BABYL OPTIONS:
Version: 5
Labels:
Note:   This is the header of an rmail file.
Note:   If you are seeing it in rmail,
Note:    it means the file has no messages in it.

1,,
Summary-line:  4-Jan <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #1
Date: Monday, January 4, 1982 4:09AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #1
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE

*** EOOH ***
Date: Monday, January 4, 1982 4:09AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #1
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest Extra        Sat, 2 Jan 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 1

Today's Topics:
          Children's TV - "Saturday Morning TV" & Super Six
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 1981 06:53:24-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
Location: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Subject: kidvid

Just saw a new book that (some) readers of this list might be
interested in:  "Saturday Morning TV", by Garry H. Grossman.  It's a
collection of information about you-know-what, and it may settle many
of the questions we've been discussing.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 1981 23:13:03-PST
From: menlo70!hao!woods at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Mitch

    Yes! I remember the Super Six. It was one of my favorite cartoons
when I was a Saturday morning boob tube addict. I seem to recall that
they would send out Super Boing on some "unimportant" mission and he
would wind up inadvertently saving the day for the others somehow. He
would always wear that funny helmet and had a big "6" on his chest.

                   GREG (menlo70!hao!woods@Berkeley)

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  5-Jan <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #2
*** EOOH ***
Date: Tuesday, January 5, 1982 5:00AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #2
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest          Monday, 4 Jan 1982        Volume 5 : Issue 2

Today's Topics:
                     SF Books - Hidden Variables,
         SF TV - Dr. Who,  SF Radio - The Lord of the Rings,
    SF Topics - What If Books,  Random Topics - SF LOVERS license,
           SF Movies - Query Answered & The Creeping Terror
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Dec 1981 09:40 PST
From: Stewart at PARC-MAXC
Subject: More Sheffield

Is "Hidden Variables" by Charles Sheffield any good?  I thought "Web .
. ." was fairly reasonable.  -Larry

------------------------------

Date: 30-Dec-1981
From: MARTIN GENTRY at KRYPTN
Reply-to: "MARTIN GENTRY at KRYPTN c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: Dr. Who

<SF LOVERS, VOLUME 4 #144>

        It is the "Key of Time" series, not "Cube of Time". It
consists of the following stories:

        The Ribos Operation     (#1)
                ?               (#2, anybody know about this one?)
        The Stones of Blood     (#3)
        The Androids of Tara    (#4)
        The Power of Kroll      (#5)
        The Armageddon Factor   (#6)

                                        Enjoy

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jan 1982 2356-PST
From: Timothy P. Mann <CSD.MANN at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V4 #145

The "Lord of the Rings" radio series is in 26 parts, each 1/2 hour
long.  It might be worth taping, if you have that much tape.  I can't
really say, since I missed most of it when it was being broadcast here
in the Bay area.

Also, another Poul Anderson book that's somewhat connected with the
others that were mentioned is "Three Hearts and Three Lions."
                --Tim

------------------------------

Date: 29-Dec-1981
From: PAUL DICKSON AT QUILL
Reply-to: "PAUL DICKSON AT QUILL c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: Characterization of Alternative Universe stories

Discussions of alternate universe stories will quickly bog down, since
by definition every non-fiction story takes place in an alternate
universe:  one in which that story happens.  For SF we are restricting
ourselves to universes where the rules are different, not just where
certain things happen, but with the same rules as our universe.

We are still stuck - just about every SF story takes place in a
universe with different rules than our own.  They are all "what if"
stories.  (That is what the "Speculative" means.)  In the current
discussion, two kinds of stories have been brought up:

        1. Simple "what if" stories (what if Hitler had won, what if
           magic worked, what if FTL travel was possible).

        2. Meta-"what if" stories, in which multiple what-if
           conditions occur simultaneously, and the switching between
           them is part of the story.

Two more stories in the second category which I haven't seen mentioned
yet:

"The Man Who Folded Himself" by Gerrold
        Both time-travel and alternate universes are treated in this.
        There are no paradoxes - you create an alternate universe if
        you change the past.  The glimpse into the operating
        instructions for the time machine is particularly interesting.

"The Lathe of Heaven" by LeGuin
        No time travel in this one - just alternate universes.
        The hero discovers that he has "effective" dreams.
        When he wakes up, the universe has changed to the one he
        dreamt about.  His psychiatrist tries to make use of this
        power to immanentize the eschaton, with predictable results.

        Example:  The doctor wants to eliminate race prejudice so
        he has the hero dream that there is no more struggle between
        blacks and whites.  After the dream, everybody is grey.

        This one was made into a TV movie on PBS a couple years ago.
        Rather well done, I thought.  A good example of how to do
        good movie SF without a big special effects budget - but
        then LeGuin's stuff lends itself to that.

----

Ok, I will save you the trouble of looking it up.  To immanentize the
eschaton means to cause the ultimate conditions at the end of the
world to inhere in the current world.  To have paradise now.  A common
goal amongst social planners; it never works.  (I always wanted to
find a use for that expression.)

----

Back to the point of the first paragraph.  Seems to me this is the
characteristic that distinguishes SF from other fiction; the
difference in which meta-level of what-if is used in the premise.

        0 - Don't change anything.  This is non-fiction.

        1 - Introduce a character, but don't change the rules.
                Most non-SF fiction is at this level.  What if there
                was a prince named Hamlet who lived in Denmark,
                everything else remaining the same?

