On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:25:27 +0200, "Gilles Tran"
<gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:

>"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
>a9fg54l5btk1s87hemar5bm6ht4d3si961@4ax.com...
>
>> Shakespeare is inappropriate for children, they cannot understand the
>> language. Who amongst us understands the joke in Troilus and Cressida
>> when someone asks where Ajax is and the answer is "Looking for
>> himself" You need to know that Ajax sounds like "a jacksie" or an old
>> fashioned name for a toilet. That is he was crapping himself.
>
>Actually I think that's what makes it particularly suitable for children (or 
>at least young teenagers). The fact that the dirty jokes and innuendos have 
>to be explained to modern audiences - and some, like the "two backed beast", 
>don't really have to - does not make them less palatable. There's a healthy 
>dose of slapstick and crude humor in Shakespeare that makes it very 
>attractive to kids, provide you give them the keys of course.
>
That's the argument that I used to use until I realised that it was my
own personal likes I was trying to promote. Anyway it is not taught
like that in Britain, at least not when I was at school. We were given
school editions with the obvious smutty bits cut out. (Put your hand
to the buttery bar etc.) We concentrate on the "beauty" of the
language, the relevance to modern day and "you will learn it 'cause I
say so. Not on the entertainment and fun. Countrie matters, rustics
and rude mechanicals are treated as something to apologise for. (Even
The Great Shakespeare had to pander to the base tastes of the paying
public.) 
OK I'll get down off my high horse, whether it costs me my kingdom or
not :)
Yes! Stephen get down off the stove you're too old to be riding the
range :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> OK I'll get down off my high horse, whether it costs me my kingdom or
> not :)

Jesus... I've never seen anybody actually give a **** about mere 
Shakespeare before! o_O

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:04 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>and to which modern  
>readers would be going "Huh?"

Do you think so? 

It is subtle by his lights, try from Midsummer Nights Dream.

THISBY. O wall, full often hast thou beard my moans,
    For parting my fair Pyramus and me!
    My cherry lips have often kiss'd thy stones,
    Thy stones with lime and hair knit up in thee.
…

THISBY. I kiss the wall's hole, not your lips at all.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:27:43 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>
>> OK I'll get down off my high horse, whether it costs me my kingdom or
>> not :)
>
>Jesus... I've never seen anybody actually give a **** about mere 
>Shakespeare before! o_O

Well you've never lived.

'Tis but a passion :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> Most neutral term seems to be "didn't know" or "don't know" - "John didn't  
> know what happened last night" oops "John can't remember what happened  
> last night" ;-)

  A problem happens when you need a noun instead of a verb. For example in
something like "John is ashamed of showing is ignorance about what happened
last night".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:17:33 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Most neutral term seems to be "didn't know" or "don't know" - "John  
>> didn't
>> know what happened last night" oops "John can't remember what happened
>> last night" ;-)
>
>   A problem happens when you need a noun instead of a verb. For example  
> in
> something like "John is ashamed of showing is ignorance about what  
> happened last night".

"John is ashamed of admitting that he doesn't know what happened last  
night"

Amazing how it is possible to reword almost anything :-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:42:25 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:04 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> and to which modern
>> readers would be going "Huh?"
>
> Do you think so?

In this particular instance something like 'My Lord doth doff his cap' I  
think it was just an attempt to show that unless you lived at that time  
and in that culture you can't truely appreciate the plays to their fullest.

> It is subtle by his lights, try from Midsummer Nights Dream.
>
> THISBY. O wall, full often hast thou beard my moans,
>     For parting my fair Pyramus and me!
>     My cherry lips have often kiss'd thy stones,
>     Thy stones with lime and hair knit up in thee.
> …
>
> THISBY. I kiss the wall's hole, not your lips at all.

