|
Otherwhen@aol.com
02-28-2010
17:43 UT
|
Hi David,
Thanks for the head-up. I've been looking for a copy of this issue of "True" for years! And the price is right, too.
In fact, I just bought it.
John Carr
Original "Rebel Raider" on eBay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370209389004
This edition of _True_ contains the original publication of
Beam's historical account of Confederate guerilla John
Singleton Mosby. It is extremely rare and therefore quite
reasonably priced.
(I'm not the seller--no way am I letting go of my copy!)
Good luck,
David
|
|
Grimmoer
02-28-2010
17:36 UT
|
I don't blame you. I am keeping my copy, too.
J&#E4;ck R&#FC;ssell
"Don't take life so serious, son.
It ain't nohow permanent."
-
Walt Kelly
< replied-to message removed by QT >
|
|
David Johnson
02-28-2010
16:01 UT
|
~
Original "Rebel Raider" on eBay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370209389004
This
edition of _True_ contains the original publication of Beam's
historical account of Confederate guerilla John Singleton Mosby. It
is extremely rare and therefore quite reasonably priced.
(I'm not the seller--no way am I letting go of my copy!)
Good luck,
David
~
|
|
David Johnson
02-25-2010
06:06 UT
|
~
Lensman wrote:
>> I always had the sense that Paratime technolgy
>> and Future History technology (such as we can
>> understand it across a span of several
>> centuries) were pretty similar.
>
> The mysticism of reincarnation and the whole mumbo-jumbo of the
> explanation of how someone's consciousness moves "diagonally"
> down the timeline in the Paratime series is something that seems
> violently antithetical to the philosophy of hard-SF, and
> definitely further down the spectrum toward magic/fantasy. Is
> that just me?
Ah, no, I see your point here now. I wasn't thinking of the
"science"--or metaphysics--of different timelines. (I was thinking just of Home Timeline technology.)
> And in general, the Home Timeline seems to use much more high
> tech than the THFH does. The needler rayguns in current
> discussion is one
> example. The THFH uses firearms, at least in the pre-Empire
> era. Maybe the Thorian (sp?) guards in one of the Empire
> stories are said to be carrying blasters, I'm not sure.
It's
not clear whether or not the Thorans are armed with slugthrowers but
when Travann's Terrohuman security forces are battling with the street
thugs it is the absence of recoil and powder smoke which gives them
away to one of the observers.
Other than the rayguns, are there other examples of Paratime tech that's missing from the Future History yarns?
David
--
"And
when somebody makes a statement you don't understand, don't tell him
he's crazy. Ask him what he means." - Otto Harkaman (H. Beam Piper),
_Space_Viking_
~
|
|
Lensman
02-25-2010
03:00 UT
|
QT - David Johnson wrote:
>
>> ~ David "Lensman" Sooby wrote:
>>
>>> in most of his THFH stories Piper preferred to keep things as
>>> low-tech as possible other than a handful of advanced technologies.
>>> But I wouldn't say the same about the Paratime stories. Those
>>> appear to me to be further toward the magical end of the
>>> "/Science/Tech ... to ... magical" spectrum. Edging closer to
>>> fantasy as opposed to hard-SF.
>
> Can you give some specific examples?
>
> Other than paratemporal transposition--which apparently was a
> fortuitous by-product of failed efforts to develop hyperdrive--I
> always had the sense that Paratime technolgy and Future History
> technology (such as we can understand it across a span of several
> centuries) were pretty similar.
The mysticism of reincarnation and the whole mumbo-jumbo of the
explanation
of how someone's consciousness moves "diagonally" down the timeline in
the Paratime series is something that seems violently antithetical to
the philosophy of hard-SF, and definitely further down the spectrum
toward magic/fantasy. Is that just me?
And in general, the Home
Timeline seems to use much more high tech than the THFH does. The
needler rayguns in current discussion is one
example. The THFH uses
firearms, at least in the pre-Empire era. Maybe the Thorian (sp?)
guards in one of the Empire stories are said to be carrying blasters,
I'm not sure.
Now, there's an in-story *reason* for the
Paratimers to be using more high tech. They are essentially an
aristocracy supporting themselves as parasites on other cultures... they
have riches to burn. The cultures of the THFH have to support
themselves, so it makes more sense for them to be using tech that
doesn't require such a long series of assembly lines, and don't break
down so easily. It's been said the USA has a throw-away culture; we
throw things away rather than repair them. I see the Paratimers
committing that offense much more than we do!
Again, just my opinions... would be interested in hearing other views.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
David Johnson
02-25-2010
02:14 UT
|
~
David "Lensman" Sooby wrote:
> Yes, in most of his THFH stories Piper preferred to keep things
> as low-tech as possible other than a handful of advanced
> technologies. But I wouldn't say the same about the Paratime
> stories. Those appear to me to be further toward the magical
> end of the "/Science/Tech ... to ... magical" spectrum. Edging
> closer to fantasy as opposed to hard-SF.
Can you give some specific examples?
Other than paratemporal transposition--which apparently was a
fortuitous
by-product of failed efforts to develop hyperdrive--I always had the
sense that Paratime technolgy and Future History technology (such as
we can understand it across a span of several centuries) were pretty
similar.