        2 - Change a basic rule, then introduce the character as in
                level 1.  Most SF is at this level.  What if FTL
                travel was possible and Beowulf Shaeffer existed?
                A fun kind of story at this level is to change the
                rule, but use real situations from level 0.  What if
                magic worked and Hitler used it in WW-II?

        3 - Change the rule that you can't change the rules.
                Some time-travel paradox stories and ones like "The
                Lathe of Heaven" are in this category.

"Outlands" is really at level 1, since the rule changes are not
important in the story.  "Hamlet" is actually at level 2/1, since
magic works (the witches actually do foretell the future).

"SS-GB" is level 1.  Some new characters, but the old rules.  The
situation changed, but not the rules.  The rules of society were
changed for the people in GB who lost the war, but that isn't what I
mean; no physical or behavioral laws had to be broken - it could have
happened.  (Read "The Ultra Secret" to see how easily.)

Does this sound like a useful scale by which to measure stories?

------------------------------

Date: 31 Dec 1981 0942-EST
From: PDL at MIT-DMS (P. David Lebling)
Subject: Nazi Hunters

The novel with Nazis hunting untermenschen was "The Sound of His Horn"
by Sarban (sic).  The only edition I ever saw was a Ballantine pb.
        Dave

------------------------------

Date: 29-Dec-1981
From: PAUL DICKSON AT QUILL
Reply-to: "PAUL DICKSON AT QUILL c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: I love SF-Lovers

I too have seen the "I love" stickers, but the one I saw did not
say "I love SF-Lovers".  It said "I*SF" where "*" is a red heart.
It used the same font and heart as the "I*NY" signs.  Since the
"SF" can be read as either "San Francisco" or "Science Fiction",
perhaps these would be useful for other than their original purpose.

(I assume they were made up by people from SFO to counter the
I*NY signs)

------------------------------

Date: 30 Dec 1981 16:51:33-PST
From: ihnss!ihuxo!dpa at Berkeley
Subject: Raiders and cubits

In reply to Jim McGrath's article concerning the length of the staff
in "Raiders of the Lost Ark", he seems to have the wrong impression of
the length of a cubit.  A cubit is the distance between a person's
elbow and the tips of the fingers.  People were shorter back then so I
believe it was usually considered to be 17 or 18 inches.  This would
make a 5 cubit staff just about 7 feet in length.  This appears to be
the length of the staff used in the film.

                                Dave Allen (ihuxo!dpa)

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jan 1982 2058-EST
From: JHENDLER at BBNA
Subject: The creeping \what/?


We have all been referring to the worst SF films of all times as "the
creeping terror." This truly awful movie is about an astronaut who
returns from space as a sort of awful green crawling thing.

However, a recently acquired book on SF films makes no mention of this
horror, but instead describes the film "The creeping UNKNOWN" which
has the same plot.

Is this the correct name?  Were we right in the first place?  Or are
there really two of these monstrosities?? Anyone know?  Lauren??
  -Jim

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  5-Jan <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #3
*** EOOH ***
Date: Tuesday, January 5, 1982 6:12AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #3
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest         Tuesday, 5 Jan 1982        Volume 5 : Issue 3

Today's Topics:
                  Administrivia - Truncated digests,
   SF Books - Here's the Plot...What's the Title & Query Answered,
            SF TV - Riverworld & PBS SF anthology series,
       SF Topics - Definitions of Science Fiction and Fantasy &
            What If Books,  SF Radio - Live SF on Hour 25
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  5-Jan-82 00:00:00
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Administrivia - Truncated digests

We will be using some new software during the next several days
that may result in some people getting truncated digests.  If this
happens to you, then please feel free to fire off a request to
SF-LOVERS-REQUEST@MIT-AI for another copy of that issue (which
hopefully will arrive untruncated).

Jim

------------------------------

Date: 30 Dec 1981 2011-EST
From: Gene Hastings <HASTINGS at CMU-20C>
Subject: Here's the plot...


        Sometime in the past couple years, Analog ran a story that
looked in on Nero Wolfe in the very late 20thor early 21st century-
everybody is very old, and as a group they can barely scrape up the
rent for a decrepit apartment by pooling social security checks.
        What're the title & author, and (bless you!) what issue was it
in?


                                                Gene

------------------------------

Date: 30 Dec 1981 19:19:58-PST
From: allegra!phr at Berkeley
Subject: What If

I think that Boebert.SCOMP@MIT-Multics is referring to "Two Dooms" by
Cyril Kornbluth.  It's novella-length and appears in \The Best of C.
M.  Kornbluth/ (Fred Pohl, ed.).  I consider it to be one of
Kornbluth's best works and recommend that everyone seek out this
collection.

On the "What If" topic, there's a good story in this month's Asimov's.
It's titled "Aquila", by Somtow Sucharitkul.  Briefly, the Roman
Empire never fell (they beat enough technology out of the Greeks to
live through their difficulties, or something), but travelled to the
New World and tried to teach the Indians to wear togas, etc.  Due to a
typesetting botch (in my copy), a couple of pages close to the
beginning are shuffled, but this is easy to spot and correct for.

paul

------------------------------

Date: 30 Dec 81 16:31-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Riverworld to television

From this month's LOCUS:


    Phillip Jose Farmer also mentioned that the first "Riverworld"
book, the Hugo-winning novel TO YOUR SCATTERED BODIES GO, had been
optioned to ABC for production as a mini-series.  The script was
finished.

