I like this new literature redone with monkees meme.
Call me BoBo. Some years ago - never mind how long precisely - having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me in the jungle, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world.
@simonbarsinister: I especially like the idea of literature redone with The Monkees.
It was a cold, bright, clear day in April, and the clocks were tolling thirteen. Davy Jones decided that this would be an excellent time to play his tamborine in the streets.
He became an archangel Michael at the end, but I don't think it was implied that he had been an angel all along. Whether assuming the existence of an afterlife makes it fantasy is up to you, but I don't think it makes it Biblical apocrypha. An afterlife that's governed by ascended human souls (and specific only to Earth) is rather different than the Biblical one.
@HiramBear: Actually, I believe the implication at the end is that souls like Archangels exist outside of time, and are repeatedly sent down to earth from heaven--the temporally-transcendent afterlife is actually Catholic canon.
And, in any case, it's not as though every particular conception of heaven isn't drawn specifically from something other than the Bible, anyway--a book which is notoriously murky about just how things after death are supposed to work.
Robot nannies, Obama's American government as nanny, either way humans will become so lazy to do anything for themselves we are doomed to let someone run our lives for us in the future.
Asimov foretold the future, where people don't even touch each other and babies are raised on human farms. We are so headed there it's not even funny.
Am I imagining the wrong end to Stranger? I thought it was revealed at the end that he was the archangel Michael. Doesn't that automatically make it a fantasy novel?
Or, alternately, biblical apocrypha, I guess.
Also, yes, it turns out that if you change some things in a book to other things, then the book will be different.
@ParryLost: Yeah, I guess so, except then you'd have to go and explain why they had psychic powers, or why they hated living in cities, or something. I mean, the idea that "wizards" is an implicitly simpler literary trope than "psychic aliens" seems to be a kind of glib approach, and overlooks the fact that the inclusion of the Martians was less about humanity's relationship to an alien consciousness (which would require some kind of alien), but humanity's relationship to a spiritually advanced consciousness.
So, yes, you could replace the Martians with Wizards, or Mole People, or flying squids from beyond the stars, or ascended Tibetan Masters, and as long as you didn't care why they lived on Mars, they'd serve largely the same purpose.
I'm still not sure that that statement doesn't miss the point of the book, though.
Wouldn't a lot of novels switch genres if you changed someone's background? Just some mention that Mr. Darcy was so perfect because he had been blessed by a fairy would make Pride and Prejudice a fantasy novel without changing anything else.
Evil Tortie's Mom: R.O.A.C.H. promoted this comment
Edited by The Curse of Millhaven at 07/29/09 2:47 PM
The Curse of Millhaven was starred
The Curse of Millhaven was unstarred
@Dr Emilio Lizardo: Oooh. What if his parents had been killed on the way home from a showing of "Zorro?" "Hey kid. Did you ever grok that dancing with the Devil in the pale moonlight is a goodness? "
Evil Tortie's Mom: R.O.A.C.H. promoted this comment
Edited by The Curse of Millhaven at 07/29/09 2:26 PM
The Curse of Millhaven was starred
The Curse of Millhaven was unstarred
@atrus123: The random homophobic comments got to me. I know it's a product of its time, etc, but still. It bothered me that, when he went out of his way to point out how we need to be more accepting and loving, he also went out of his way to create an exception to that rule.
Heinlein's work can really annoy me but he had some great quotes:
"To be matter-of-fact about the world is to blunder into fantasy - and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."
"There is no way that writers can be tamed and rendered civilized or even cured. the only solution known to science is to provide the patient with an isolation room, where he can endure the acute stages in private and where food can be poked in to him with a stick."
@disatess:
Because the original publisher wanted to cut out a lot of the controversial stuff. The edited version is the "Original" published edition. The unedited version came out later.
If Qui-Gon Jinn had less tolerance:
Jar Jar: Me likey youuuuuu!!!
Qui-Gon Jinn: What the??
Jar Jar: Oh yah, I talka funny. Look at me dancy!
Qui-Gon Jinn: Piss off
Jar Jar: No. I wanny hangy out with you!
A clearly annoyed Qui-Gon Jinn whips out lightsabre and cuts Jar Jar Binks in half.