David
--
"Naturally. Foxx Travis would expect a
soul to be carried in a holster." - Miles Gilbert (H. Beam Piper),
"Oomphel in the Sky"
~
|
|
Lensman
02-24-2010
18:55 UT
|
QT - Jay P Hailey wrote:
> writing a story, you have to lock your
> slider bars. I don't know if it's possible to be perfectly
> in-line with an-unmagical, perfectly probable science fiction
> tale.
You
certainly need to pick a set of assumptions and what I call a "reality
level", and stick to it. The storyteller needs to be
consistent,
so the audience can suspend its disbelief. I can enjoy hard-SF, I can
enjoy fantasy, I can and most definitely do enjoy cartoons. What I do
*not* enjoy is a story which can't be consistent. Frex "Star Trek:
Voyager" was terrible at consistency; it couldn't make up its mind from
one week to the next how time travel works, and many other
vacillations; certain superhero comic book titles, which under one
writer might seem to be almost hard-SF, and under another nearly pure
fantasy, with little if any regard for the laws of physics.
It's
even possible to successfully juxtapose different levels of reality.
The movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" scored a bull's-eye with this,
IMHO, in correctly using the tropes of cartoons (especially "cartoon
physics") and contrasting them with real-world situations, to great
comic effect. But then there's "Space Jam", which tried to do the same
thing and failed, getting it WRONG. Frex, "Space Jam" had the old gag
of a car falling from a great height but stopping just before it hit
the ground because it ran out of gas. Now if this had been a *cartoon*
car, it would have been appropriate. But it wasn't-- it was a real
car, and should have followed real-world laws of physics!
> Heinlein in his writings on the topic described his methods,
> picking one imaginary thing and then speculating based on the
> question "What if this were true?"
If
I recall correctly, Niven quotes H.G. Wells in saying "You're allowed
one 'funny thing' per story." Of course, in SF, particularly in
hard-SF, the author tries to make the "funny thing", the fantastic
element, as plausible as possible by using scientific realism, or at
least pseudo-scientific plausibility.
> Back inna day, the classic Science Fiction Authors seemed to
> regard it as part of "The Game" to add only careful, specific
> pieces of "techno-magic" (FTL drives and so on) and then
> speculate with careful attention to detail. Apparently Fans
> would run the math and let you know if you got something about
> orbital ballistics, or other subset pf physics wrong, outside of
> the context of your speculative device.
Hal
Clement specifically refers to "the game", by that name, in his
"Whirligig World" article which has been published as a preface for
/Mission of Gravity/, at least in the Ballantine paperback edition I
have.
> One of the interesting things about Piper is how little and how
> specifically he speculated about "Impossible" things.
Yes,
in most of his THFH stories Piper preferred to keep things as low-tech
as possible other than a handful of advanced technologies. But I
wouldn't say the same about the Paratime stories. Those appear to me
to be further toward the magical end of the "/Science/Tech ... to ...
magical" spectrum. Edging closer to fantasy as opposed to hard-SF.
Interesting
you say "back inna day". Have more modern SF writers abandoned the
idea of "just one funny thing"? Certainly those writing about
something beyond "the singularity" do. I suppose this is
part-and-parcel of the modern emphasis on developing the social
background
and emphasizing characters over plot. If the focus of your story is
the "one funny thing", then it does seem appropriate to stick to that.
Perhaps it's less appropriate if the focus of the story is elsewhere.
I
dunno. Over on the LarryNiven-l discussion list, we keep going over
the implications of /Ringworld/. What would it be like living on an
enormous ring-shaped artifact with an artificially constructed habitat?
What would the viewing conditions be like, looking thru the
atmosphere of a world with no horizon, where the landscape *rises* in
the far distance? How is spin-induced gravity different from natural
gravity? We're still discovering new wrinkles to discuss, even 40 years
after the book was published. Of course, /Ringworld/ does not have
just the *one* funny thing. It also has near-magical technologies such
as invulnerable GP hulls, stasis fields and the impossibly strong
/scrith/ of which the Ringworld is constructed.
I think it's too
bad that this discussion list is so restrictive of considering Piper's
works within a larger context, and even tries to suppress discussion
of SF in general, as though Piper's works existed in a vacuum.
Personally, I think it's just as interesting to compare Pipers' works
to other SF writers as it is to consider his works as though they are
alone in the hard-SF category. In many cases, *more* interesting.
Heinlein had a lot of influence on Piper's writings, I think that's
pretty clear. Probably other writers had influence worthy of
discussion, also.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
Jay P Hailey  02-24-2010
17:36 UT
|
I like the scale, Lensman.
The thing is, when writing a story,
you have to lock your slider bars. I don't know if it's possible to be
perfectly in-line with an-unmagical, perfectly probable science fiction
tale.
Heinlein in his writings on the topic described his
methods, picking one imaginary thing and then speculating based on the
question "What if this were true?"
Back inna day, the classic
Science Fiction Authors seemed to regard it as part of "The Game" to add
only careful, specific pieces of "techno-magic" (FTL drives and so on)
and then speculate with careful attention to detail. Apparently Fans
would run the math and let you know if you got something about orbital
ballistics, or other subset pf physics wrong, outside of the context of
your speculative device.
One of the interesting things about Piper is how little and how specifically he speculated about "Impossible" things.