-----

This might turn out to be rather decent if handled correctly.  The
Riverworld concept always struck me as quite visual.  (Although I also
feel the series as a whole stinks because of Farmer's horrid handling
of its potential.)

------------------------------

Date: 30 Dec 81 16:23-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: PBS SF anthology series

From this month's LOCUS:


    Ambitious plans for a major television series based on short works
of well-known science fiction authors were announced December 4th by
Jeanne Mulcahy, vice president of KCET, Los Angeles.  KCET and WNET,
New York, will co-produce thirteen one-hour dramas over the course of
the next three years, with the first four shows scheduled as apart
of the 1982-83 AMERICAN PLAYHOUSE line-up.  AMERICAN PLAYHOUSE has
pledged $1.1 million, approximately one-third of the budget for the
first four shows, contingent upon the rest of the financing being
provided by European and Japanese networks and American pay-tv, which
seems likely to be confirmed soon.  The total needed for all thirteen
shows is $12 million.  Of those properties which have already been
acquired, Mulcahy named two: "Vaster than Empires and More Slow"
by Ursula K.  Le Guin, and "Rogue Moon" by Algis Budrys; in these
two cases the authors have written their own first-draft teleplays.
Production is slated to begin in April.
    The series owes its inception partly to the television success of
Le Guin's THE LATHE OF HEAVEN, partly to the COSMOS series.  David R.
Loxton, director of WNET's Television Laboratory, produced THE LATHE
OF HEAVEN, and even before it became one of the most popular dramas
ever shown on public tv Loxton was seeking financing for additional
sf adaptions.  Similar hopes animated Geoffrey Haines-Stiles, a
senior producer and director of COSMOS now on the KCET staff, who is
an expert in both special effects and complex location photography.
"We're trying to make first-class interpretations with author input
all the way through.  The authors are giving us help and support
because it's PBS," he said.  "We hope to surprise and delight the
readers of science fiction."

    Specific production responsibilities will be split between the
stations -- for example, WNET will produce "Vaster Than Empires", KCET
will produce "Rogue Moon" -- but all series decisions will be made
jointly.

    According to Paul Preuss, story consultant to the series, works
were given to reflect a mix of classics and new stars, and to have
an international flavor.  Criteria of choice were literary quality,
scientific pertinence, adaptability within the given time and budget,
and potential as "terrific television".  "Over 500 stories were
read, between New York and the west coast.  There were some 50 or
60 finalists," says Preuss.  "Jeanne, David, Geoff and I met last
spring and essentially fought it out for two days until a final list
emerged." While none of the principals would comment on the remaining
stories on the list, since rights have not been secured in all cases,
Preuss noted that "one would certainly expect to see names like
Heinlein, Clarke, Varley, Zelazny, and several others among the first
choices for a series of this sort.  Whether we manage to sign up
everybody we want remains to be seen."

------------------------------

Date: 31 December 1981 15:35-EST
From: James M. Turner <JMTURN at MIT-AI>
Subject: Drudgery is wading through 3 back issues of SFL

Ellison back on TV?!! Talk about "Willing suspension of disbelief"!
Now where is my "Starcrossed Fan Club Button"?

Any news on a release date for CONAN? I had heard Christmas, but no
sign of it.
                                James M. Turner

------------------------------

Date: 29 Dec 1981 1355-PST
From: Richard Pattis <REP at SU-AI>
Subject: Rod Serling's Definitions of Science Fiction vs. Fantasy

Last evening's Twilight Zone contained the following quote,

        "Science Fiction is the improbable made possible.
         Fantasy is the impossible made probable."
rich

------------------------------

Date: 4-Jan-82 15:37:55 PST (Monday)
From: Newman.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Live SF radio broadcast in LA, 1/8/82

"Hour 25", KPFK's weekly science fiction program, will celebrate
its tenth year on the radio this Friday, January 8th with a LIVE
three-hour broadcast from Dangerous Visions bookstore in Sherman
Oaks.

Everyone is invited to attend the broadcast, which KPFK says will
include live interviews with a number of science fiction writers,
as well as taped excerpts from past programs.

Dangerous Visions bookstore is located at 13603 Ventura Blvd in
Sherman Oaks.  KPFK is 90.7 FM in Los Angeles.

/Ron

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  6-Jan <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #4
*** EOOH ***
Date: Wednesday, January 6, 1982 1:27AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #4
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest        Wednesday, 6 Jan 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 4

Today's Topics:
              SF Books - Author Query & Query Answered,
          SF Topics - Han Conried dead,  SF Movies - Conan &
          Brainstorm & Query Answered & The Creeping Terror,
           SF Radio - The Lord of the Rings & Probabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 January 1982 19:55-EST
From: Michael M. Burns <MMB at MIT-MC>
Subject: unknown novel

My sister is librarian at some obscure place and got a patron's
request for a SF novel (circa 1971) titled Blows Against the Empire.
Is there such a book and who is the author (patron thought the name
started with a K)?

                Thanks     Mike Burns (MMB at MIT-MC)

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jan 1982 1122-EST
From: Ginder at CMU-20C
Subject: here`s the title......

