Jlawrence’s Comments (group member since Mar 08, 2010)

Jlawrence’s comments from the The Sword and Laser group.

Sean wrote: "Tamahome wrote: "I don't know Tom. Gene Wolfe could be another Stanislaw Lem for Veronica. Better clear it with her."

I was just about to post the same thing -- I'd be down with the Book of the New Sun, but I can see it being as unpopular as Memoirs Found in the Bathtub."

As a big Book of the New Sun fan, I'm biased, but I think it has a better chance of working for both this club and Veronica than Memoirs Found in a Bathtub. Because:

- It has an actual narrative!
- It has well-developed, psychologically rich characters, instead of surreal caricatures
- It has *strong* fantasy and science fiction elements. Memoirs mostly used a science fiction premise as a jumping off point for an abstract hall-of-mirrors literary exercise. Wolfe is really interested in detailing and evoking the future world he's created.
- It would be fun to puzzle out its world in discussion here (for instance, I didn't pick up on the Citadel towers being defunct rocket ships until someone pointed it out to me. That's not a spoiler, it's actually pretty clear from a very early description - I just didn't pick up on it!).

It does have elements of literary trickiness and cerebral puzzle to it, but there's also an intriguing epic adventure you can get lost in without going into literary analysis or trying to figuring everything out.

All that being said, Wolfe just turns off some people. And even as much as I like the four Book of the New Sun books, his other novels I've tried (even the direct 'sequel' The Urth of the New Sun and the connected later series) seem nowhere near as inspired. But New Sun would definitely be worth discussing.

For Veronica, I suggest Tom lends her the book and lets her read the first chapter (6 pages) - the difference should be apparent immediately.

Oh, and about lasers appearing along with swords - that actually happens in the very first chapter, too, if you read closely!

Just added Songs of Dying Earth to my to-read list, thanks for that.

The two Dangerous Visions anthologies blew my mind as a young science-fiction reade. Some of my favorite stories in Again, Dangerous Visions didn't hold up quite as well when I re-visited them recently, but they're still impressive collections.

My recent favorite is The Best of the Best: 20 Years of the Year's Best Science Fiction - densely packed with many amazing stories and lead me to add many of the authors featured to my to-read list.

Randy Waterhouse from Stephenson's Cryptonomicon drove me crazy with his smug "I'll-just-blather-here-about-something-tangential-to-remind-you-how-clever-and-amusing-I-think-I-am" way of communicating. It started to ruin an otherwise brilliant book. Never finished because some multi-page email (letter?) from Randy late in the novel grated on for so long, I closed the book in frustration.

Might have been some strange overreaction. I want to try it again some day.

Well, I should stress that 'too many characters' was my first thought, but then I realized it was really 'too many characters I find less interesting than Crowley and Aziraphale.' I'm actually fine with the number of characters, but not with the time spent with each.

When the story kept bouncing around between characters and introducing new ones deep into the book, I started to think, 'Is this annoying me because there's simply too many characters?'

But I've liked other books that have switched between multiple character viewpoints, and I realized that I liked Crowley and Aziraphale best, and became weary when the plot strayed from their side for too long. I found them more interesting, likable and amusing than anyone else. I particularly became weary of Adam's circle of Them friends, though I realize it was important plot-wise to develop Adam's relationship with them.

So throughout I kept wishing the narrative had stuck with Crowley and Aziraphale much more, with much briefer asides for the other characters.

Anyone else feel this way?

This is my first time reading Pratchett. Read a fair deal of Gaiman, I've liked his fiction and LOVE the Sandman series.

Curiously, Pratchett + Gaiman seemed to = Douglas Adams for me. I often felt like I was reading Revelation as if it were re-told by Douglas Adams. Maybe this is the influence of Pratchett's style of humor. Unfortunately, it kept reminding me of Adams, and I kept comparing Good Omens unfavorably to Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Good Omens was amusing enough, but nothing in it was memorable as Marvin, the Improbability Drive, the answer 42, etc.

