David "PiperFan" Johnson  07-31-2020
23:46 UT
|
~
James "jimmyjoejangles" Romanski wrote:
> Just got a Michael Whelan art book and these were in it
Thanks for sharing these, James. I had not seen the Fuzzy sketches before.
~Four-Day Planet~ is one of my favorite Piper illustrations by Whelan.
Cheers,
David
P.S.
James has been working diligenty to post--and re-post--images but the
Forum site hasn't been cooperating well. Sorry 'bout that.
--
"I
don't understand computers: Why, I don't even understand the people who
understand computers!" - Juliana, Queen of the Netherlands
~
|
| |
Messages 2130-2128 deleted by author between 07-31-2020 04:42 PM and 07-31-2020 04:05 PM |
jimmyjoejangles 07-31-2020
13:50 UT
|
That’s it
|
jimmyjoejangles 07-31-2020
00:23 UT
|
You probably have seen most but there you are.
|
| |
Messages 2125-2124 deleted by author 07-30-2020 07:04 PM |
jimmyjoejangles 07-30-2020
23:59 UT
|
Try again
|
| |
Messages 2122-2121 deleted by author between 07-30-2020 07:59 PM and 07-30-2020 07:01 PM |
jimmyjoejangles 07-30-2020
22:52 UT
|
Just got a Michael Whelan art book and these were in it don’t know if you have seen them.
|
Gregg Levine 07-21-2020
02:10 UT
|
It is interesting David J, that you would quote his intro. It happens I
grew up near that facility and even took the tour they gave of the
facility. And "Day of the Moron" was one story I did read whilst still
in that neighborhood. And I found his anecdote to be rather interesting.
I also find it interesting given the location Piper chose for that
facility on LI . Because the local power company nearly did build one.
They were forced to decommission it rather than get the papers needed to
open and run it.
|
David "PiperFan" Johnson 07-21-2020
01:45 UT
|
~
From the Archives: "McGuirk: Intro Anecdote"
Back in the
early days of the old PIPER-L mailing list we started a practice of
introducing ourselves at some point after we'd joined the list. It's a
good practice and I hope it continues.
Below is Mike's original
submission from May 2000. He notes that while some of the specifics of
his life circumstances are a bit different today, the anecdote remains
one of his favorite stories.
---
Subject: Intro Anecdote
From: Michael McGuirk
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 20:16:54 -0400
Hello. My name is Mike McGuirk, and I would like to introduce myself
by way of a Piper-fan anecdote.
I am a machinist/ toolmaker by trade. Although I'm now a shop foreman
at the age of forty, my job is still very "hands on". One of the many
reasons I am a fan of H. Beam Piper is that he wrote about; and by
extension, had some regard for; those who could build and do things. Piper
didn't just write about lawyers and politicians.
I worked for a while in field service with Westinghouse repairing
power generation steam turbines and some of their ancillary systems, with
large portable equipment. Many times we machinists were responsible for
millions of dollars of equipment and down-time income reductions. The
majority of our engineer leadership had worked their way up through the
ranks, but we had a handful of college grads who wouldn't know which end of
a wrench to pick up.
I graduated a three year machinist program and one of my fellow
Williamson classmates and I were working at the Indian Point Nuclear
Facility. (Anyone remember "Day of the Moron"?) My friend Rich and I were
B.S.ing with a group of engineers and Rich made an observation
(unremembered) of a higher order than an ape would make. One of the elitist
engineers sneered the comment "Next thing you know the machinists will be
quoting Toynbee!"
Well, by some happy coincidence, I had just read John Carr's intro
to"Federation" and was able to say, "Oh yeah, Toynbee. The historian whose
cyclical view of history included the three phases; the universal state,
the time of troubles, and the interregnum."
The laughter at the engineer's expense gave me a warm and fuzzy
feeling inside, and made him much easier to deal with after that.
Thanks Messrs. Piper and Carr.