(There
was that news item a few months ago showing that, basically
Carniculture vats are moving out of the realm of FTL drives and entering
the realm of 15 - 20 years away)
I counted because other
than Abbott Lift-and-Drives, Dillingham Hyperspace Drives and
Collapsium, Pipers other assumptions are mild and easily lost of you're
not paying attention - Piper stayed consistent in the THFH with this
technology, making it unusual in this regard.
Jay ~Meow!~
|
|
David Johnson
02-24-2010
15:23 UT
|
~
Jon Crocker wrote:
> I'd expect any society Piper depicted as the 'good guys' would
> assume responsible conduct, but wouldn't a sigma-ray needler be
> taking things a bit far? Some jurisdictions allow open carry of
> sidearms - fair enough, but if someone isn't responsible and
> does something bad with it, well, there are a number of
> ballistics labs about to help track down who did it.
I
think this may be a political question. It's clear Beam's politics
left him comfortable with a society where firearms were ubiquitous and
forensic science was not yet the norm. . . .
> If sigma rays really do leave absolutely zero trace, I'd expect
> the powers that be to keep those restricted. After all, don't
> want those proles getting out of hand!!
>
> Of course, the obvious answer is sigma rays leave no trace to
> anyone but the home time line...
Not
necessarily. It may just be that proles were not allowed the same
access as Home timeliners--and punished severely for any
transgressions.
David
--
"You know any kind of observation that doesn't contaminate the thing observed, professor?" - Tortha Karf (H. Beam Piper),
_Lord_Kalvan_of_Otherwhen_
~
|
|
David Johnson
02-24-2010
15:09 UT
|
~
Jim "Rhino" Sparr wrote:
> As far as a civilian market, IMHO thermonuclear
> mining charges are probably available on HTL, along with any
> drug you prefer, and sigma ray weapons as well. Notice what
> laws the Paracops are never mentioned enforcing. Probably a
> high ranking noble, at least, could get anything they wanted.
> We know they owned antigravs and spaceships, probably both
> nuclear or mass converter powered. I would expect that the
> culture assumes responsible conduct, and the nobles are jealous
> of their rights.
I
think you're probably right, which is why the conflict between the
Paracops and the Organization behind the Wizard Traders is likely to
get so deadly, particularly because even by "Time Crime" the
Organization was willing to bring the battle from outtime to Home Time Line.
David
--
"Our rulers are the barbarians among us. There isn't one of
them
. . . who is devoted to civilization or anything else outside
himself, and that's the mark of the barbarian." - Otto Harkaman (H.
Beam Piper), _Space_Viking_
~
|
Jim "Rhino" Sparr 02-24-2010
04:24 UT
|
Sigma ray weapons are apparently only a First Level device. Nobody else
is ever mentioned as having them. I'd not be surprised if they left
traces First Level pathologists could identify.
By the way, as noted in some previous postings, HTL people are very questionable "good guys" by our standards here and now.
|
Jon Crocker 02-24-2010
01:39 UT
|
Ok, so "ladies' model" was a descriptor used "in the business" and not a
manufacturer's specification. That makes more sense, thanks.
I'd
expect any society Piper depicted as the 'good guys' would assume
responsible conduct, but wouldn't a sigma-ray needler be taking things a
bit far? Some jurisdictions allow open carry of sidearms - fair
enough, but if someone isn't responsible and does something bad with it,
well, there are a number of ballistics labs about to help track down
who did it.
If sigma rays really do leave absolutely zero
trace, I'd expect the powers that be to keep those restricted. After
all, don't want those proles getting out of hand!!
Of course, the obvious answer is sigma rays leave no trace to anyone but the home time line...
Ah
well, too much thinking! I enjoyed the Bond article which explains
why, just as Vall had a ladies' model needler, Bond wouldn't use a
British make of pistol like a Webley, too large and bulky.
|
Jim "Rhino" Sparr 02-22-2010
21:53 UT
|
Some female detectives I have known favored an S&W .38 pistol called
the "Lady Smith" because it fit both their hands and purses better. As
far as a civilian market, IMHO thermonuclear mining charges are
probably available on HTL, along with any drug you prefer, and sigma ray
weapons as well. Notice what laws the Paracops are never mentioned
enforcing. Probably a high ranking noble, at least, could get anything
they wanted. We know they owned antigravs and spaceships, probably both
nuclear or mass converter powered. I would expect that the culture
assumes responsible conduct, and the nobles are jealous of their rights.
|
|
|
Spam deleted by QuickTopic 01-24-2014 06:09
|
|
Glenn G. Amspaugh
02-22-2010
04:34 UT
|
Piper may have been thinking of something along the lines of the Walther
PPK and making a joke about it? I have a Walther PP copy and I find
that a bit small, compared to my 1911. Here in the states, we were never
that big on small caliber weapons. At least, not since the Civil War.
Gilmoure
On Feb 21, 2010, at 9:16 PM, QT - Jon Crocker wrote:
< replied-to message removed by QT >
|
Jon Crocker 02-22-2010
04:16 UT
|
I'm reading Kalvan again, and early on they introduce the sigma-ray
weapon the paratimers have that kills without leaving a mark - "he just
died."
Later, when Vall is first going into Hostigos Town, he
opens his bronze coffer and in there he has his "ladies' model"
sigma-ray, as deadly as the full sized version but much small.