and of course almost anything that Mercutio utters in R&J :-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:19:22 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>>> Or any game, really, that's rigged so the house wins most of the
>>>> time.
>>> Same thing applies, tho. I win most of the time.  I lose bigger, but I
>>> win most of the time.
>> 
>> Depends on the game.  I can manage to win pretty consistently at
>> blackjack regardless of whether I win individual hands or not - with
>> enough money, that's easy to do using a simple geometric progression
>> and some restraint to "stick to the plan".  But if I put the idea into
>> practice in Las Vegas, I'd probably end up banned from the casinos if I
>> won too much.  The house doesn't like to lose, and they don't like when
>> people who understand how to turn the odds in their favour show up and
>> provide a real-world demonstration that it is in fact possible.
>> 
>> Even still, if you're careful, you can manage to do this and not get
>> caught at it - changing tables or casinos frequently makes it very
>> difficult for them to track a pattern.  Not following the geometric
>> progression exactly also helps make it less obvious.
>> 
>> Some games are rigged closely enough to 50/50 odds that most people
>> don't think about the fact that they're not.  Roulette is one like
>> that; IIRC, your odds of winning are not 50% but 47%.
> 
> I love the way people say "rigged". I mean, you walk up to a towering
> casino that's using 200 kW to light up half the Vegas night sky, and you
> wonder how they pay for this? Well *obviously* the dice are stacked in
> their favour - if it weren't, they'd go out of business pretty damned
> fast. ;-) It's their *job* to take your money way... They just do a good
> job of making it look like "luck".

Yep, and they're very, very protective of making sure they *keep* winning 
and the patrons *keep* losing.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:15:13 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Meh. Who gets to decide what is or is not "obscure" anyway?

The collective.  If most people know something, it's not obscure, it's 
common knowledge.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:29:15 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 17 Jun 2008 22:31:59 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:12:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:08:07 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>"Lead on, McDuff"
>>> 
>>> "Lay on MacDuff..."  ;)
>>
>>I'm still trying to figure out what Richard's got to do with it.....
>>
>>
> That's a whoosh! Way over my head ???

Richard MacDuff (though I'd actually have to check to see it if it really 
was "MacDuff" rather than "McDuff", but I'm fairly certain the 'A' is 
there), one of the principal characters in "Dirk Gently's Holistic 
Detective Agency".

At least I didn't say "Billy Boyd". :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 18 Jun 2008 11:53:00 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
wrote:

>> That's a whoosh! Way over my head ???
>
>Richard MacDuff (though I'd actually have to check to see it if it really 
>was "MacDuff" rather than "McDuff", but I'm fairly certain the 'A' is 
>there), one of the principal characters in "Dirk Gently's Holistic 
>Detective Agency".
>

He was the most obvious when I googled Richard MacDuff but I could not
see the relevance. But then I come from a place where MacDuff is not
uncommon. I remember the local band, Fred MacDuff and the duffers :)

>At least I didn't say "Billy Boyd". :-)
>
The Northern Ireland Labour Party activist? No? The Scottish
footballer? No? maybe the actor?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 
> When I can't remember what happened last night, I like to make believe 
> that I got laid, and the extreme chemical rush was the cause of my 
> amnesia... ;-)
> 

http://bash.org/?868223

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> 
> No injuries, thankfully. I think we only had one person slip while 
> playing Tennis, and bowling in socks on a hardwood floor is just asking 
> to learn to do splits. I can just imagine someone going to the doctor 
> with a sprained wrist or elbow . . .
> Doc: "What have you been doing that might have caused this?"
> Patient: "Well, I've just been playing with my Wii."

Reminds me of Naked gun 33 1/3 (if someone remembers the English 
captions, feel free to fill up - I don't think Finnish will say much).

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:

> http://bash.org/?868223

Hooooooohhhhhhhmygod!!!

My brain is hurting just from the mental image of that! >_<

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:54:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> It's like Stan Lee's cameo as a panhandler/beggar in Spider Man. It's
>> funnier if you know it's Stan Lee[1].  It's doubly funnier if you know
>> he didn't, due to contractual bits, get any royalties from the movie.
> 
> He seems to do a lot of those in the Marvel Comics' movies.  I think he's 
> been in each one of them, in fact.

It's in his contract, actually. They're obligated to put him in each movie.

> Had a good laugh when he turned up in Iron Man, ostensibly as Hugh 
> Heffner.  Of course, he was credited in the credits as playing "himself".

Yeah. Or the one in the Silver Surfer movie, where they don't let him 
into the wedding because he doesn't have an invitation, and he's all 
"But I'm Stan Lee!"

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_(TV_series)

Yep. *That* is the plot summary I remember. :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:03:28 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 18 Jun 2008 11:53:00 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>> That's a whoosh! Way over my head ???
>>
>>Richard MacDuff (though I'd actually have to check to see it if it
>>really was "MacDuff" rather than "McDuff", but I'm fairly certain the
>>'A' is there), one of the principal characters in "Dirk Gently's
>>Holistic Detective Agency".
>>
>>
> He was the most obvious when I googled Richard MacDuff but I could not
> see the relevance. But then I come from a place where MacDuff is not
> uncommon. I remember the local band, Fred MacDuff and the duffers :)

There was no connection other than the name tripped that memory in my 
mind. :-)

>>At least I didn't say "Billy Boyd". :-)
>>
> The Northern Ireland Labour Party activist? No? The Scottish footballer?
> No? maybe the actor?