The book that Adam Buchsbaum inquired about is called "Stranger from
the Depths" and was written by Gerry Turner.  I remember this book as
one of my favorites while in grade school -- I still have my "edited
and abridged" Scholastic Book Services edition in my collection (filed
right here between Wilson Tucker and Jack Vance!)

The creature`s name was Saa and he was from the city of Haad.  The
enemy city was Gaan.  It seems that all (well, at least most) of the
names used by these creatures had double vowels.  I remember being
amused that these creatures (who had not had any contact with humans
before) would do things like shrug or nod their head in answer to
questions from humans and other creatures!  By the way, the creatures
were green and nine feet tall with webbed fingers and toes.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jan 1982 1109-PST
From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich)
Subject: Analog "Nero Wolfe" story found

The story is "The Case of the Disposable Jalopy", by Mack Reynolds,
and was in the October 1979 Analog.
-Rich Zellich
------------------------------

Date: 5 January 1982 2142-PST (Tuesday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Han Conried dead at 64

a281 2017 05 Jan 82 AM-Deaths,100 By The Associated Press

Hans Conried
    BURBANK, Calif. (AP) - Hans Conried, a character actor of stage,
screen and television, died Tuesday at age 64. He had been
hospitalized Sunday after suffering a heart attack.
    Conried starred in ''The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T,'' and the
character of Uncle Tonoose in ''The Danny Thomas Show'' on television.
His most recent movie appearance was in ''Oh God, Book II.'' He had
also performed on Broadway in the original production of ''Can-Can,''
with Debbie Reynolds.


--------------------

I might add that Hans also hosted the immortal "Fractured Flickers"
television program, provided the voices for innumerable Jay Ward
animated characters, and also did considerable commercial voiceover
work.

I was a bit surprised to learn he was only 64, he looked much older.
He was one of the greatest, and he will be missed.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jan 1982 09:47:58-PST
From: CSVAX.upstill at Berkeley
Subject: Conan and Brainstorm


  The release date for Conan the Barbarian is now some time in
February.  Apparently a combination of postproduction delays and the
appearance of a Christmas logjam of movies influenced this decision.

  Also, worse news.  After the death of Natalie Wood, MGM has
apparently decided to drop Doug Trumbull's "Brainstorm" flick, take
the insurance money and run.  This despite the fact that the film was
90% complete, with only four (count'em) scenes with Wood left to
shoot.  This news is a pisser on several scores; first, it looked like
real SF.  Second, it was Doug Trumbull's first shot at directing in
ten years (since Silent Running).  Finally, it is a tragic loss for
special-effects buffs.  The plot, about a thought-transference device,
was an opportunity for the world's formost effects artist (Trumbull)
to show his best stuff, and he reportedly had fully intended to do
just that.

  Sigh...

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday,  5 Jan 1982 10:35-PST
Subject: Cubits and RotLA
From: jim at RAND-UNIX

Yes, we all know what cubits are now.  The question was whether RotLA
consistently used them.  Jim claimed (and I confirm) that they called
6 cubits 72 inches, then showed a taller stick.  So the stick they
used was probably the right length for real cubits, and they just blew
the dialogue once.  OK, everybody?

        Jim Gillogly

------------------------------

Date: 5 January 1982 1527-PST (Tuesday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: The Creeping TERROR

All currently released versions of the film (and it is in my tape
library, along with "Plan 9 From Outer Space"), are titled "The
Creeping Terror".  I have never seen an alternate version, though I
wouldn't be terribly shocked to learn that some other name was used at
some point in the distant past -- it wouldn't be so unusual.

One film that I am almost certain has been retitled at least once is
currently billed as "The Torture Chamber of Dr. Sadism" (starring
Christopher Lee).  This classic ("YOU, shall take the place of the
thirteenth virgin!") looks like the credits are spliced together from
at least three different eras.  Bizarre.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jan 1982 0728-PST
Subject: LotR on radio
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)

In the St.Louis and Southern Illinois area, Lord of the Rings has been
being carried on WSIE (FM, Edwardsville, Southern IL U) at the
atrocious timing of 1230 hours in the middle of the week, thereby
ensuring that no reasonable working person can hear it, or tape it
without timers or having someone reliable to do it for them.  Ugh.
However, KWMU (FM, St.Louis, U of MO) MAY carry it at 10 PM Sundays
starting in the spring, if they get some more evidence of community
interest, as part of the services provided by the student staff.

If you live in the St.Louis region, call KWMU in the evenings, ask to
speak to someone on the student staff, and push LotR!

Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jan 1982 1650-PST
From: Yeager at SUMEX-AIM
Subject: Probabilities...

The following is January's schedule for *Probabilities*, a SF-Bay Area
SF & F radio program. The program airs on KPFA-94.0 FM-every Friday
night at 8pm.

        Jan.  8th: The first program of the year will have a reading
                   from the "golden age of Science Fiction."

        Jan. 15th: An interview with Michael Moorcock, Part I.
                   The interviewers are Richard Wolinsky, KPFA's
                   SF & F editor, and the SF & F author,
                   Richard A. Lupoff. The interview was taped last
                   October at the Berkeley World Fantasy Convention.

        Jan. 22nd: Part II of the Michael Moorcock interview.


        Jan. 29th: An interview with Anne McCaffery. This is a
                   rebroadcast of an interview taped in 1979. She
                   talks about her early carreer and her relationship
                   with with John Campbell. She also offers insights
                   into her dragon series.  The interview was produced
                   by Richard Wolinsky and Lawrence Davidson.