Now,
there's no police force or military I know of that uses ladies' models
of its weapons for female officers or troops, which infers a civilian
market for sigma-ray weapons.
Do the Home Time Line coroners have a lot of cases where "he just died?" Does anyone sell "sigma-ray-proof vests"?
Or am I just over-analyzing a throw-away line? :)
|
|
David Johnson
02-13-2010
06:01 UT
|
~
Gilmoure wrote:
> Just got Fireseed Wars in the mail. Gorgeous book and first rate
> layout. Can't wait to read it!
Mine arrived today. Love Alan Gutierrez's jacket painting too
("Queen
Rylla's Throne" I believe it's titled). Looking forward to reading
the yarn which, as John notes, is the first installment to take us
beyond the events of the 1989 novella "Siege at Tarr-Hostigos."
Down Styphon!
David
--
"At
the time of his death, H. Beam Piper was writing at the top of his
form and certainly with the best of his contemporaries." - John. F.
Carr, Introduction to _Empire_
~
|
|
David Johnson
02-08-2010
02:49 UT
|
~
Folks,
You will recall an earlier posting which drew your
attention to this interview with author John G. Hemry in which he
mentions the
influence of Beam upon his work:
http://focusonsff.blogspot.com/2008/01/johnjack-campbell-hemry-
interview.html
[Apologies if that URL wraps at one of the dashes.]
Mr.
Hemry's novella "Swords and Saddles" appears in the April 2010 issue
of _Analog_, on sale at newsstands now. Hemry suggests that "Piper
fans should see an echo of the Lord Kalvan tales" in this yarn. I've
been enjoying Hemry's Lost Fleet series and can hardly wait to dive
into "Swords and Saddles."
Enjoy,
David
--
"I
remember, when I was just a kid, about a hundred and fifty years
ago--a hundred and thirty-nine, to be exact--I picked up a fellow on
the Fourth Level, just about where you're operating, and dragged him a
couple of hundred parayears. I went back to find him and return him
to his own time-line, but before I could locate him, he'd been
arrested
by the local authorities as a suspicious character, and got himself
shot trying to escape. I felt badly about that. . . ." - Tortha Karf,
"Police Operation"
~
|
|
David Johnson
02-05-2010
05:18 UT
|
~
Jim "Rhino" Sparr wrote:
> If we aren't working to give mankind "super-science", extend
> Man's reach and grasp at least by supporting the concept, we're
> a waste of skin and resources. FTL, paratime, mental amplifiers
> like the Lens, antigravity, vacuum energy, etc. are all possible
> because we can conceive them. We just don't know how yet.
> Writers like Beam and Doc, among others, have been very
> inspirational to me.
Beam
has been a source of inspiration to me as well but, in addition to
his storytelling, because of his sociology rather than his
technology.
Beam's take on the broad strokes of human history, on the
timelessness of human interactions, are what make his yarns relevant
and even exciting half a century after he was writing them and in an
era when most of his technological prognostications seem quaint and
old fashioned.
David
--
"Good things in the long run are often tough while they're
happening." - Otto Harkaman (H. Beam Piper), _Space_Viking_
~
|
Jim "Rhino" Sparr 02-05-2010
04:43 UT
|
After some meditation on the subject, I've got the following for you to chew on.
Just
because we can't do it now, don't call it fantasy. When I was a kid
reading pulps and the ink was barely dry on my ham license, the
frequencies my cell phone and microwave oven use were specialist
territory and transistors were new and experimental. Flat screen
monitors were impossible, the biggest computer in the world would be
dwarfed in capability by the one I use now, and its clock speed was
considered impossible when I predicted gigahertz clocks twenty two years
ago. I grew up in a world where people could laugh at my interests as
"Buck Rogers crap". Apollo 11 and ICBM's made them stop laughing.
If
we aren't working to give mankind "super-science", extend Man's reach
and grasp at least by supporting the concept, we're a waste of skin and
resources. FTL, paratime, mental amplifiers like the Lens, antigravity,
vacuum energy, etc. are all possible because we can conceive them. We
just don't know how yet. Writers like Beam and Doc, among others, have
been very inspirational to me.
|
|
David Johnson
02-03-2010
15:39 UT
|
~
Yet Another Gentle Reminder
--
David "Lensman" Sooby wrote:
> Jim Rhino Sparr wrote:
>
>> Before somebody points out the obvious, Beam never produced a
>> "Stranger in a Strange Land" or space operas involving Oz
>> characters, Burroughs's Martians, and Lensmen coexisting,
>> either. I think he tried to write sci-fi "intacta", pardon the
>> observation.
>
[snip]
>
> Piper's works were, in my opinion, always "hard against the
> stop" of rational, never venturing the slightest toward the
> surreal. But Piper did venture away from
> scientific/technological toward the magical (or at least
> spiritual) in some of his works; particularly the reincarnation
> and "laterally moving consciousness" mumbo-jumbo in Paratime.
Other
than these two bits, the last several messages have begun to wander
away from our focus here on Piper. There are plenty of places on the
'Net to have a general discussion about themes and motifs in
speculative fiction. This isn't one of them, so, please, let's work a
bit more diligently to keep our comments here focused on Beam and his
work.