-----
Mike's original message is available here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080310053430...r-l&T=0&F=&S=&P=133
Cheers,
David
--
"Considering
the one author about whom I am uniquely qualified to speak, I question
if any reader of H. Beam Piper will long labor under the
misunderstanding that he is a pious Christian, a left-wing liberal, a
Gandhian pacifist, or a teetotaler." - H. Beam Piper, "Double: Bill
Symposium" interview
~
|
David "PiperFan" Johnson 07-07-2020
00:48 UT
|
~
Mike wrote:
> I think the phrase still works without explanation. Given
> Piper's lack of love for organized labor, I think he was
> more interested in the common usage than expecting
> that readers would need know the origins*.
[snip]
> I would say Piper's use of the phrase still works today,
> even if the reference to the ditty it came from isn't
> common knowledge.
Here,
I think, is the nub. I agree readers may not need to understand the
concept's origins but they ~do~ need to understand what it's saying
"without explanation."
In my opinion--and we all know what those
are like--the phrase "oomphel in the sky" no longer actually makes
sense, even if contemporary readers may have heard the term "pie in the
sky" from their grandparents or something.
That British sitcom
Tim pointed to, about the semi-retired cop working at his wife's pie
shop, is a good example. I doubt anyone watching episodes of that show
today would be asking themselves, "Why does the wife seem to be taking a
subtle jab at people of faith with the name of her shop?"
For
most folks the "in the sky" part is just there to rhyme with "pie." They
don't recognize that it's an allusion to "heaven" and a skeptical
allusion at that--which is the point Gilbert is making when he "turns a
phrase" and drops the "pie" (at which point the "in the sky" part no
longer even rhymes).
It's nonsensical without the early mid-20th Century sensibility the reader must bring to the story to understand it.
> And as far as changing the original work; it's hard because
> the temptation to change sometimes goes too far.
Agreed, for editors, these are the differences between good editing and poor editing.
Cheers,
David
--
"I
don't know what plans you have for a next story project, but the
world-picture you've been building up in the Sword Worlds stories, or
Space Viking stories, or whatever you designate the series, offers some
lovely possibilities." -- John W. Campbell (to H. Beam Piper)
~
|
pennausamike 07-06-2020
16:42 UT
|
Piperfan David wrote:
"I'm with you here but--tell the truth--how
many times had you read "Oomphel" before you ~really~ understood that
Gilbert dismissed the Kwann belief in "oomphel in the sky" in the same
sort of way early American Marxists dismissed Christian religious
faith?"
Umm, never? I think the phrase still works without
explanation. Given Piper's lack of love for organized labor, I think he
was more interested in the common usage than expecting that readers
would need know the origins*. And I consider the sentiment rather
universal among athiests. There is a line in Firefly where Captain
Reynolds says putting your faith in God is waiting for a train that
doesn't show up. I would say Piper's use of the phrase still works
today, even if the reference to the ditty it came from isn't common
knowledge. It never was for me until today.
Going back to Shakespeare, here's a phrase I think everyone still "gets" even without knowing what the literal meaning is:
"Hoist
with his own petard" is a phrase from a speech in William Shakespeare's
play Hamlet that has become proverbial. The phrase's meaning is
literally that a bomb-maker is blown up ("hoist" off the ground) by his
own bomb (a "petard" is a small explosive device), and indicates an
ironic reversal, or poetic justice.
Once again, I never knew the
literal bomb reference, only the, "done in by your own devices" meaning.
On the one hand, I get your concept in not dating the phraseology. On
the other hand, being dated is what makes some things interesting or
nostalgic.
And as far as changing the original work; it's hard
because the temptation to change sometimes goes too far. When Spielberg
added a couple of cool scenes to "ET" (like the ocean liner in the
desert) that he didn't have the budget for originally, it made the movie
better in my eyes. George Lucas, on the other hand has messed with the
original Star Wars so much over so many iterations, it waters down both
the quality and nostalgia of the original.
*The phrase is
originally from the song “The Preacher and the Slave” (1911) by
Swedish-American labor activist and songwriter Joe Hill (1879–1915),
which he wrote as a parody of the Salvation Army hymn “In the Sweet
By-and-By” (published 1868). The song criticizes the Salvation Army for
focusing on people’s salvation rather than on their material needs:
You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You’ll get pie in the sky when you die.