Nevertheless, I want to read at least one Discworld book sometime.

Just finished the excellent bio James Tiptree, Jr.: The Double Life of Alice B. Sheldon, and plan to read The Name of the Wind alongside Good Omens.

Yes.

Tom wrote: "I've watched the series several times on Blu-ray and found a new reason to go through them again the other day.

Possibly old news to you, but it was new to me, but apparently Han Solo was in Firef..."

That's awesome. That will be a treat to look for during a re-watch.

Also, A-boo-crombie FTW!

I suspects cold medicine was behind this technical glitch ;)

I'm looking forward to getting the blu-ray set sometime this year. Then the 'verse will be all shiny!

Sean wrote: "Gord wrote: "If there is any justice or goodness in the universe, they will NEVER release the Holiday Special in any format, ever. Nobody needs to endure that mess."

I don't think we have to fear that hallucinogenic monstrosity ever being officially released, but we can torture ourselves with it easily:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...#

It's like a '70s hair shirt.

Yeah, to claim science fiction contains no social commentary is sheer ignorance. Practically every science fiction book we've read in this group as had strong social commentary, with the exception of How to Live Safely in a Science Fictional Universe, which would nonetheless get a 'literary' pass for all its meta-narrative experimental doodling.

Now, whether the social commentary in a particular work is subtle, has depth, etc, is always up for debate. But social commentary itself has been a strong element of the genre for quite a while now.

Al wrote: "Exactly, if it's good it can't be sf and if it's sf it can't be good. What BS! By what other standard is Vonnegut not science fiction, for example? "

Well, Vonnegut himself didn't seem comfortable with the label, precisely because of the bias against the genre. See this quote:

"I have been a soreheaded occupant of a file drawer labeled 'science fiction' ever since, and I would like out, particularly since so many serious critics regularly mistake the drawer for a urinal."

Micah wrote: "Of course I bought the VHS versions because Lucas said he would never release the originals on DVD.....which is why I expect the "Original" tapes to be "found" sometime after the 3-D versions have all been released. So that way he can bilk another $50 out of me to buy the "classic" movies on blu-ray."

Even though I forked over money for that sub-standard DVD release of the originals, I would fork over money again if high-quality transfers of the originals (not the shitty ones offered on that DVD) were made available on blu-ray. Sadly, I don't think it will happen, and that Lucas's "the originals were destroyed" story is a smoke-screen for his pig-headed desire for the Special Editions to completely replace the originals.

See this quote from him about the then-upcoming Special Editions in a 1997 issue of American Cinematographer:

"There will only be one. And it won't be what I would call the 'rough cut', it'll be the 'final cut.' The other one [the original film] will be some sort of interesting artifact that people will look at and say, 'There was an earlier draft of this.'...What ends up being important in my mind is what the DVD version is going to look like, because that's what everybody is going to remember. The other versions will disappear. Even the 35 million tapes of Star Wars out there won't last more than 30 or 40 years. A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that anyone will remember will be the DVD version [of the Special Edition]...I think it's the director's prerogative, not the studio's, to go back and reinvent a movie."

That quote is found on this site - http://savestarwars.com/howthegrinchs... - which also has this bit of info:

"Film restorationist Robert Harris--the man who had hand-restored LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, SPARTACUS, THE SEARCHERS and GODFATHER--went on record saying he knew for a fact that there were pristine master 35mm elements available and that he would fully restore the original films for free! "

Lucas never responded to the offer.

I pretty much totally agree with the argument made on the above site: the originals should be allowed to be preserved along with the Special Editions, so the world can have both the classic, history- making films that so many fell in love with, along with the SEs that represent the director's final revised vision for the films (er, well, final until the 3D malarkey comes along). The fact that Lucas wants to wipe out the originals (or at most, begrudgingly offer a low-quality version of them as he finally did on those DVDs) is a sad blow to cinema history. I think his midicholorians got screwed up somewhere along the way.

aldenoneil wrote: "Vikz wrote: "I agree. They do a brilliant job. "

Still could use more sound effects."