The Empire never rises and Anakin doesn't become Darth Vader. The End.
Pointless blog post. So what if Smith knocked up a couple (several?) women? Changing that wouldn't make the book much shorter or alter the plot or the point. The rest of that post is also complete drek.
@RexMaximus: Smith was born because his mother accidentally got pregnant on the trip to Mars. That's what the point of the post was. Doesn't make it any less nonsensical though.
Yeah, I guess. But so what? Why doesn't she shut up and write her own SF novel? Then she can set up the world the way she thinks would be most realistic, instead of attacking established authors.
Anekanta promoted this comment
Edited by Anekanta - killed by a cacodemon at 07/29/09 11:09 AM
Anekanta - killed by a cacodemon was starred
Anekanta - killed by a cacodemon was unstarred
@Anekanta: I don't think she's "attacking" Helinlein. If he were around, I'm sure he'd rather have people reading and discussing his work than saying "Oooh I'm not allowed to have an opinion on Heinlein, so I'll just write about cake instead." Mmmm... cake....
And seriously, you'd better quit drinking Keith's India Pale Ale until you've developed your own hundred-year old system for fermenting yeast in pure water with hops and grains to yield a pure, crisp, refreshing drink suitable for all occasions.
(*this post brought to you by Keith's India Pale Ale).
@Charlie Jane Anders: Sorry everyone, I guess I came off more snarky than I intended. But I wasn't saying that she wasn't allowed to have an opinion. It's just that she's not actually saying a whole lot. I mean, of course story X would have been shorter or different if such and such had happened differently. But it didn't.
I just have trouble seeing how she has furthered SF, or science, or the plight of mankind with this statement.
She also points out it could be a fantasy book, without changing the plot, if "Michael Valentine Smith had been raised by wizards instead of Martians."
This is perhaps the single funniest thing I've read in the past three months. Seriously, when you think about this, it's utterly perfect, and is in fact a great, GREAT dig at Heinlein.
@Pope John Peeps II: Is it really all that insightful, though? Couldn't you change John Varley's Titan books into fantasy pretty easily by having Gaia be, well, Gaia? Couldn't you change Jane Austen into horror by adding in zombies or sea monsters? Couldn't you change Dune into fantasy by having force shields be spells? For that matter, isn't it possible that some very powerful magic could turn those recent Dune sequels into decent novels?
@dlomax: Haha to Dune. There's some nice colour on that burn.
And no to that Jane Austen thing. Jane Austen was wonderful and brilliant. You don't add anything to her books when you release campy sea monster versions, except that maybe more people will go back and read the originals.
There's a difference between changing objects, and circumstances, or themes in a book, and saying that the entire structure of the book would be exactly the same as fantasy and not science fiction. She's basically saying that Heinlein's ideas are so boring and rote that you could plug them into any situation and they'd run the same way, like a cheap old rickety machine. But can you say the same about Arthur C. Clarke? Fundamentally he had a wonder and a sort of spectacular vision that needed technology, that was at the root looking to the future.
Frank Herbert is the opposite of Heinlein. His novels are so based in character, interchange and beautiful, personal vision that I guess you could make them fantasy works and they'd still be rich and beautiful. You'd have to change a LOT of the story and plot though. You'd have to rewrite a lot.
Anyhow, I think that phrase points to the cheapness and paperiness of a Heinlein story. That's how it reads to me.
@Pope John Peeps II: I'm no Heinlein fan, beleive me, but I still think it's a cheap shot. His interest was the human future, changing values, changing circumstances, and so forth. I don't think the novel would have meant the same thing if you changed its genre. That doesn't mean I think it was good.
A few years ago, Pat Murphy wrote a really funny Hobbit pastiche that turned it into SF. If I remember right, the elves became pataphysicians or something like that. What made it a good read, though, was that changing the genre changed the meaning of the story.
I don't think a story needs to be good to have its genre be a necessary component of its meaning. All of my suggestions were meant to be facetious. Except for the Dune sequel one, though I do like worsethannormal's suggestion of a memory wipe. (But let's remember, worsethannormal, a memory wipe is an SF trope as well...)