Thanks,
David
--
"Why, here on Odin there
hadn't been an election in the past six centuries that hadn't been
utterly fraudulent. Nobody voted except the nonworkers, whose votes
were bought and sold wholesale, by
gangster bosses to pressure
groups, and no decent person would be caught within a hundred yards of
a polling place on an election day." - Emperor Paul XXII (H. Beam
Piper), "Ministry of Disturbance"
~
|
|
David Johnson
02-03-2010
15:32 UT
|
~
Jim "Rhino" Sparr wrote:
> I think we disagree semantically about the nature of "fantasy".
No,
I don't think so. I'm comfortable with most of what you've offered
as explanation. Where we disagree, and it ain't much, is on where we
would place a couple of Beam's less well known yarns in these
categories.
> "Flight From Tomorrow" is no more "fantasy" than RAH's "Solution
> Unsatisfactory" or the "Roads Must Roll" are. They were written
> as hard SF with good engineering but faulty premises.
Again,
I see your general point but am merely skeptical this is what
happened with "Flight." I think Beam's premise, that people had
"evolved" to become "radioactive," if it was written in 1949-50, was
not simply faulty but fantastical. I may be mistaken.
> "Dearest" falls in the same gray area as Beam's "Time and Time
> Again", or "Last Enemy". Beam appears to have believed in a
> paraphysical reality coexisting with a material, nut-and-bolts
> universe. Again, this isn't "fantasy", it's philosophical
> theorizing written as a story, like Kipling's "The Finest Story
> In The World" or some of Wells's stuff.
Again,
I agree with your general point about yarns like "Time" and "Enemy"
(and even "Hunter Patrol") but "Dearest," it seems to me, is in a
different category that isn't merely philosophically different but
again fantastical. Your mileage may vary.
David
--
"Heinlein can do what he likes. I prefer to keep my heroine
_virgo_intacto_ until the end." - H. Beam Piper
~
|
|
Lensman
02-03-2010
10:28 UT
|
QT - Lensman wrote:
> What the frack? This Bulletin Board system ate my arrows! Let's try
> again; the three scales I mentioned are:
Tanj, it did it again! Okay, forget the arrows:
hard-SF . . . to . . . soft SF
scientific/technological . . . to . . . magical
rational . . . to . . . surreal
(I hope that's clear!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
Lensman
02-03-2010
10:25 UT
|
QT - Lensman wrote:
> There are various "scales" of infinite grades within the genre
> of SF. The scale of:
>
> hard sf soft sf
What the frack? This Bulletin Board system ate my arrows! Let's try again; the three scales I mentioned are:
hard-SF < - - - > soft SF
scientific/technological < - - - > magical
rational < - - - > surreal
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
Lensman
02-03-2010
10:20 UT
|
QT - Jim Rhino Sparr wrote:
> I'll drop this now, but the Silver Fox pointed out to me that
> some friends and I settled this during a lubricated discussion
> at a post-con party about three decades ago. If you do it by
> technology and science, no matter how far fetched, it's sci-fi.
> Examples: "The High Crusade"; "Angel's Egg"; "The City And The
> Stars", "A Trace Of Memory", Paratime as a series. If you do it
> by magic (without benefit of Clarke's Law), or in defiance of
> known historical, sociopolitical, or scientific reality; it's
> fantasy. Examples: "The Colour out of Space", Fafrd and the
> Grey Mouser, anything Conan, "Myth Adventures", most of Poe
Humans like to put things into nice neat pigeonholes. But sometimes things don't fit so well.
Niven
describes /Dune/ as "almost fantasy". I wouldn't go that far, but I
*do* use a category of "science fantasy" which contains stories with
the *trappings* of SF but none of the scientific rigor of hard-SF;
stories such as Burroughs "Barsoom" novels fit there. Some might call
those outright fantasy, and I won't argue the point.
But there is an infinite variety along the scale: hard-SF <--> fantasy.
At
one end is extra-hard-SF like Allan Steele's works; moving on, we find
traditional hard-SF like Hal Clement wrote; then fairly hard SF but
with a few "magical" technologies and/or psionics, as in Niven's Known
Space series; further away from hard-SF are universes which may appear
to be based on real science, but when you look closer there's some
fantasy under the surface, such as /Dune/ or "Star Wars" or the
/Lensman/
series; then there's outright science fantasy, such as superhero
comics or Barsoom; and finally, at the far end of the scale, opposite
hard-SF, is high fantasy or "heroic fiction", such as Conan or /Lord of
the Rings/.
And there's no way you can possibly divide everything into two neat categories of "SF here" and "fantasy there".
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
Lensman
02-03-2010
10:01 UT
|
QT - Jim Rhino Sparr wrote:
> Before somebody points out the obvious, Beam never produced a
> "Stranger in a Strange Land" or space operas involving Oz
> characters, Burroughs's Martians, and Lensmen coexisting,
> either. I think he tried to write sci-fi "intacta", pardon the
> observation.
There are various "scales" of infinite grades within the genre of SF. The scale of:
hard sf <---> soft sf
...is well recognized, as is the scale of...
scientific/technological <---> magical
...but there's at least a third:
rational <---> surreal
...and
surreal SF is not at all the same thing as fantasy. Surely no one
would lump PK Dick's surreal world backgrounds onto the same category
with the high fantasy of Middle Earth (/The Lord of the Rings/)!