Both definitions from Wikipedia, because it easier to copy-and-paste than type for me. I never learned.
|
David "PiperFan" Johnson 07-06-2020
15:30 UT
|
~
Mike "pennausamike" McGuirk wrote:
> My favorite adaptation of "Taming of the Shrew" is the
> "Moonlighting" episode.
I loved that show. Had a huge crush on Maddie, of course. Jumped the shark just seven episodes later though. . . .
> My original point on Piper stories is still that part of what
> they "are", and what speaks to me, are the influences and
> culture landmarks of the time that they were written.
I'm
with you here but--tell the truth--how many times had you read
"Oomphel" before you ~really~ understood that Gilbert dismissed the
Kwann belief in "oomphel in the sky" in the same sort of way early
American Marxists dismissed Christian religious faith?
> Changing a slide rule to a pocket computer doesn't mess
> with the essence of the stories as much as trying to adapt
> 1950's and '60's culture references to modern day relevance.
FWIW,
I think a key aspect of what makes Scalzi's Fuzzy reboot so bad is his
attempt to make it relevant to "contemporary sensibilities." When I have
written fiction in Beam's universe I have tried, as much as possible
while staying true to Beam's practice, to use "timeless" descriptions.
When someone initiates the jump to hyperspace they "activate the
control" rather than "turn the lever." It's a small change which lets
someone who sees the control panel of a 1950s spacecraft in their mind
and someone who imagines the virtual motion-sensing display of an early
21st century starship both understand what's happening.
> I get that others see or want different things from Piper's
> works; I'm just sharing my take.
I
don't believe we're so far apart, Mike. I'm looking for a different
title for "Oomphel" simply so that folks who weren't born during the
Depression can still enjoy the story the way Beam intended without
reading through pages of end notes or spending half-an-hour
interrogating Alexa or Siri. . . .
Cheers,
David
--
"A
girl can punch any kind of a button a man can, and a lot of them know
what buttons to punch, and why." - Conn Maxwell (H. Beam Piper),
~Junkyard Planet~
~
|
David "PiperFan" Johnson 07-06-2020
04:31 UT
|
~
Tim Tow wrote:
> When I was growing up, pie in the sky was a common
> expressions so I find Oomphel in the Sky to be an
> appropriate and understandable title without the need
> for a footnote.
I
remember the term from my childhood too, but I never understood it to
be part of a critique of Christianity (or religious faith
generally)--which is essential to understanding the context in
"Oomphel."
> Now I get the Star Trek comment about preferring
> Shakespeare in the original Klingon. :)
What I haven't been able to figure out is, which Klingon is supposed to be Simba and which is Scar? ;)
Cheers,
David
--
"Have
you ever fought an idea, Picard? It has no weapons to destroy, no body
to kill!" - Gowron, Klingon Chancellor (Ronald D. Moore), ~Star Trek:
The Next Generation~, "Rightful Heir"
~
|
Tim Tow 07-06-2020
04:11 UT
|
When I was growing up, pie in the sky was a common expressions so I
find Oomphel in the Sky to be an appropriate and understandable title
without the need for a footnote. As recently as 1997, there was a BBC TV
series named Pie in the Sky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pie_in_the_Sky_(TV_series).
>A lot of the clever word-play and dialog cadence requires the original writing to work.
Now I get the Star Trek comment about preferring Shakespeare in the original Klingon. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Klingon_Hamlet
|
David "PiperFan" Johnson 07-06-2020
03:32 UT
|
~
James "jimmyjoejangles" Romanski wrote:
> Well, what I have really been thinking about is a Fuzzy movie.
Didn't they do that already? ~Revenge of the Jedi~ or something. . . .
https://comicbook.com/starwars/news/latest...s-tribute-revenege/
> It got me thinking about who had the chops and the
> gusto to take on the role of Holloway and I came up
> with Kevin Costner.
I don't know about "chops and gusto" but it's totally Sam Elliott. Or even better, before he died, Richard Farnsworth.