Yes, the actor. ;-)  Played Richard in the radio version of DGHDA. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:07:09 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Eero Ahonen wrote:
> 
>> http://bash.org/?868223
> 
> Hooooooohhhhhhhmygod!!!
> 
> My brain is hurting just from the mental image of that! >_<

Oedipus, eat your heart out....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:28:29 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:54:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> It's like Stan Lee's cameo as a panhandler/beggar in Spider Man. It's
>>> funnier if you know it's Stan Lee[1].  It's doubly funnier if you know
>>> he didn't, due to contractual bits, get any royalties from the movie.
>> 
>> He seems to do a lot of those in the Marvel Comics' movies.  I think
>> he's been in each one of them, in fact.
> 
> It's in his contract, actually. They're obligated to put him in each
> movie.

Ah, now I didn't know that.  Still, it's cool that they're doing that.

>> Had a good laugh when he turned up in Iron Man, ostensibly as Hugh
>> Heffner.  Of course, he was credited in the credits as playing
>> "himself".
> 
> Yeah. Or the one in the Silver Surfer movie, where they don't let him
> into the wedding because he doesn't have an invitation, and he's all
> "But I'm Stan Lee!"

You know, I need to rent that one and see it - I wanted to see it in the 
cinema, but we never got around to it.  I'm thinking we need to go see 
Hulk in the next day or so (taking a couple days off work).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>> Now, I'll grant that making movie references (like to the Wicked 
>> Witch), I discounted that you're in a foreign country and maybe they 
>> don't show that classic amazingly famous movie on TV every single 
>> year. But it *is* classic *and* amazingly famous.
> 
> And it is also a movie that I really, really hate.

So you've seen it, but you don't think you'd recognise the music to it? 
And if person A called person B a "wicked witch of the west", you 
wouldn't know what they're talking about?

(FWIW, American Film Institute (the folks who bring you the Oscars) had 
a show yesterday of the top-10-top-10 movies. Wizard of Oz was the #1 
fantasy movie of all times. So, yeah, it's part of the culture, I'd 
think. :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
news:op.ucxp5dx0c3xi7v@news.povray.org...
> And lo on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:38:57 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
> did spake, saying:
>
> > This is another link to something like it:
> >
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/travelstories/article/monkeyingaroundinchina_120
6/
> > The start of the monkey king's journey to the west (i.e., into India) is
> > where the movie itself basically ends. This describes much more like the
> > story I remember, with the staff and golden headband.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_(TV_series)
>

Awesome. Thank you both.

Post a reply to this message

>> And it is also a movie that I really, really hate.
> 
> So you've seen it, but you don't think you'd recognise the music to it? 
> And if person A called person B a "wicked witch of the west", you 
> wouldn't know what they're talking about?

I'd recognise several of the musical numbers that happen during the 
film, just not the particular bit you mentioned. I hadn't noticed that 
particular correlation.

To know what "the wicked witch of the west" means, I doubt it's 
necessary to have seen the film at all! :-P

> (FWIW, American Film Institute (the folks who bring you the Oscars) had 
> a show yesterday of the top-10-top-10 movies. Wizard of Oz was the #1 
> fantasy movie of all times. So, yeah, it's part of the culture, I'd 
> think. :-)

Part of *who's* culture? Personally, I don't even know where Kansas 
*is*! :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:31:36 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_(TV_series)
>
> Yep. *That* is the plot summary I remember. :-)

Worrying at the time as I thought Tripitaka* was cute and the character  
kept being referred to as a male; that's the sort of thing that can screw  
up a young lad :-P

*http://www.infonauta.net/postmortem/url/2.htm

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> Oedipus, eat your heart out....