Piper's
works were, in my opinion, always "hard against the stop" of rational,
never venturing the slightest toward the surreal. But Piper did
venture away from scientific/technological toward the magical (or at
least spiritual) in some of his works; particularly the reincarnation
and "laterally moving consciousness" mumbo-jumbo in Paratime.
Heinlein's
writings were more varied; Heinlein was not afraid to take a few steps
toward surrealism... and occasionally more than just a few, in such
works as /The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag, "Them", and-- the
extreme case-- "All You Zombies".
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
|
Lensman
02-03-2010
09:41 UT
|
QT - Jim Rhino Sparr wrote:
> I think we disagree semantically about the nature of "fantasy".
> "Flight From Tomorrow" is no more "fantasy" than RAH's "Solution
> Unsatisfactory" or the "Roads Must Roll" are. They were written
> as hard SF with good engineering but faulty premises. Smith's
> inertialess drive fits here too, as Heinlein once laughingly
> pointed out, "Bouncing off every speck of dust.....".
No,
the /Lensman/ series definitely does not qualify as hard-SF. It's
super-science in spades! Smith's inertialess ships are propelled by
drive jets composed of inert gas, in a hand-waving fashion; his heroes
carry tiny "accumulator" batteries apparently capable of storing
infinite power, and DeLamenter blasters which can vaporize not only the
bad guy but the wall behind him, somehow without putting out enuff heat
to roast bystanders or themselves. Most outrageous of all, since
apparently atomic energy is insufficient, he has his ships powered by
the fantasy device of limitless "cosmic energy"!
Now, it is true
that Smith built a very logical and well thought out framework for how
inertialessness would work, and the consequences of the technology; but
that doesn't alter the fact that the framework of /Lensman/ technology
rests on a foundation of fantasy, and not science.
Hard-SF demands
that a story adhere to scientific theory as it exists when the work is
written. According to Hal Clement, we should give a special
dispensation to FTL travel, and who am I to argue with one of the
leading lights of hard-SF? But the /Lensman/ series just doesn't
qualify. Call it pulp SF, call it space opera, call it super-science--
but hard-SF it ain't.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
Jim "Rhino" Sparr 02-03-2010
05:38 UT
|
I'll drop this now, but the Silver Fox pointed out to me that some
friends and I settled this during a lubricated discussion at a post-con
party about three decades ago. If you do it by technology and science,
no matter how far fetched, it's sci-fi. Examples: "The High Crusade";
"Angel's Egg"; "The City And The Stars", "A Trace Of Memory", Paratime
as a series. If you do it by magic (without benefit of Clarke's Law),
or in defiance of known historical, sociopolitical, or scientific
reality; it's fantasy. Examples: "The Colour out of Space", Fafrd and
the Grey Mouser, anything Conan, "Myth Adventures", most of Poe, and the
Congressional Record.
Had you going, didn't I?
|
Jim "Rhino" Sparr 02-03-2010
04:40 UT
|
Before somebody points out the obvious, Beam never produced a "Stranger
in a Strange Land" or space operas involving Oz characters, Burroughs's
Martians, and Lensmen coexisting, either. I think he tried to write
sci-fi "intacta", pardon the observation.
|
Jim "Rhino" Sparr 02-03-2010
04:18 UT
|
I think we disagree semantically about the nature of "fantasy". "Flight
From Tomorrow" is no more "fantasy" than RAH's "Solution
Unsatisfactory" or the "Roads Must Roll" are. They were written as hard
SF with good engineering but faulty premises. Smith's inertialess
drive fits here too, as Heinlein once laughingly pointed out, "Bouncing
off every speck of dust.....".
"Dearest" falls in the same gray
area as Beam's "Time and Time Again", or "Last Enemy". Beam appears to
have believed in a paraphysical reality coexisting with a material,
nut-and-bolts universe. Again, this isn't "fantasy", it's philosophical
theorizing written as a story, like Kipling's "The Finest Story In The
World" or some of Wells's stuff. By the way, I can't dismiss Dunne's
theories or the possibility of reincarnation either. It's hard to prove
a negative.
I'm defining fantasy here as absolute
impossibilities, surrealism, and adult fairy stories like much of ERB's
work, Steven King's, Lovecraft, some of Heinlein's works like "The
Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag", etc., where known physical
reality is ignored or denied, rather than amplified or added to. Beam,
to my knowledge, always left a bridge to believable reality, no matter
how narrow it was.
|
|
David Johnson
02-03-2010
00:27 UT
|
~
Jim "Rhino" Sparr wrote:
> Let me rephrase "fantasy". Try "regularly setting aside known
> physical laws and facts without explanation to further a story".
> Better?
I
agree with your point generally but even here, we have to wonder
about "Flight from Tomorrow" (_Future_, September/October 1950).
Of
course, I suppose it's possible this yarn was written several years
before it was published. One thing we know about Beam is that he was
always willing to make a sale. :)
David
--
"You know any kind of observation that doesn't contaminate the thing observed, professor?" - Tortha Karf (H. Beam Piper),
_Lord_Kalvan_of_Otherwhen_
~
|
Jim "Rhino" Sparr 02-02-2010
23:58 UT
|
Let me rephrase "fantasy". Try "regularly setting aside known physical
laws and facts without explanation to further a story". Better?
|
|
David Johnson
02-02-2010
23:39 UT
|
~
Jim "Rhino" Sparr wrote:
> If Beam had known better he'd have done it right.