Cheers,
David
--
"He
started for the kitchen to get a drink, and checked himself. Take a
drink because you pity yourself, and then the drink pities you and has a
drink, and then two good drinks get together and that calls for drinks
all around." - Jack Holloway (H. Beam Piper), ~Little Fuzzy~
~
|
David "PiperFan" Johnson 07-06-2020
02:40 UT
|
~
Mike "pennausamike" McGuirk wrote:
> If you're going to use footnotes, use them to explain the
> original reference.
A
not unreasonable option, but you still have to get (new) people to read
a yarn titled "Oomphel in the Sky" which likely makes no sense
whatsoever before they ever get to your footnote. Other than a
Shakespearean-annotated Terro-human Future History omnibus you'd need
something with minor changes that weren't highlighted.
We have
Beam's example of "Graveyard of Dreams" / ~Junkyard Planet~ but I've
also been thinking of Anderson's Dominic Flandry yarn "A Handful of
Stars," originally published in ~Amazing Stories~ in June 1959, then
expanded and reissued in an Ace "double" as ~We Claim These Stars!~ and
ultimately collected, apparently after further changes, as "Hunters of
the Sky Cave."
Apparently, Anderson routinely revised his Technic
Future History yarns to correct inconsistencies or to make them more
seemingly relevant to the contemporary readers of the time.
Cheers,
David
--
"Great
greasy comets! I might have been sitting in the Everest House with a
bucket of champagne, lying to some beautiful wench about my exploits . .
. but no, I had to come out here and do 'em!" - Dominic Flandry (Poul
Anderson), ~A Message in Secret~
~
|
jimmyjoejangles 07-06-2020
02:14 UT
|
Well, what I have really been thinking about is a Fuzzy movie. It got
me thinking about who had the chops and the gusto to take on the role of
Holloway and I came up with Kevin Costner. I recently read Dances With
Wolves and he hit it dead on! I know David Brin wasn't happy with how
The Postman turned out, but I was. Clint Eastwood handled Josey Wales
wonderfully but he's too old now. What do you think?
|
David "PiperFan" Johnson 07-06-2020
00:49 UT
|
~
James "jimmyjoejangles" Romanski wrote:
> The term meme comes from the 1976 book The Selfish
> Gene by Richard Dawkins.
Here
are a couple of knuckleheads writing about "memes"--even citing
Dawkins--in the same period when Mike and I first met in person (note
the recommendation to view this page using something called "Netscape
2.0"):
http://www.selenasol.com/selena/personal/p...mplexity_threshold/
But
it seems like, even in the absence of any "memes," the Marxist critique
of Christianity invoked by Gilbert's reference to Kwann "pie in the
sky" is largely lost on contemporary readers. It seems more likely
simply to be overlooked or not understood than to yank them "out of the
story" in the way an old-fashioned slide rule or everyone with a
cigarette does.
If it can be so easily overlooked or not understood, how can it be particularly relevant to the storytelling?
Cheers,
David
--
"The
Quintons had to leave France about the same time; they were what was
known as collaborationists." - Paula Quinton (H. Beam Piper), ~Uller
Uprising~
~
|
David "PiperFan" Johnson 07-06-2020
00:29 UT
|
~
Tim Tow wrote:
> The references reflect Piper's personal view of organized
> labor and religion
Yes,
and while Beam may been amenable to the Wobblies' view of the Salvation
Army that doesn't mean he was particularly enamoured with the Wobblies'
views generally! ;)
> so though the references are dated, they aren't necessarily
> out of date as the Salvation Army and the Wobblies are
> still in existence now.
Sure,
but I doubt many folks today, even if they're familiar with the phrase
"pie in the sky," recognize its origins as a Marxist critique of
Christianity. . . .
> Perhaps both organizations saw a resurgence in Piper's
> timelines that led to these references being as relevant
> in the TFH.
A
possibility, yes, but there don't seem to be any hooks to anything like
this in "Oomphel." The references to the "left-wing neo-Marxist
'liberalism'" of the University of Adelaide would have been a handy
place to drop a couple of pointers to some sort of "Wobbly revival" but
it seems Beam didn't do so. (I suppose editorial constraints of the time
would have prevented him from writing about anything explicitly
critical of the Salvation Army--even if it were to occur half a
millennium in the future!)