This sounds like two hours of fun listening.

Bill

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  6-Jan <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #5
*** EOOH ***
Date: Wednesday, January 6, 1982 10:39PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #5
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest         Thursday, 7 Jan 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 5

Today's Topics:
           SF Books - Here's the Plot...What's the Title &
    The Tsaddik of the Seven Wonders & Series (d'Alembert/Tedric),
                 SF Music - Blows Against the Empire,
                SF Movies - Time Bandits & War Games,
                   SF Topics - What If Books & ESP
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Jan 1982 20:32:51-PST
From: b.r.schatz
Subject: does anyone know the author and reference

for the short story "Oddie the Monster" ?  This is about a student who
runs a series of scientific experiments for a class and does
everything wrong but, through a series of amazing coincidences, always
comes up with the right answer.  I think it was written in the 50's.
Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks.

------------------------------

Date: 03-Jan-1982
From: MARTIN MINOW at PHENIX
Reply-to: "MARTIN MINOW at PHENIX c/o" <ECG.RICH.ALA at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: Jewish Science Fiction

The various discussions of Jewish Science fiction seemed to have
missed the following:

  Isidore Haiblum, The Tsaddik of the Seven Wonders, Ballantine 1971.

Described as "the first Yiddish Science Fantasy novel ever."  I read
it a long time ago and didn't remember it as being anything especially
great.  It was supposed to be funny.

Regards.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jan 1982 2149-EST
From: DD-B <DYER-BENNET at KL2137>
Reply-to: "DYER-BENNET at KL2137 c/o" <YOUNG at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: SF Lovers


( Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest V4 #142 )

(menlo70!sytek!zehntel!berry at Berkeley) On the family d'Alembert
series: A short story called "The Imperial Stars" appears in THE BEST
OF E.E. "DOC" SMITH (Jove/HBJ, 1979) credited solely to Smith.  The
preface dates that story in 1964, although no publication history is
provided.  It appears to be the beginning of the Smith/Goldin book of
the same name.  The bit of third-hand hearsay you provide is
particularly interesting in light of the level of writing in this bit
compared to that in those bits written by Goldin.  But then, I don't
think Smith writes badly.

( Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest V4 #144 )

(csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX) Stories called "Tedric" (1953) and "Lord
Tedric" (1954) are included in the same collection I refer to above.
These are "...two lost gems that were originally piblished in two of
the rarest magazines in the field." (from the preface by Phillip
Harbottle).  The magazines are not identified.  I think that the
Tedric books are suffering considerably less than the d'Alembert ones
at the hands of their respective ghosts.

(Some additional alternate universe stories, provided by Pamela C.
Dean) T. H.  White's THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING can be viewed as AU
fiction since he deliberately swaps historical and legendary
characters; thus Uther Pendragon is the Norman Conquerer, and William
is referred to as "legendary"; Arthur does many things actually done
by Henry II; and so on.

Then there is Peter Dickinson's KING AND JESTER, a mystery novel set
in a twentieth-century society based on a different succession for the
royal family of England.

------------------------------

Date: 6-Jan-82  9:33:19 PST (Wednesday)
From: Weissman at PARC-MAXC
Reply-to: Weissman at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Blows Against the Empire

"Blows Against the Empire" is a science-fiction record album recorded
by Paul Kantner (there's your 'K') and the nascent Jefferson Starship.
The "story" is that 7000 music-, drug-, and sex-crazed hippies (i.e.,
normal folks like you and me) wait for Earth's first interstellar
craft to be built and then hijack it to begin a new, free life among
the stars.

I can't be sure right now, but 1971 sounds about right as the LP's
release date.

An excellent album musically, by the way, especially the tracks
"Hijack" and "Have You Seen the Stars Tonight?".

-- Bob <Weissman at PARC-MAXC>

[ Thanks also to Andy Malis <malis at BBN-UNIX>, Bob Krovetz <KROVETZ
  at NLM-MCS>, and Betsey Summers <Betsey at PARC-MAXC> for answering
  this query.  --  Jim ]

------------------------------
Date: 6 January 1982 22:54-EST
From: Daniel Breslau <BRESLA at MIT-AI>
Subject: Blows and Bandits


1.  "Blows Against the Empire" is ,to my knowledge, NOT an sf novel at
all, but a rock album, by one whose name indeed begins with K -- Paul
Kantner, of the Jefferson Airplane/Starship (Airship?).  I have the
record here; its cast includes most of the Airship, plus Jerry Garcia,
David Crosby, and Graham Nash.  But this has naught to do with SF, so
--

2.  I saw mention here recently of a seventh little guy in Time
Bandits, named Horseflesh.  He was said to have been cut from the
script,save some brief mentions, for fear of Walt Disney Studios
getting upset over the "seven dwarves" bit.  Well, I saw TB for the
second time recently; I caught one reference to Horseflesh (a friend
said there were two.)  But more to the mystery, Horeseflesh was also
in the credits, there at the end of the list.  I didn't see who was
credited for playing him, though.  Maybe he wasn't in after the final
cuts; or maybe he did have some cameo role?