It could be worse:

http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1041

Or even

http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1047

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 18 Jun 2008 19:41:15 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
wrote:


>> He was the most obvious when I googled Richard MacDuff but I could not
>> see the relevance. But then I come from a place where MacDuff is not
>> uncommon. I remember the local band, Fred MacDuff and the duffers :)
>
>There was no connection other than the name tripped that memory in my 
>mind. :-)
>

Phew! That's a relief :)


>>>At least I didn't say "Billy Boyd". :-)
>>>
>> The Northern Ireland Labour Party activist? No? The Scottish footballer?
>> No? maybe the actor?
>
>Yes, the actor. ;-)  Played Richard in the radio version of DGHDA. :-)
>

As much as I like reading SF I don't really like watching it or
listening to plays. They never live up to the promise :)
I really liked DGHDA and was pissed off he died. As, no doubt, he was
:)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:43:35 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:


>In this particular instance something like 'My Lord doth doff his cap' I  
>think it was just an attempt to show that unless you lived at that time  
>and in that culture you can't truely appreciate the plays to their fullest.
>

True I see


>> THISBY. I kiss the wall's hole, not your lips at all.
>
>and of course almost anything that Mercutio utters in R&J :-)
>

I've never noticed that but I'm bad at quotes.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> To know what "the wicked witch of the west" means, I doubt it's 
> necessary to have seen the film at all! :-P

That's because of culture. :-)

> Part of *who's* culture? Personally, I don't even know where Kansas 
> *is*! :-P

That's kind of the point. :-) It's a "nowhere" kind of place even in the 
USA, to people who live on the coasts.  Calling someplace "Kansas" is 
saying there's nothing of interest there.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:21:21 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:

>
>That's kind of the point. :-) It's a "nowhere" kind of place even in the 
>USA, to people who live on the coasts.  Calling someplace "Kansas" is 
>saying there's nothing of interest there.

He he, I take it you're not from Kansas, Toto ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Or any game, really, that's rigged so the house wins most of the time.
> 
> Same thing applies, tho. I win most of the time.  I lose bigger, but I 
> win most of the time.
> 
> Losing $1 just doesn't hurt as much as losing $1,000,000.  It's not all 
> the numbers in the game. It's also the numbers outside the game.
> 

Where is there a lottery that offers 1/100 odds for a 1,000,000 times 
return?

Now, would you play a lottery that cost $1 with 1/100 odds, that offered 
you a share of $10,000 divided between all the winners?

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Where is there a lottery that offers 1/100 odds for a 1,000,000 times 
> return?

Sure. Fifty billion dollar buy-in. Let me know when you're ready to go.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Where is there a lottery that offers 1/100 odds for a 1,000,000 times 
>> return?
> 
> Sure. Fifty billion dollar buy-in. Let me know when you're ready to go.
> 

I'd like to see some documents pertaining to the money reserved to pay 
the prize. I think I could get a loan for 200 tickets with that 
information. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> Personally, I don't even know where Kansas 
> *is*! :-P
> 

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/30_years_of_mans_life_disappear_in

Though the article is littered with cultural references like 'fly-over 
states' it does still tell you a bit about the meaning of Kansas in pop 
culture.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> I'd like to see some documents pertaining to the money reserved to pay 
> the prize. I think I could get a loan for 200 tickets with that 
> information. ;-)

Limit one per customer.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:23:10 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 18 Jun 2008 19:41:15 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
> 
>>> He was the most obvious when I googled Richard MacDuff but I could not
>>> see the relevance. But then I come from a place where MacDuff is not
>>> uncommon. I remember the local band, Fred MacDuff and the duffers :)
>>
>>There was no connection other than the name tripped that memory in my
>>mind. :-)
>>
>>
> Phew! That's a relief :)

It must've been (sorry, been away a few days on holiday - didn't go 
anywhere, just unplugged for a few days).

>>>>At least I didn't say "Billy Boyd". :-)
>>>>
>>> The Northern Ireland Labour Party activist? No? The Scottish
>>> footballer? No? maybe the actor?
>>
>>Yes, the actor. ;-)  Played Richard in the radio version of DGHDA. :-)
>>
>>
> As much as I like reading SF I don't really like watching it or
> listening to plays. They never live up to the promise :) I really liked
> DGHDA and was pissed off he died. As, no doubt, he was :)

Yes, I imagine he was.  The thing about audio SF is that it leaves 
everything to your imagination.  One of the reasons, no doubt, for my 
great disappointment in the H2G2 film was because it didn't live up to my 
imagination.  Except for the factory floor scene where the earth was 
being built - that far exceeded my expectations.

But as Adams always was keen to say (paraphrasing), the brilliance of Sci-
Fi (or Sci-Fantasy, if you will) is that it bypasses the optic nerve 
entirely, meaning you can do *whatever* you want; if it's written well 
enough, the audience can imagine it better than any SFX house could do it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

*blink*

Wow, that's twisted.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> *blink*
> 
> Wow, that's twisted.

Heee! I win!