@dlomax: I don't actually think the novel meant much of anything. I think it was basically soppy, dumb hokum done for the purpose of profit. It's filled with silly philosophy and potboiling sex scenes. Which is exactly WHY it seems like it can be ported from genre to genre. Because nothing's anchored to anything, and everything's a gimmick.
(Oddly enough, doesn't Jubal Harshaw pretty much admit this in the actual text of the book? He writes a hokum story about a kitty cat that makes his secretary tear up, but it's total bullshit. He admits constantly that a writer that can't write for money isn't really a writer. He's basically calling his reading public stupid in that work. I find it fairly offensive.)
@Pope John Peeps II: oh, i understand now. you admit it's a cheap shot but you're ok with it because you don't like Heinlein's writting. this makes more sense.
@tetracycloide: No. It's not really a cheap shot because it's accurate. A cheap shot is something that isn't earned, or isn't deserved. This is just a shot. A plain old fashioned shot, which was pretty accurate. Therefore = NOT CHEAP.
@Pope John Peeps II: exactly, you don't like his writting so you're ok with mocking it because you think it's accurate. or in other words you know what a cheap shot is and would be capable of identifying this as such if you weren't so hung up on your own opinion of his writting.
@tetracycloide: I can't figure out exactly what the fuck you're trying to say. Or at least, as far as I can figure out, what you're trying to say is incredibly stupid.
Are you saying that if I liked Heinlein's writing, I would somehow begin to regard this as a "cheap shot"? That a previously valid criticism would be invalid? I like James Joyce, but when someone says to me "his writing is impenetrable and hard to understand and so I think it's terrible", I don't find that to be a "cheap shot". It's what's called "AN OPINION". Maybe you've heard of it? It's pretty much what you're doing right now, just in case you couldn't figure that out.
A cheap shot would be... I don't know... "James Joyce was an alcoholic, so his books are terrible", or something equally stupid.
@Pope John Peeps II: Samuel Johnson said that "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." It isn't a hundred percent true, but it does kind of point to writing for profit as a reasonable, not-dishonorable enterprise. I think that Heinlein agreed with this statement.
@Pope John Peeps II: did you actually just say 'i can't understand it so it must be stupid?' with a straight face?
the point i'm trying to make really makes itself, you're hung up on yourself and what you think so much that it obfuscates reality. take dlomax as an example, dlomax admits that they're not a huge fan of Heinlein's writting and they're still capable of getting over themselves long enough to recognize a cheap shot.
@txtphile: And it doesn't mean it's 100% effective, even when used correctly. There have been plenty of people born while their mom was on the Pill right here on Earth. Pretty sure traveling to Mars might mess up your hormones and stuff.
07/30/09
Call me BoBo. Some years ago - never mind how long precisely - having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me in the jungle, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world.
07/30/09
It was a cold, bright, clear day in April, and the clocks were tolling thirteen. Davy Jones decided that this would be an excellent time to play his tamborine in the streets.
07/30/09
07/30/09
And, in any case, it's not as though every particular conception of heaven isn't drawn specifically from something other than the Bible, anyway--a book which is notoriously murky about just how things after death are supposed to work.
07/29/09
Asimov foretold the future, where people don't even touch each other and babies are raised on human farms. We are so headed there it's not even funny.
07/29/09
07/30/09
07/29/09
Or, alternately, biblical apocrypha, I guess.
Also, yes, it turns out that if you change some things in a book to other things, then the book will be different.
07/29/09
07/30/09
So, yes, you could replace the Martians with Wizards, or Mole People, or flying squids from beyond the stars, or ascended Tibetan Masters, and as long as you didn't care why they lived on Mars, they'd serve largely the same purpose.
I'm still not sure that that statement doesn't miss the point of the book, though.
07/29/09
07/29/09
What's the f'ing point?
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
"To be matter-of-fact about the world is to blunder into fantasy - and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."
"There is no way that writers can be tamed and rendered civilized or even cured. the only solution known to science is to provide the patient with an isolation room, where he can endure the acute stages in private and where food can be poked in to him with a stick."
07/29/09
You and me both Heinlein.