I'll make them more sound effects if they ask. :)

Tamahome wrote: "Hugo & Nebula winning books don't necessarily make for a good read. Awards seem to be given out more for the research than for a good plot and characters."

There's never a guarantee that personal taste is going to match up with award-winners *but* I don't think the Hugo & Nebula awards necessarily lean toward rewarding scientific rigor over character, mood and narrative these days. Take for example the S&L pick The Windup Girl, which just won a Hugo. As discussed in this forum, some of its worldbuilding seems scientifically shaky, and as Sean's last post in that discussion shows, Bacigalupi himself admitted to just throwing out a bunch of important alternate energy sources in order to create the world he wanted. That's something hard sci-fi purists would balk at, yet the novel won a Hugo.

Martin, I agree with aldenoneil, you'll find tons of recommendations by following the discussions in this group (the What Else Are You Reading? and What Should We Read Next? threads are good examples). Also, following the reviews of people on Goodreads who seem to have similar tastes to yours is also a great way to build-up a to-read list.

Additionally, I read through things like David Pringles' "Ultimate Guide to Science Fiction" and other such round-ups and note down books that sound interesting, but that's less reliable than finding like-minded readers and following their recommendations.

Jenny wrote: "Chronologically starting from the present or the earliest? Sounds like a fun project! I've done that with some of the Bookers.

Starting from the earliest, except I'm cheating and only doing the ones that look most interesting to me. I'm starting with Mission of Gravity by Hal Clement, which was nominated for best novel in 1954. I'll see how far I get in the list!

Some 2011 goals: Stephenson's Baroque Cycle, Patrick Rothfuss' The Name of the Wind (before the sequel comes out in March, in case I love the series as much as I think I will), Michael Bishop's The Secret Ascension (which has Philip K. Dick as a main character!), a re-read of Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun, and an attempt to run through some of the Hugo winners and nominees in chronological order (allowing myself to jump ship on any of them I don't get into).

Oh, Simmons' Hyperion and more William Gibson, too. I better get to work!

I wrote, 'Indie Film' in the two-word-review thread for this book. You know, the stereotype of the film that is not trying to whisk you away on an exciting adventure, or thrill you with a gripping story, or yank on your emotions with powerhouse drama, but instead defines a small space for itself in which it hopes to say something about the human condition in a quirky, understated, hopefully perceptive and perhaps disjointed way. That's what I felt this book was aiming for, and I feel it partially succeeded and partially failed.

I liked the idea that sadness and unfulfilled lives are a result of our universe actually being an unfinished one. I liked the using of science fiction tropes to comment on narrative and writing and how Yu related all of that to how one psychologically constructs a meaningful 'narrative' of one's own life (or chooses not too, like the book's narrator when he's sitting things out in the time machine). I liked the idea that becoming a hero-type of protagonist is entering 'science fictional' narrative space, as opposed to everyday normal narrative space. I liked the idea of time-loop paradox as psychological stasis.

Those concepts and other less central ones sprinkled throughout the book were all clever and had great potential, but the parts didn't gel into a strong enough whole for me. The psychological observations and introspection just didn't get deep enough or subtle enough to make up for the sometimes overly maudlin tone and lack of more conventional narrative hooks. For instance, I feel I was shown important and mildly moving vignettes about the father and mother, but not any, outside of the father-presenting-the-invention-to-the-respected-scientist-scene, that were so poignant or so sharply observed to make really strong impressions.

In one of the informational chapters about the science fiction universe, it reads

"Stated simply, any world with a radius larger than the WTR [Weinberg-Takayma Radius] will eventually dissipate, while any world with a radius smaller than the WTR has the potential, given the right initial conditions, to produce narrative truths in a unified emotionally resonant field."
[location 1865 on the Kindle]

This book was an interesting experiment, and I'm glad to have read it, but I ultimately feel that it didn't "produce narrative truths in a unified emotionally resonant field." At least, not enough of them, or maybe not in resonant enough of a field.

What'd you think?