Check out the most recent 3 or 4 comics. They've all been about dreams - 
so yeah, they're damned weird!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 24 Jun 2008 00:46:38 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
wrote:

>It must've been (sorry, been away a few days on holiday - didn't go 
>anywhere, just unplugged for a few days).
>

A rest can be as good as a change :)

>But as Adams always was keen to say (paraphrasing), the brilliance of Sci-
>Fi (or Sci-Fantasy, if you will) 

What I will is SF, actually ;)

>is that it bypasses the optic nerve 
>entirely, meaning you can do *whatever* you want; if it's written well 
>enough, the audience can imagine it better than any SFX house could do it.
>
My opinion exactly!
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:13:36 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 24 Jun 2008 00:46:38 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>It must've been (sorry, been away a few days on holiday - didn't go
>>anywhere, just unplugged for a few days).
>>
>>
> A rest can be as good as a change :)

Indeed.  And the rest was good, think I might go and shoot some things in 
Perfect Dark again this evening.

>>But as Adams always was keen to say (paraphrasing), the brilliance of
>>Sci- Fi (or Sci-Fantasy, if you will)
> 
> What I will is SF, actually ;)

That works as well, covers both genres.  Most people conflate "Science 
Fiction" with "Science Fantasy".  Hardcore Sci-Fi people will tell you 
that something like H2G2 isn't Sci-Fi because it doesn't include a basis 
in science - it's basis is humour, set in space.

(I used to moderate a forum years and years ago on Science Fiction - very 
interesting mix of people).

>>is that it bypasses the optic nerve
>>entirely, meaning you can do *whatever* you want; if it's written well
>>enough, the audience can imagine it better than any SFX house could do
>>it.
>>
> My opinion exactly!

:-)

I must've misunderstood what you said (not uncommon for me), but I 
thought you said you didn't like radio drama...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> That works as well, covers both genres.  Most people conflate "Science 
> Fiction" with "Science Fantasy". 

I find there's a very easy distinction to make (that many don't). 
Science Fiction explores the results on people or society of technology.

So, if you can recast it without the science/technology, it isn't SF. If 
it's completely fantastic science, but the story is about the *science*, 
then it's SF.

In that sense, Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court would be Science 
Fiction, because it was primarily about what the Yankee did with modern 
technology. Star Trek is (mostly) not science fiction.

Of course, the lines can still be blurry, but I personally don't think 
"science fiction" is about whether it's "hard" or not, but about whether 
the focus is science (or technology) or whether the focus is something 
you could equally set in the Old West or Medieval Europe.  (Indeed, Iron 
Man presented as "the first guy to invent armor in 600 AD" would count 
as "science fiction" by this definition.)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:59:23 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That works as well, covers both genres.  Most people conflate "Science
>> Fiction" with "Science Fantasy".
> 
> I find there's a very easy distinction to make (that many don't).
> Science Fiction explores the results on people or society of technology.
>
> So, if you can recast it without the science/technology, it isn't SF. If
> it's completely fantastic science, but the story is about the *science*,
> then it's SF.

I'd agree with the first paragraph you wrote - at least looking at it 
from a hardcore Sci-Fi perspective.  The other perspective, of course, is 
that what most people call Sci-Fi is a "supergenre" (if you will) that 
covers both this definition and Science Fantasy.

For the second, though, there's a blur between "fantastic science" and 
"fantasy science".

> In that sense, Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court would be Science
> Fiction, because it was primarily about what the Yankee did with modern
> technology. Star Trek is (mostly) not science fiction.

Agreed.  I would probably also put BSG in the "not science fiction" 
category using that definition, because the story is more about the 
characters and less about the technology.  The science is quite good (one 
of the few shows where I've seen actual thought put into spaceship 
physics), but the story isn't about the technology, it's about the people 
and their journey.

> Of course, the lines can still be blurry, but I personally don't think
> "science fiction" is about whether it's "hard" or not, but about whether
> the focus is science (or technology) or whether the focus is something
> you could equally set in the Old West or Medieval Europe.  (Indeed, Iron
> Man presented as "the first guy to invent armor in 600 AD" would count
> as "science fiction" by this definition.)

True enough...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> For the second, though, there's a blur between "fantastic science" and 
> "fantasy science".

Sure. I'm of the opinion you can have science fiction without credible 
science, as long as the story is about the science. FTL? No problem. 
Stasis fields? No problem.