Agreed.
> He wasn't into fantasy.
Oh, I don't know about that. Consider "Dearest" (_Weird_Tales_, March 1951).
David
--
"You
know, it's never a mistake to take a second look at anything that
everybody believes." - Rodney Maxwell (H. Beam Piper),
"Graveyard of Dreams"
~
|
Jim "Rhino" Sparr 02-02-2010
23:15 UT
|
No author up to the present ever got his planetology for made-up worlds
anywhere close to right, or his star systems layouts correct, because it
was only recently that we had the data to base it on. Both Earth and
the Solar System are rare freaks, Earth because of its plate tectonics,
and the system because of its age, metallicity, and planetary
arrangement by the Titius-Bode rule. The exploration of the other solar
planets has shown us that Earth is unusual in its geology. Exoplanet
discoveries and other astrophysical studies of nearby stars have shown
us that the system itself is peculiar compared to its neighbors.
If Beam had known better he'd have done it right. He wasn't into fantasy.
|
|
David Johnson
02-02-2010
20:58 UT
|
~
Gilmoure wrote:
> Was Earth destroyed at the end of the first Federation, before
> Space Viking? Can't remember if that's mentioned or just
> implied.
Ah,
this is one of the great mysteries of the Future History! We never
hear of the fate of Terra in _Space_Viking_ nor in any of the later
yarns from the (first) Galactic Empire. Terra appears in "The
Keeper," of course, but looking back from the era of the _Fifth_
Galactic Empire it's difficult to discern Terra's fate after the fall
of the Federation.
Which raises another interesting possibility. Looking at the
Federation
from the perspective of the Viking era or from Empire era yarns like
"A Slave is a Slave" we know that the interstellar
civilization
established at Marduk--and later moved to Odin--is the "first"
Galactic Empire, but from the perspective of the galactic civilization
of "The Keeper" might not the Terran Federation be considered to be
the _first_ Terrohuman interstellar "empire"?
Remember Ashmodai! Remember Belphegor!
David
--
"We
talk glibly about ten to the hundredth power, but emotionally we
still count, 'One, Two, Three, Many.'" - Otto Harkaman (H. Beam
Piper), _Space_Viking_
~
|
|
Gilmoure
02-02-2010
18:55 UT
|
Was Earth destroyed at the end of the first Federation, before Space Viking? Can't remember if that's mentioned or just implied.
Thanks,
Gilmoure
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:52 AM, QT - David Johnson <
qtopic-42-tnfVKeAH3s4T@quicktopic.com> wrote:
>
< replied-to message removed by QT >
|
|
David Johnson
02-02-2010
18:52 UT
|
~
Jay P Hailey wrote:
> Okay - does anyone know precisely HOW the Terran Federation
> Ended? Was it that sort of social-cultural-governmental decay
> we see in decrepit "empires", or was it something else.
We've
had some rather vigorous discussions before about the scale of the
destruction associated with the collapse of the Terran Federation but
it seems clear from _Space_Viking_ that the devastation was
widespread, with many Federation worlds beaten back into barbarism and
only a "dozen and a half" which managed to maintain the
civilization
of the Terran Federation into the Space Viking era. Given that, it
would seem the "Interstellar Wars," as they were known to Empire era
peoples, were much more "vigorous" than would be
suggested by a slow, civilizational decline.
My
sense is that the late Federation was wracked by a series of
secession wars, some of which made the System States War look like a
hockey match. I suspect as well that before it was all over there
were not simply wars between the remnants of the Federation and
various secessionist states but also among some of the secessionist
states themselves. One can imagine original Federation forces which
rebelled, changed sides, and rebelled yet again, as well as
secessionist
forces which battled against each other, changing sides as the course
of events unfolded. Indeed, Chalmers envisions "space pirates" from
this era too.
Indeed, given the callousness with which the Space
Vikings looks at planetary destruction, one has to assume that their
experience of the devastation in the Old Federation was of human
tragedy on a scale beyond the imagination of Federation era peoples.
Remember Ashmodai! Remember Belphegor!
David
--
"Our rulers are the barbarians among us. There isn't one of
them
. . . who is devoted to civilization or anything else outside
himself, and that's the mark of the barbarian." - Otto Harkaman (H.
Beam Piper), _Space_Viking_
~
|
|
David Johnson
02-02-2010
18:40 UT
|
~
Jay P Hailey wrote:
> Okay. Does anyone have any insights into how H Beam Piper began
> his world building?
I'm
not sure Beam paid all that much attention to planetology. Sociology
seemed to be his focus, but even there I'd have trouble finding many
clear patterns.
> I have always been flummoxed, really stonkered at his world
> building, and I'd love to be able to, for example, describe new
> worlds in a THFH setting and have them be identifiably
> Piper-flavored.
The
best theme I've been able to identify is that there always seems to
be some sort of connection between the world's name and some
characteristic of the world that oftentimes was not known to the
people who actually named it. (This was a very post-modern move on
Beam's part.) Sometimes this connection is very tenuous. Take
Tanith, for example, the patron goddess of Carthage, the Classical
power which challenged the Roman Empire for control of the
Mediterranean world but that was ultimately defeated and conquered by the Romans.
