed.  Apparently the colonizers
crash-landed many years earlier after a lengthy trip on a light-sail.
The sail has been turned into wings for a subset of the colonizers.
Because of the low gravity and dense atmosphere, these Flyers can
actually fly.  The book is about various conflicts within this
female's mind and how she copes with Flyer society and Land-Bound
society.

This character (and the others) are fleshed out well.  The book is
good and rather touching at the end, but I would not say it is a great
book.

        Stuart

------------------------------

Date: 27 July 1982 0852-EDT
From: Nathaniel.Borenstein at CMU-10A
Reply-to: Nathaniel.Borenstein at CMU-10A
Subject: Destination Moon

I saw this 1950 movie on TV the other night, expecting the usual
amusing 1950's-SF nonsense.  I was greatly surprised by the general
scientific accuracy of the movie (although the atomic-powered rocket
was done rather naively), and was eagerly awaiting the credits to see
who was responsible for getting the facts right.  Unfortunately,
Pittsburgh TV stations seem to regard credits as completely optional,
and they were omitted entirely.  Anyone out there have any idea who
was (or were) the brains behind "Destination Moon" and its startling
rationality?

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 1982 2203-PDT
From: Daul at OFFICE-3 (William B. Daul)
Subject: TV Movie On Sunday Night (NBC)

Looks like a real classic (ha, ha).  NBC has "COMPUTERCIDE" as it's
sunday night movie.  Check local listings for times near you.  --lliB

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 82 5:26-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: short vs. long SF fiction

I've finally come to the depressing conclusion, after many frustrating
tries at reading longer forms of SF, that very few SF authors have any
reasonable control over novel-length fiction.  Le Guin first comes to 
mind as one who demonstrates competence.  Tiptree/Sheldon can write 
very fine novels but chooses to stay with short forms.  I predict that
Varley will mature and produce some major novel-length fiction in the 
next few years.  His attempts so far have been unconvincing, in my 
opinion.  Herbert, Heinlein, Niven, Farmer, Dick, and many others
leave me rather flat.

This is no revelation.  I discard 80% of SF novels before finishing 
them due to lack of interest, poor writing, or more frequently lack of
control by the author in the novel structures.  The latter can display
itself in various ways: plot inconsistent or loose, characters 
unconvincing and/or boring, a lack of overall purpose.  Lately I have 
been moving more and more into mainstream fiction (Nabokov, Conrad, 
etc.) for authors who demonstrate complete control over the novel 
structure.  In SF, I now limit myself almost exclusively to short 
fiction (short stories, novelettes, novellas).

Hugo and Nebula collections seem worthwhile.  I was quite impressed by
the first two stories in Nebula 15: Jack Dann's "Camps" and George R.
R.  Martin's "Sandkings".  Vernor Vinge's "True Names" in Binary Star 
#5(?) is another impressive story.  Terry Carr's "The Best SF of the 
Year #nn" is almost always worthwhile.  Less so are Don Wollheim's 
yearly collections .  The John Campbell award nominees collection is 
sometimes interesting for sensing new talent.

        Stuart

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 1982 14:02:25-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Re: State of the Art

   No, it only says bad things about the state of commercial SF; the 
Hugoes have generally been on the conservative side unless something 
new and really spectacular came out (SNOW QUEEN, DREAMSNAKE). Note
that someone has guessed that one of the other two books could be New
Sun III (Gene Wolfe---SWORD OF THE EXCRUCIATOR, or some such), which
makes the situation worse in your view. Also, FRIDAY is not especially
linked to an old set of characters---especially considering the
primary link appeared in one novelet.

[  This is in response to a submission that appeared in volume 5,
   issue 73, on the high probabilities of sequels winning Hugo awards.
   -- Jim  ]

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 1982 1256-EDT
From: DD-B 
Reply-to: "DYER-BENNET at KL2137 c/o" 
Subject: SFL submission

( Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest V6 #19 )

(ihuxi!otto at Berkeley) Attempting to measure the percentage of the 
brain used by measuring the amount of oxygen used and relating that to 
firing rates of neurons seems to imply that a neuron is only being 
"used" when it is firing.  Imagine how useful a computer would be if 
all its gates went high simultaneously!!