> Agreed.  I would probably also put BSG in the "not science fiction" 
> category using that definition, because the story is more about the 
> characters and less about the technology.  The science is quite good (one 
> of the few shows where I've seen actual thought put into spaceship 
> physics), but the story isn't about the technology, it's about the people 
> and their journey.

Right. Ask yourself if you could rewrite it as a giant ocean-liner 
crossing the Atlantic in 1490, and see if the same basic plots still work.

Now, recast Niven's "Ringworld" without spaceships. Does it still work?

Or any of James Halperin's stuff, like The Truth Machine or Immortality? 
How do you write a book about the affects on society of a perfect lie 
detector if you don't incorporate the technology of a perfect lie detector?

Even something like "The Witling", a novel about earthmen accidentally 
crashing a spaceship on a planet populated by people who can magically 
teleport themselves and others would count as "SF" in my view. The story 
just doesn't fly without the "magical technology" of the teleportation, 
even tho it is completely unexplained how it works or why.

Of course, there's a fuzzy boundary.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

On 24 Jun 2008 18:59:36 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
wrote:

>Indeed.  And the rest was good, think I might go and shoot some things in 
>Perfect Dark again this evening.
>

Go for it! :)

>>>But as Adams always was keen to say (paraphrasing), the brilliance of
>>>Sci- Fi (or Sci-Fantasy, if you will)
>> 
>> What I will is SF, actually ;)
>
>That works as well, covers both genres.  Most people conflate "Science 
>Fiction" with "Science Fantasy".  Hardcore Sci-Fi people will tell you 
>that something like H2G2 isn't Sci-Fi because it doesn't include a basis 
>in science - it's basis is humour, set in space.
>
I don't know about that. I consider myself a "Hard SF" fan and think
that H2G2 is SF. Mainly because it takes the use of science or
technology to demolish the Earth. Scaling up zoning laws is acceptable
in my view.
As for using humour as a basis to discount a story as SF. Well the
good doctor was renowned for his humour.
"Who the hell cares what happens to a sabre tooth tiger" or "It takes
a pair of jacks to open" :)

>(I used to moderate a forum years and years ago on Science Fiction - very 
>interesting mix of people).
>

I bet.


>
>I must've misunderstood what you said (not uncommon for me), but I 
>thought you said you didn't like radio drama...
>

My problem is that I can seldom follow a serial as I live such a
disjointed life.
I like radio drama and often listen to recordings when driving. I
generally prefer spoken work books ´tho'.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible schrieb:
> It could be worse:
> 
> http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1041
> 
> Or even
> 
> http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1047
> 

Great, now you've got me hooked on yet another webcomic. Damn!

Manuel

Post a reply to this message

Manuel Kasten wrote:

> Great, now you've got me hooked on yet another webcomic. Damn!

Addictive, much? ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:52:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> For the second, though, there's a blur between "fantastic science" and
>> "fantasy science".
> 
> Sure. I'm of the opinion you can have science fiction without credible
> science, as long as the story is about the science. FTL? No problem.
> Stasis fields? No problem.

I personally tend towards that as well - pushing the boundaries of 
science is what it's about; Jurassic Park was science fiction, even 
though that technology doesn't exist today.  It's something that's 
possible.

I think one of the hallmarks of good Science Fiction is that the author 
does some research into the field he's writing about.

>> Agreed.  I would probably also put BSG in the "not science fiction"
>> category using that definition, because the story is more about the
>> characters and less about the technology.  The science is quite good
>> (one of the few shows where I've seen actual thought put into spaceship
>> physics), but the story isn't about the technology, it's about the
>> people and their journey.
> 
> Right. Ask yourself if you could rewrite it as a giant ocean-liner
> crossing the Atlantic in 1490, and see if the same basic plots still
> work.

Yep.  And I think they would.

> Now, recast Niven's "Ringworld" without spaceships. Does it still work?

I actually haven't read Ringworld.  Need to do that one of these days.

> Or any of James Halperin's stuff, like The Truth Machine or Immortality?
> How do you write a book about the affects on society of a perfect lie
> detector if you don't incorporate the technology of a perfect lie
> detector?
> 
> Even something like "The Witling", a novel about earthmen accidentally
> crashing a spaceship on a planet populated by people who can magically
> teleport themselves and others would count as "SF" in my view. The story
> just doesn't fly without the "magical technology" of the teleportation,
> even tho it is completely unexplained how it works or why.
> 
> Of course, there's a fuzzy boundary.