                                Dan Breslau

------------------------------

Date: Wed 6-Jan-1982 10:59-EST
From: Bill Russell <RUSSELL at NYU>
Subject: "War Games" - a movie just for us

From the Jan. 4th edition of The New York Daily News:

In an article entitled "Gone are the big budget days" by Marilyn Beck:

        ... And "War Games", which Begelman describes as "an exciting,
creative thriller, the story of a young man's addiction to computers
that eventually leads him to a confrontation with the Pentagon."

        "War Games" will be produced by Leonard Goldberg, directed by
Martin Brest, and will go before the cameras in March.  Casting is
expected to be complete this month.  ...


This sounds like "The Adolescence of P-1" by Thomas J. Ryan.  The
"Begelman" quoted above is David Begelman, the board chairman- chief
executive officer of United Artists.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Dec 1981 00:00:39-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
Location: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Subject: Random query

An item appearing in ARMS-D prompts this note, which may not belong
here, but certainly doesn't belong in ARMS-D.  About 2 or 3 years ago,
I saw a brief item in "Science News" about telekinesis.  According to
this researcher, he had found subjects who could reliably affect
quantum mechanically-uncertain phenomena, i.e., the decay rate of
unstable isotopes.  This was interesting because it described an
effect that doesn't contradict causality, merely statistical
principles.  I've never seen any followups on this, pro or con (and
I'm quite aware of the general principle in ESP research:  the tighter
your controls, the weaker the demonstrated effects.)  Has anyone else
seen anything on this?

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  7-Jan <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #6
*** EOOH ***
Date: Thursday, January 7, 1982 9:44PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #6
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest          Friday, 8 Jan 1982        Volume 5 : Issue 6

Today's Topics:
                         SF Books - Panshin &
    The Known and the Unknown: The Iconography of Science Fiction,
               SF Topics - Icons in SF & Time Travel &
                    Computer in SF & Hackers in SF
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Jan 1982 0740-PST
Subject: Alexei Panshin
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)

Hi!

Can anyone with access to one of the indices tell me what other books
were written by Alexei Panshin than the following:

Masque World Star Well The Thurb Revolution

Also, is this a pseudonym?

(I am especially interested in any involving the characters of Torve
the Trog and Anthony Villiers, but also in any others.)

Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 06-Jan-1982
From: JOHN REDFORD AT WAFER
Reply-to: "JOHN REDFORD AT WAFER c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: sf icons

OK, now don't get upset.  Stay calm.  I know that a lot of you detest
and despise literary scholars, especially those who presume to discuss
sf, but I've been reading a book one such that has some interesting
things to say.  It's called "The Known and the Unknown", is subtitled
"The Iconography of Science Fiction" and is by Gary K. Wolfe,
associate professor of humanities at Roosevelt University.  Subtitles
raise hackles, don't they?  But he's treating a real topic.  The icons
in this case are certain science fiction symbols that are so
widespread within the genre that they point to basic motives for
reading the stuff.  By understanding why these symbols appear so often
we might be able to understand the form's fascination.
    He lists the icons that he thinks are most important and devotes a
chapter to each.  Most fundamental is the Barrier, the separator
between the known and unknown.  No surprise here, since most of sf is
about dealing with the unknown.  There's a famous medieval engraving
that summarizes this.  It shows a little bubble of trees and grass and
ground surrounded by the infinite, starry firmament, and one person
poking his head through the bubble and looking out in wonder and
amazement.  That bubble appears again and again: as the force field
around the alien planet, as the walls around the xenophobic city, or
even as the hull of the star-travelling generation ship, as in
Heinlein's "Universe".  And almost without exception, a hero in an sf
story is someone who wants to poke through the barrier, to see what's
on the other side.
   I don't have the energy to discuss all his icons in detail, so let
me just list them:  the Spaceship - constantly seen not as a phallic
symbol, but as a womb
  that deposits the newly born colonists on alien planets ("Universe")
the City - the source of old and decaying authoritarian power,
generally
  something to be escaped from ("The City and the Stars").  the
Wasteland - the familiar landscape transformed by war or catastrophe,
  an arena for the better display of courage and intelligence ("A
Canticle
  for Leibowitz").  the Robot - the mirror for deciding what it means
to be human (Zelazny's
  "For A Breath I Tarry") the Monster - the Outside personified
("Forbidden Planet").

What others can people think of?

The book's main fault is probably that he spends too much time on
minor works, because major works are usually too complex to fit his
nice framework.  Still, this ties in well with the "Science fiction as
new mythology" idea that was floating around in the sixties, and
considering how widely these images have spread (robots in ads for
stereos and so on) it might even be true.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jan 1982 (Tuesday) 1623-EST
From: CHAVEZ at HARV-10
Subject: Time Travel and Real Physical Anomalies