Cheers,
David
--
"The
Federation Government owns a bigger interest in the Company than the
public realizes, too. . . ." - Carlos von Schlichten (H. Beam Piper),
~Uller Uprising~
~
|
pennausamike 07-06-2020
00:18 UT
|
Also from Wikipedia:
"Writing for The Washington Post in 2013,
Dominic Basulto asserted that with the growth of the Internet and the
practices of the marketing and advertising industries, memes have come
to transmit fewer snippets of human culture that could survive for
centuries as originally envisioned by Dawkins, and instead transmit
banality at the expense of big ideas."
So I stand by my original point that memes are a fairly recent, social media driven, means of communication.
My
favorite adaptation of "Taming of the Shrew" is the "Moonlighting"
episode. I would agree there are numerous interesting adaptations of
Shakespeare, but I still don't know of a modern "translation" that
captures the original. A lot of the clever word-play and dialog cadence
requires the original writing to work. My original point on Piper
stories is still that part of what they "are", and what speaks to me,
are the influences and culture landmarks of the time that they were
written. Changing a slide rule to a pocket computer doesn't mess with
the essence of the stories as much as trying to adapt 1950's and '60's
culture references to modern day relevance. I get that others see or
want different things from Piper's works; I'm just sharing my take.
|
jimmyjoejangles 07-05-2020
22:18 UT
|
The term meme comes from the 1976 book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.
|
pennausamike 07-05-2020
22:18 UT
|
If you're going to use footnotes, use them to explain the original reference.
Hummph-woosh.
|
Tim Tow 07-05-2020
22:18 UT
|
> I've never seen an update of Shakespeare that conveyed the essence of the original in an updated version,
I rather liked 10 Things I Hate About You, which is a retelling of the Taming of the Shrew.
Maybe one day they will make the Hamlet version starring Arnold Schwarzenegger that was teased in Last Action Hero. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continu...e8&feature=emb_logo
|
Tim Tow 07-05-2020
18:43 UT
|
The references reflect Piper's personal view of organized labor and
religion so though the references are dated, they aren't necessarily out
of date as the Salvation Army and the Wobblies are still in existence
now. Perhaps both organizations saw a resurgence in Piper's timelines
that led to these references being as relevent in the TFH.
|
David "PiperFan" Johnson 07-05-2020
18:30 UT
|
~
Mike "pennausamike" McGuirk wrote:
> I'm not sure how far the original value of the story telling
> would have to be watered down or changed to make it
> connect with today's audience.
I
agree that Abrams's ~Star Trek~ was no ~West Side Story~ or ~The Lion
King~ but I'm not talking about a Piper "reboot" like Scalzi's ~Fuzzy
Nation~. I'm talking about simple editorial changes along the lines of
Poul Anderson's change of the title of ~Star Ways~ to ~The Peregrine~
when it was reissued a year after the premier of ~Star Wars~. Or perhaps
the way that "the Brain" became "Merlin"--and Sylvie Jacquemont
replaced Lynne Fawzi--when Beam expanded "Graveyard of Dreams" into a
novel.
Would "Oomphel" ~actually~ be "watered down" if it was
retitled something like "The Terran Spiritual and Magical Assistance
Agency"--with a footnote explaining the change--and Gilbert's final
comment instead read "When they die, they'll go to the Place of the Gone
Ones, and have oomphel in paradise, and they will live forever in new
bodies. . ."?
Speak on, Grandfather of Grandfathers!
David
--
"Let's see yours. Draw--soul! Inspection--soul!" - Foxx Travis (H. Beam Piper), "Oomphel in the Sky"
~
|
pennausamike 07-05-2020
14:09 UT
|
My short answer would be, it denudes the stories to try to make them fit
current sensibilities, just as JJ Trek and JJ Star Wars hold ZERO
interest for me. They both did well financially, but I found no
connections with the characters whatsoever. I watched the first JJ
Trek, and the kindest thing I can say about it is I loathed the
characters, the story, the acting, the sets, the props and even the
cinematography. I feel like the actual future is not the future I was
looking forward to. Instead of cities in the oceans and spinning wheel
space stations, the future is an entire planet of zombies staring into
their cell phones who can't even turn on a coffee pot without an app to
do it for them. Five years ago there wasn't even any such thing as a
"meme", and now it seems to be the dominant way for people to
communicate.