07/29/09
07/29/09
Because the original publisher wanted to cut out a lot of the controversial stuff. The edited version is the "Original" published edition. The unedited version came out later.
07/29/09
07/29/09
Jar Jar: Me likey youuuuuu!!!
Qui-Gon Jinn: What the??
Jar Jar: Oh yah, I talka funny. Look at me dancy!
Qui-Gon Jinn: Piss off
Jar Jar: No. I wanny hangy out with you!
A clearly annoyed Qui-Gon Jinn whips out lightsabre and cuts Jar Jar Binks in half.
The Empire never rises and Anakin doesn't become Darth Vader. The End.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
This is a good policy. In similar news, stop voting for Presidents until you yourself have been President.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
And seriously, you'd better quit drinking Keith's India Pale Ale until you've developed your own hundred-year old system for fermenting yeast in pure water with hops and grains to yield a pure, crisp, refreshing drink suitable for all occasions.
(*this post brought to you by Keith's India Pale Ale).
07/29/09
I just have trouble seeing how she has furthered SF, or science, or the plight of mankind with this statement.
07/29/09
This is perhaps the single funniest thing I've read in the past three months. Seriously, when you think about this, it's utterly perfect, and is in fact a great, GREAT dig at Heinlein.
07/29/09
07/29/09
Magic can only do so much. Maybe it can erase our memories of having read them, at least.
07/29/09
And no to that Jane Austen thing. Jane Austen was wonderful and brilliant. You don't add anything to her books when you release campy sea monster versions, except that maybe more people will go back and read the originals.
There's a difference between changing objects, and circumstances, or themes in a book, and saying that the entire structure of the book would be exactly the same as fantasy and not science fiction. She's basically saying that Heinlein's ideas are so boring and rote that you could plug them into any situation and they'd run the same way, like a cheap old rickety machine. But can you say the same about Arthur C. Clarke? Fundamentally he had a wonder and a sort of spectacular vision that needed technology, that was at the root looking to the future.
Frank Herbert is the opposite of Heinlein. His novels are so based in character, interchange and beautiful, personal vision that I guess you could make them fantasy works and they'd still be rich and beautiful. You'd have to change a LOT of the story and plot though. You'd have to rewrite a lot.
Anyhow, I think that phrase points to the cheapness and paperiness of a Heinlein story. That's how it reads to me.
07/29/09
Herbert kids: SEAWORMS! WHEEEE!
07/29/09
A few years ago, Pat Murphy wrote a really funny Hobbit pastiche that turned it into SF. If I remember right, the elves became pataphysicians or something like that. What made it a good read, though, was that changing the genre changed the meaning of the story.
I don't think a story needs to be good to have its genre be a necessary component of its meaning. All of my suggestions were meant to be facetious. Except for the Dune sequel one, though I do like worsethannormal's suggestion of a memory wipe. (But let's remember, worsethannormal, a memory wipe is an SF trope as well...)
07/29/09
(Oddly enough, doesn't Jubal Harshaw pretty much admit this in the actual text of the book? He writes a hokum story about a kitty cat that makes his secretary tear up, but it's total bullshit. He admits constantly that a writer that can't write for money isn't really a writer. He's basically calling his reading public stupid in that work. I find it fairly offensive.)
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
Are you saying that if I liked Heinlein's writing, I would somehow begin to regard this as a "cheap shot"? That a previously valid criticism would be invalid? I like James Joyce, but when someone says to me "his writing is impenetrable and hard to understand and so I think it's terrible", I don't find that to be a "cheap shot". It's what's called "AN OPINION". Maybe you've heard of it? It's pretty much what you're doing right now, just in case you couldn't figure that out.
A cheap shot would be... I don't know... "James Joyce was an alcoholic, so his books are terrible", or something equally stupid.
07/29/09
07/30/09
the point i'm trying to make really makes itself, you're hung up on yourself and what you think so much that it obfuscates reality. take dlomax as an example, dlomax admits that they're not a huge fan of Heinlein's writting and they're still capable of getting over themselves long enough to recognize a cheap shot.
07/29/09
Effective birth control doesn't mean people actually use it.
07/29/09
Not to mention the divine/alien intervention.