        I'm not sure if the following subject has been discussed in
SF-LOVERS before, but I'm fairly sure that it's appropriate to the
recent discussions on time travel.
        In the classical theory of electromagnetics, an electron
"orbiting" a proton would eventually spiral into the center, since the
electron (which is accelerating in uniform circular motion) radiates
(and thereby loses) energy.  Hence, the motion of the electron is
described not only by the Coulomb force of attraction, but also by a
"radiation back-force" (i.e., the effect of the electron's fields on
itself.)  That force in turn depends on the time rate of change of the
electron's acceleration.  (All this can be found in any standard
treatment of the theory.)
        Now, imagine an electron that experiences a sudden (i.e.
discontinous) force.  One can easily show that the acceleration
nevertheless changes smoothly.
        Big deal, right?
        WRONG!
        Surprisingly enough, the acceleration begins to change BEFORE
the force is ever seen -- the principle of causality is violated.  The
acceleration jumps the gun by about 1.E-24 seconds, but it's the
theoretical inconsistency that I'm interested in.  The resulting
paradoxes bear a striking resemblance to the paradoxes resulting from
time travel (e.g. what if I decided not to turn the external force on?
How is the electron going to know?  Is it possible that time isn't the
beautiful continuum that we imagined it to be?  What if time has local
discontinuities... what if time is quantized?)
        None of the difficulties go away in the most current theories
of quantum mechanics, at least according to two professors of physics
on the Harvard faculty.  Apparently, the problem has simply not been
resolved.
        I'm amazed that such a basic inconsistency exists in a
time-honored theory; all the others (e.g. why electrons in stable
orbits don't radiate unless they change orbits) have been fixed.  Does
anyone know what's going on?
        Sorry if I've rambled on a bit, but I think that my questions
just might have some interesting answers.  Thanks.
                --R.M. Chavez (rmc@mit-mc)

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 1982 1922-EST
From: Roger H. Goun <G.ROGER at MIT-EECS at MIT-AI>
Subject: The computer wins (sometimes)

I was just struck with an interesting (to me) notion:  how many
stories can people think of in which an intelligent artificial
intelligence (either protagonist or antagonist in the story)
wins/loses a struggle for survival/domination in the end.

Off the top of my head:

Wins:

(Protagonist)

The Adolescence of P-1, by Thomas J. Ryan When Harlie Was One, David
Gerrold

(Antagonist)

Colossus, D.F. Jones (?)


Loses:

(Antagonist)

The Fall of Colossus, D.F. Jones (?)



The Two Faces of Tomorrow, James P. Hogan (I'm not sure where this
fits in)

Can anyone come up with some more?

                                        -- Roger

------------------------------

Date: 23-Dec-1981
From: KENN GOUTAL AT SCRIBE
Reply-to: "KENN GOUTAL AT SCRIBE c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: hackers in SF

One of my buttons.  The following is a list of those books I have with
hackers.  For completeness, I have listed a couple of those which have
already been mentioned by others.  I have also included some which
don't have hackers in them, but DO have computers in them, on the
assumption that those who like SF with hackers might also like SF
without hackers but with computers.

A FOR ANDROMEDA and ANDROMEDA BREAKTHROUGH
- Fred Hoyle and John Elliot, app 1962.

THE MAN RESPONSIBLE
- Stephen Robinett, 1978.

THE INTEGRATED MAN
- Michael Berlyn, 1980.

"TRUE NAMES" in BINARY STAR #5
- Vernor Vinge, 1981.

STAR FIRE
- Ingo Swann, 1978.

SHOCKWAVE RIDER
- John Brunner, app 1976.

THE ADOLESCENCE OF P-1
- Thomas J. Ryan, app 1978.

THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS
- Robert Heinlein

OCTAGON
- Fred Saberhagen, app 1981.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  8-Jan <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #7
*** EOOH ***
Date: Friday, January 8, 1982 8:33PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #7
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest         Saturday, 9 Jan 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 7

Today's Topics:
       SF Books - Image of the Beast & The Sword of the Lictor,
            SF Topics - Asimov and Tandy & Hackers in SF,
                       Spoiler - Hackers in SF
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 January 1982 1553-PST (Tuesday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: "Image of the Beast"

A couple of days ago, a fat paperback volume appeared in my molecular
transpor...uh, my mailbox.  It is Farmer's "Image of the Beast" (this
volume, according to the cover, also contains the sequel "Blown" as
well, though thumbing through the pages doesn't seem to indicate any
END to "Image" or any START to "Blown".)

I have not been a big Farmer reader ... I've only read a few of his
shorts and a couple of his isolated novels.  I've finished the first
few chapters, so I don't need any warning about the *type* of material
in there, but I'd appreciate some opinions as to whether there is any
good reason for me to finish the thing ... is there anything GOOD
buried in there?  What I've read so far has been "amusing" but nothing
to write home about, so to speak.

Thanks much.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jan 1982 (Friday) 1657-EST
From: DYER at  NBS-10
Subject: The Sword of the Lictor


        The third volume of Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun, THE
SWORD OF THE LICTOR, is out in Timescape hardback.  Do not walk, but
run or teleport to your local bookstore and purchase a copy.  (We want
to encourage writers like Wolfe, right?)

        I won't attempt to review the book until I've finished it, but
the hundred or so pages I read so far have been excellent.
(Incidentally, it might be a good idea to skip reading the synopsis of
the book printed on the jacket -- it creeps too far in the direction
of spoilerhood, perhaps...)