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 1982 2123-PDT
From: T. C. Rindfleisch 
Subject: Xerox 1100 (Dolphin) User Group

This is to announce formation of a network user group for Xerox 1100 
workstations (Dolphins).  Its purpose is to stimulate communication
and sharing between computer science research groups that are using or
are interested in these machines.  It differs from the WORKS group in
that it will focus on issues particular to Dolphins rather than on 
workstations in general.

Xerox PARC and EOS people are included in the distribution list to 
facilitate communications about new developments, bugs, performance 
issues, etc.  As with all network interest groups, however, this is 
*NOT* to be used as a vendor advertising vehicle.

User Group Mechanics --

1) Network Addresses:

        Dolphin-Users@SUMEX-AIM For mail distributed to the
                                        entire user group

        Dolphin-Requests@SUMEX-AIM For distribution list
                                        maintenance, i.e., additions,
                                        deletions, problems, etc.

2) Mail Handling:  SUMEX-AIM will serve as the expansion point for
    routing messages to group members.  We run XMAILR and so can route
    between most of the current internet community.

3) Administration:  Initially, messages will be sent to the list as
    submitted.  Depending on the volume of mail, content, etc.,
    messages may be collected and digested in the future.

I have assembled a list of known Dolphin users and liaisons from
various sources for this initial announcement.  Please pass the word
on to others you think might be interested.

Tom R.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 1982 1442-PDT
From: FEATHER at USC-ISIF (Martin S. Feather)
Subject: PacPuns

What happens when two pacmen run into one another?
imPact.

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, July 28, 1982 5:00PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) 
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The last message in this digest discusses some plot details in the
movie The Thing.  Some readers may not wish to read on.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 1982 1015-PDT
From: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8
Subject: The Thing (Spoiler)

Just saw "The Thing" with a bit of wariness after Siskel & Ebert's
discussion of the "repulsiveness" of the effex on Sneak Previews.
They're not that bad, unless you find blood, gore, and body parts
especially unsettling.  (I guess there is a kind of personality that
really hates to be reminded of mortality and the fragility of flesh by
seeing dismembered bodies or surgical procedures, and this would
really get to them...)

I always nitpick, and find it hard to adopt the "willing suspension of
disbelief" you need to accept glitches or irrationalities in SF or
fantasy films that would just stop the plot or make the outcome
reverse if the logical action would be performed; that's why I usually
hate sitcoms, which base most of their plots on silly misconceptions
or someone trying to hide something needlessly.

Anyway, re "The Thing":

At the start, MacReady mentions that this is "the first week of 
winter"; however, there follows a series of night-and-day shots.  In
Antarctica, at this season, I thought there would be constant twilight
for several weeks, with brief periods of low-on-the-horizon sunshine;
deep night wouldn't arrive for some more weeks.  Am I wrong in this?
The film has some bright daytime, and black nights, and then
everything is night, or takes place at night.  Didn't seem right...

Spoiler stuff following...

If the Thing blood independently tries to survive, why would the parts
of Thing bodies allow attack, like the thumb cuts?

If Things as humans kept their original forms after converting another
human into Thing, why did the dog Thing burst out of its body and
destroy it?  It could have converted individual dogs quietly and
safely.  (Yes, of course it was done that way to show a gruesome
special effect; here, I'm nitpicking plot.)

The Thing had some intelligence of its own; it started building the
small spaceship and knew what the detonator box was and took it away
before MacReady could set it off, yet it just reared up and growled at
him instead of grabbing him and it let him throw the dynamite at it.
And how did that set off the other dynamite emplacements?  They were
set for electrical detonation, and the single-stick explosion wouldn't
have done anything to set them off...

Major nitpick of all: if MacReady was right, and the Blair Thing just
wanted to hide and freeze until rescue missions arrived next spring,
why didn't it just run out into the ice and dig itself a hole, instead
of hanging around in/under the base?  (And when did Blair get
converted, anyway?  He was alone in the toolshed and too paranoid to
let anyone get close to him until after he became a Thing!)

Ah, so what...  It's a vehicle for effects, and plot is secondary.  Go
see it for the disgustingness alone...

Will Martin (at least I LOOK like him...)

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************