I'm not sure how far the original value of the
story telling would have to be watered down or changed to make it
connect with today's audience. I hate to be totally dismissive of the
idea, because lack of relevance is why I can't enjoy Shakespeare without
a concordance to translate all the words and phrases that don't mean
today what they meant hundreds of years ago. But I would say, I've
never seen an update of Shakespeare that conveyed the essence of the
original in an updated version, and I think the same may apply to Piper.
|
David "PiperFan" Johnson 07-05-2020
04:14 UT
|
~
"When they die, they'll go to the Place of the Gone Ones, and have
~oomphel~ in the sky, and they will live forever in new bodies. . . ."
That's
Miles Gilbert, early in the 8th Century, Atomic Era, making a reference
to an early 20th Century--First Century, Pre-Atomic--"Wobbly" parody of
a Salvation Army hymn:
"You will eat, bye and bye
In that glorious land above the sky
Work and pray, live on hay
You'll get pie in the sky when you die"
Those
are historical-cultural references that may have been familiar to
Beam's readers in 1960 but it seems doubtful they would actually have
made sense to Miles Gilbert--much less to Foxx Travis or Edith Shaw.
More importantly, they also likely make little or no sense to folks
reading "Oomphel in the Sky" today more than half a century after it was
published (and more than a century after the original Wobbly parody)
Gilbert
is drawing an analogy between the ~shoonoon~ promise of a Kwann
afterlife and the promise of a Christian afterlife. Gilbert is just as
skeptical of the shoonoon's promise as the Wobblies were of the
Salvation Army's.
What I'm wondering--without trying to provoke a
conversation with which some might take offence--is if there is a less
historically-bound way to make a similar point.
Honestly, I've
not been able to think of an alternative. A contemporary editor could
simply drop--or rephrase--Gilbert's "~oomphel~ in the sky~ reference
with little difficulty (e.g. ". . . and have ~oomphel in paradise . .
."), except that it's also the title of the story.
Any suggestions?
Cheers,
David
--
"Considering
the one author about whom I am uniquely qualified to speak, I question
if any reader of H. Beam Piper will long labor under the
misunderstanding that he is a pious Christian, a left-wing liberal, a
Gandhian pacifist, or a teetotaler." - H. Beam Piper, "Double: Bill
Symposium" interview
~
|
David "PiperFan" Johnson 06-01-2020
15:03 UT
|
~
Mike writes:
> From a story telling viewpoint, maybe it would have
> made more sense for Chalmers to be buried away in a
> civilian contractor office in a basement somewhere,
> serving as a flesh-and-blood Merlin to the founders of
> the 1st Federation.
This,
of course, is the most interesting question we're left with in "Edge":
did Chalmers survive and, if so, was early Terran civilization able to
take advantage of his "future memories."
My sense is that, at
least the second part, never happened. The way the future history
unfolded: U.S.-led Terran Federation, a subsequent Fourth World War, a
~second~ Federation formed--after the Northern Hemisphere is destroyed,
is all within a reasonable time frame of any Chalmers-informed planners
and yet events happened in a way that was disastrous for everyone in the
Northern Hemisphere.
Unless Chalmers survived the Thirty Days'
War and then somehow managed to make his way to Australia, South Africa
or Uruguay (or, perhaps, U.S.-held Antarctica), I'm guessing he never
left Northern State Mental Hospital.
Cheers,
David
--
"I
was trying to show the results of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire
after the First World War, and the partition of the Middle East into a
loose collection of Arab states, and the passing of British and other
European spheres of influence following the Second." - Edward Chalmers
(H. Beam Piper), "The Edge of the Knife"
~
|
|
|
New Topic
My Topics
Views:
35310
(Unique:
9358
) / Subscribers:
27 | What's this?