Well, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from 
magic. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:13:20 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 24 Jun 2008 18:59:36 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>Indeed.  And the rest was good, think I might go and shoot some things
>>in Perfect Dark again this evening.
>>
> Go for it! :)

Oh, I did.  Got quite good with the sniper rifle, in fact. :-)

>>>>But as Adams always was keen to say (paraphrasing), the brilliance of
>>>>Sci- Fi (or Sci-Fantasy, if you will)
>>> 
>>> What I will is SF, actually ;)
>>
>>That works as well, covers both genres.  Most people conflate "Science
>>Fiction" with "Science Fantasy".  Hardcore Sci-Fi people will tell you
>>that something like H2G2 isn't Sci-Fi because it doesn't include a basis
>>in science - it's basis is humour, set in space.
>>
> I don't know about that. I consider myself a "Hard SF" fan and think
> that H2G2 is SF. Mainly because it takes the use of science or
> technology to demolish the Earth. Scaling up zoning laws is acceptable
> in my view.

I think of H2G2 more as a social commentary/space comedy.  There are 
elements of Science Fiction in it - but it's a long ways from what Adams 
originally was thinking of for the story.  ISTR he originally had planned 
on calling it something like "The Ends of the Earth", in which each 
episode ended with the destruction of the planet.  The name "Hitchhiker's 
Guide to the Galaxy", of course, came from "Hitchhiker's Guide to Europe" 
and books of that nature, and that title occurred to him well before the 
concept of the story did.  Some would say (and I would count myself in 
this group) that he didn't really have the concept of the story down 
until *after* what is now known as the "primary and secondary" phases had 
been completed.

> As for using humour as a basis to discount a story as SF. Well the good
> doctor was renowned for his humour. "Who the hell cares what happens to
> a sabre tooth tiger" or "It takes a pair of jacks to open" :)

Oh, I wouldn't say that humour alone discounts a story as SF.

>>(I used to moderate a forum years and years ago on Science Fiction -
>>very interesting mix of people).
>>
> I bet.

One of the more interesting discussions was about whether or not Star 
Wars was Science Fiction.  One member pointed out that it is in fact a 
messiah story, with elements of being a story of redemption.  More 
religion than sci-fi.

>>I must've misunderstood what you said (not uncommon for me), but I
>>thought you said you didn't like radio drama...
>>
>>
> My problem is that I can seldom follow a serial as I live such a
> disjointed life.
> I like radio drama and often listen to recordings when driving. I
> generally prefer spoken work books ´tho'.

Ah, I see now.  I have a similar issue, don't get a lot of time to listen 
to things.  I'm working my way through some old CBS Radio Mystery Theater 
recordings from the early 70's, but the stories are self-contained.  
Conveniently, they are as long as my drive to the office is - but I only 
make the trip once or twice a week, so I only get about 4 stories in on 
any given week.  I've got about 1400 recordings in total to get through 
(9 years' worth).  Going to take some time, I think.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I personally tend towards that as well - pushing the boundaries of 
> science is what it's about; Jurassic Park was science fiction, even 
> though that technology doesn't exist today.  It's something that's 
> possible.

To me, it doesn't matter if it's actually possible or not. It's whether 
you can tell the story without the science. Saying "Imagine a movie just 
like Jurassic park, but without dinosaurs" makes no sense. There is no 
story there but for the dinosaurs. Or "Imagine back to the future, 
without a time machine."

Could you tell the Terminator story without the science? Yeah, almost 
kinda. All you need is someone who is really, really hard to kill. You 
could imagine it as some super-strong dude in the centuries where 
weapons that killed effortlessly weren't around, or a really smart 
gunslinger in the old west who took a dislike to somebody. Sort of like 
the Black Knight kind of story, or Beowulf.

I certainly prefer "hard" science, myself.

> I think one of the hallmarks of good Science Fiction is that the author 
> does some research into the field he's writing about.

Yep. Depends, of course, on what they're trying to express, tho.

I'm reading a novel right now called "star farers", basically about the 
people who get on close-to-lightspeed ships, and how it affects them, 
and how the societies react to them as they show up hundreds of years 
apart. It's 95% talking between characters, and 0.3% science, just 
enough in the beginning to let you know there's science, with lots of 
quantum mumbo-jumbo about the new inertia free drive that lets you get 
up to high tau.  But it's still science fiction, because it's about the 
time dialation, and it wouldn't make sense to tell the story without that.

> I actually haven't read Ringworld.  Need to do that one of these days.