> Or add details to worlds we know by name only,
> and similarly, keep them piper-flavored.
I
think if you make some connection, the less obvious the better,
between the world's name and some characteristic of the world, then
you may succeed in making it "Piper-flavored."
Good luck,
David
--
"Heinlein can do what he likes. I prefer to keep my heroine
_virgo_intacto_ until the end." - H. Beam Piper
~
|
|
David Johnson
02-02-2010
17:33 UT
|
~
Jay P Hailey wrote:
>> Have you read Piper's own article on his Future History?
>
> Is that posted some where?
There's a link to it under "Non-fiction and commentary" here:
http://www.zarthani.net/bibother.htm
Enjoy,
David
--
Sci-Fi Worlds of H. Beam Piper: http://www.zarthani.net
H. Beam Piper's Lord Kalvan Saga: http://www.hostigos.com
~
|
|
|
Spam deleted by QuickTopic 10-28-2012 07:16
|
|
Mike Robertson
02-02-2010
06:52 UT
|
As far as a Future History, Heinlein did that first; the
influence of Heinlein on Piper's writings is unmistakable.
Similarly, Hal Clement was the master of creating unusual
worlds as background for his SF novels, most memorably the
"Whirligig world" in /Mission of Gravity/.
That's not to belittle Piper's achievements; he was
unquestionably one of the best SF authors of the sixties. But
to say "none of his
contemporaries matched him for creating interesting and unusual
environments" is quite an exaggeration. Piper stood on the
shoulders of giants.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Let's not forget one of the original giants in creating odd worlds. E.E. Doc Smith!
Mike Robertson
|
Jay P Hailey 02-02-2010
06:43 UT
|
> Have you read Piper's own article on his Future History?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Clear ether!
> Lensman
Is that posted some where?
Jay ~Meow!~
|
|
|
Spam deleted by QuickTopic 10-28-2012 07:16
|
|
Lensman
02-02-2010
04:04 UT
|
QT - Jay P Hailey wrote:
> Does anyone have any insights into how H Beam Piper began
> his world building?
>
> His world building is unique for his era. Seriously None of his
> contempoaries matched him for creating interesting and unusual
> environments for his stories to play out in. Uller Uprising and
> Four Day Planet come to mind.
Piper
didn't "build" the world of Uller. As John F. Carr notes in
"Introduction to /Uller Uprising/", it was published as part of an
omnibus of three stories, all based on a "speculative science" article,
"The Silicone World" by Dr. John D. Clarke.
As far as a Future
History, Heinlein did that first; the influence of Heinlein on Piper's
writings is unmistakable. Similarly, Hal Clement was the master of
creating unusual worlds as background for his SF novels, most memorably
the "Whirligig world" in /Mission of Gravity/.
That's not to
belittle Piper's achievements; he was unquestionably one of the best SF
authors of the sixties. But to say "none of his
contemporaries matched him for creating interesting and unusual
environments" is quite an exaggeration. Piper stood on the shoulders of giants.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clear ether!
Lensman
Visit the Incompleat Known Space Concordance at:
http://www.freewebs.com/knownspace/
|
Jay P Hailey 02-02-2010
03:37 UT
|
Okay - does anyone know precisely HOW the Terran Federation Ended? Was
it that sort of social-cultural-governmental decay we see in decrepit
"empires", or was it something else.
Does Piper say much about it? As I recall, Space Viking is somewhat Vague on the notion.
Jay ~Meow!~
|
Jay P Hailey 02-02-2010
03:35 UT
|
Okay. Does anyone have any insights into how H Beam Piper began his world building?
His
world building is unique for his era. Seriously None of his
contempoaries matched him for creating interesting and unusual
environments for his stories to play out in. Uller Uprising and Four
Day Planet come to mind.
Although the Sword Worlds, Tanith,
Zarathustra and Poictesme come off as very conventional Earth-Like
worlds, they each have their own little descriptive bits that give them
character.
I have always been flummoxed, really stonkered at
his world building, and I'd love to be able to, for example, describe
new worlds in a THFH setting and have them be identifiably
Piper-flavored. Or add details to worlds we know by name only, and
similarly, keep them piper-flavored. Thank for your input.
Jay ~Meow!~
|
|
Jay P Hailey
02-02-2010
03:27 UT
|
> A Time Tunnel like series based on Paratime would fly on several
> levels, great adventure, but one wonders how much Verkan and his
> culture would be seen as heroes given their exploitation of the
> other timelines and their general arrogance and complacency.
> What they fight most to do is maintain their comfortable status
> quo. What gives "Kalvan" its particular sparkle is Calvin
> Morrison's rise to power as a transplanted one of us.
Agreed.
You'd have to emphasize Calvin's personal "Good Guy Code" and mae the
stories personal, about how how cannot stand by and let injustice
reign.
In many cases, Pipers characters read somewhat philosophical
and detached from the question, until it's time to take action. Then
there's white hats and black hats and who's been practicing with their
firearms lately.
Jay ~Meow!~
|
|
|
New Topic
My Topics
Views:
35310
(Unique:
9358
) / Subscribers:
27 | What's this?