I quite enjoyed it. The ones after were much less interesting, IMO.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:21:21 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I personally tend towards that as well - pushing the boundaries of
>> science is what it's about; Jurassic Park was science fiction, even
>> though that technology doesn't exist today.  It's something that's
>> possible.
> 
> To me, it doesn't matter if it's actually possible or not. It's whether
> you can tell the story without the science. Saying "Imagine a movie just
> like Jurassic park, but without dinosaurs" makes no sense. 

Sure it does; instead of genetically cloning dinosaur DNA, make it a 
mastadon instead.  Or a sabre-toothed tiger.

> There is no
> story there but for the dinosaurs. Or "Imagine back to the future,
> without a time machine."

That one would be a bit more difficult.  It wouldn't have to be a 
DeLorean, but yeah, that one would be hard without the science.

> Could you tell the Terminator story without the science? Yeah, almost
> kinda. All you need is someone who is really, really hard to kill. 

IOW, let's say, Predator or Rambo.

> You
> could imagine it as some super-strong dude in the centuries where
> weapons that killed effortlessly weren't around, or a really smart
> gunslinger in the old west who took a dislike to somebody. Sort of like
> the Black Knight kind of story, or Beowulf.

That'd work as well.

> I certainly prefer "hard" science, myself.

Same here; though it depends on my mood, too.  Sometimes I just want to 
watch stuff blow up.

>> I think one of the hallmarks of good Science Fiction is that the author
>> does some research into the field he's writing about.
> 
> Yep. Depends, of course, on what they're trying to express, tho.

Absolutely.

> I'm reading a novel right now called "star farers", basically about the
> people who get on close-to-lightspeed ships, and how it affects them,
> and how the societies react to them as they show up hundreds of years
> apart. It's 95% talking between characters, and 0.3% science, just
> enough in the beginning to let you know there's science, with lots of
> quantum mumbo-jumbo about the new inertia free drive that lets you get
> up to high tau.  But it's still science fiction, because it's about the
> time dialation, and it wouldn't make sense to tell the story without
> that.

I would classify it as Science Fiction for that reason, hardcore or not.

>> I actually haven't read Ringworld.  Need to do that one of these days.
> 
> I quite enjoyed it. The ones after were much less interesting, IMO.

I've heard that about the later ones.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Sure it does; instead of genetically cloning dinosaur DNA, make it a 
> mastadon instead.  Or a sabre-toothed tiger.

Let me rephrase that. Jurassic park wouldn't be the same story without 
the *cloning*.

>> Could you tell the Terminator story without the science? Yeah, almost
>> kinda. All you need is someone who is really, really hard to kill. 
> 
> IOW, let's say, Predator or Rambo.

Yeah, pretty much, now that you mention it. :-)

>> I certainly prefer "hard" science, myself.
> 
> Same here; though it depends on my mood, too.  Sometimes I just want to 
> watch stuff blow up.

Oh, hard science in novels. Movies, sure, whatever floats.

> I would classify it as Science Fiction for that reason, hardcore or not.

Right, exactly.

>>> I actually haven't read Ringworld.  Need to do that one of these days.
>> I quite enjoyed it. The ones after were much less interesting, IMO.
> 
> I've heard that about the later ones.

It also helps if you read it around the time you read some of the 
others. Otherwise, you miss a bunch of stuff the aliens do. In other 
words, there's several novels full of aliens and Louis Wu, of which 
Ringworld gives you a slice. If you don't remember the other slices, the 
slice that Ringworld gives is going to be less interesting.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:12:02 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Sure it does; instead of genetically cloning dinosaur DNA, make it a
>> mastadon instead.  Or a sabre-toothed tiger.
> 
> Let me rephrase that. Jurassic park wouldn't be the same story without
> the *cloning*.

OK, that I'd agree with.

>> Same here; though it depends on my mood, too.  Sometimes I just want to
>> watch stuff blow up.
> 
> Oh, hard science in novels. Movies, sure, whatever floats.

I think the medium does sometimes make a difference.

>>>> I actually haven't read Ringworld.  Need to do that one of these
>>>> days.
>>> I quite enjoyed it. The ones after were much less interesting, IMO.
>> 
>> I've heard that about the later ones.
> 
> It also helps if you read it around the time you read some of the
> others. Otherwise, you miss a bunch of stuff the aliens do. In other
> words, there's several novels full of aliens and Louis Wu, of which
> Ringworld gives you a slice. If you don't remember the other slices, the
> slice that Ringworld gives is going to be less interesting.

That's good to know.

Jim

Post a reply to this message