                                -Landon-

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jan 1982 1359-EST
From: S. W. Galley <SWG at MIT-XX>
Subject: Isaac at the pitch

"Ad-ventures" by Robert A. McLean from The Boston Globe, 23 Dec 1981,
p. 34

  Isaac Asimov -- a prolific science-fiction writer -- and Boston
University biochemistry professor -- published a sci-fi novel 30 years
ago in which he described a computer-like device used in that
futuristic society.
  Radio Shack, the international high-tech / electronics
merchandisers, markets a computer today which is so like the Asimov
creation that when they asked him to speak for the company, he agreed.
Asimov signed a commercial endorsement contract, his first, with the
Tandy Corp.  subsidiary, earlier this month and will begin appearing
as a Radio Shack spokesman in January.
  He thus joins George Plimpton (Mattel), Bill Cosby (Texas
Instruments), Dick Cavett (Apple) and other personalities getting into
the electronics-endorsement game.  His face will appear in print and
magazine advertisements and in company pamphlets promoting Radio Shack
equipment.
  Asimov told United Press International that his decision to sign
with Radio Shack was based, in part, on the similarity between their
computer and the device he wrote about in "Foundation," his sci-fi
trilogy of the 1950s.  His 244 published books include a two-part
autobiography, and nonfiction guides to science, technology, the Bible
and Shakespeare.

------------------------------

JPM@MIT-AI 1/8/82 00:00:00 Re:  SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following message is the last in the digest.  It discusses some
plot details of several works dealing with Hackers in SF.  (A list of
the titles dealt with in this messaged appeared in yesterday's digest,
volume 5, issue 6.)  Some readers may not wish to read on.

------------------------------

Date: 23-Dec-1981
From: KENN GOUTAL AT SCRIBE
Reply-to: "KENN GOUTAL AT SCRIBE c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: hackers in SF

SPOILER WARNING:
I got a little carried away and included synopses,
together with one-line evaluations.

A FOR ANDROMEDA and ANDROMEDA BREAKTHROUGH
- Fred Hoyle and John Elliot, app 1962.
A message comes from outer space giving directions for the
construction of a computer which then gives directions for making
various things including an android, whom the lab folks name
"Andromeda".  One or two of the people on the project are programmer
types.  Also, the android has a direct interface with the computer.

THE MAN RESPONSIBLE
- Stephen Robinett, 1978.
I must confess I haven't read this one in a while, and I KNOW this one
doesn't have a hacker in it.  It does, however, have a wealthy
entrepreneur who impresses his engrams on a computer equipped with a
holographic projector.  He also impresses his engrams in some other
interesting places.  A good mystery/SF yarn.

THE INTEGRATED MAN
- Michael Berlyn, 1980.
"He stalks his enemy in four bodies at the same time."  So says the
blurb on the back, and I couldn't put it any better.  The hero,
however, is not a hacker, but a determined ex-victim and champion of
fellow victims.  It seems that an enterprising mining magnate got hold
of a way to interface a microcomputer to the medulla, with a slot in
the back of the worker's neck for ROM cartridges.  Training costs are
thus nil.  There are certain side effects however.  Our hero decides
to fight back, and enlists the aid of the doctor at his mining camp.
The doctor amounts to a hacker of sorts, inasmuch as he has to do the
interfacing and programming of these microcomputers, and plays a minor
but significant role.

"TRUE NAMES" in BINARY STAR #5
- Vernor Vinge, 1981.
HOT STUFF!!!  The hero is an author of interactive novels.  For
amusement, he hacks the international data networks.  He and others of
similar bent meet on the networks using assumed identities like "Mr.
Slippery" (the hero), Robin Hood, and DON.MAC.  Data bases appear as
swamps, leased machines as stone castles, passwords and protocols as
monster-infested forests.  There is even an amusing software-simulated
dragon called Alan (after Alan Turing's test of the intelligence of a
simulacrum).  Using telepathic headsets as terminals, they rummage
around in various data files perpetrating minor fraud and minor
nasties against the only existing federal agency, the welfare agency.
Like sorcerers of old, they protect their true names fiercely.  This
is all tolerated by the feds until a character calling himself The
Mailman gets overambitious.  The feds coerce the hero, by threatening
to expose his true name, into working with them to expose and stop The
Mailman.  There ensues a rollicking great romp through the networks,
including the half-century-old Arpa net!  There is a spectacular
battle with The Mailman, and a pleasant and satisfying conclusion.
Even the federal police get sucked into behaving like hackers, but the
main characters are surely hackers extraordinaire!
-
Also in the same BINARY STAR is "Nightflyers" by George R. R. Martin.
This doesn't have have hackers, but does involve identities impressed
on computers.  Also involves people's heads exploding and violent
zombies.

STAR FIRE
- Ingo Swann, 1978.
MORE HOT STUFF!!!  This character combines telepathy with ordinary
network hacking (telepathy gets him past password problems, but is a
bit of a strain) and finally impresses his identity on the military
networks of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., in order to thwart WW3 once and
for all.  Illustrations consist of maps of Nebraska, Novosibirsk, and
the Arpanet!  (This one may be VERY hard to find.)

SHOCKWAVE RIDER
- John Brunner, app 1975.
A classic.  No telepathy here, just an almighty passel of data hacking
on the commercial credit/identity networks.  As a young man, the hero
shows a talent for science and is given a free ride to a cloistered
government-run university.  He has fun for a while, but eventually is
disgusted by the inhumane lengths to which research will go in search
of the obvious.  He leaves, but takes with him his incredibly powerful
account/password, which he uses to change his identity while he thinks
up how to beat the system.  His solution, in the end, is an incredible
barrage of hacking that ties the system in knots.  When the snarlup is
straightened out, the data nets are no longer a threat to individuality
and humanity.  Extremely fast-paced in the Brunner style, there are an
awful lot of interesting ideas along the way, and the saga of the
unwilling hero is -er- heartwarming.

THE ADOLESCENCE OF P-1
- Thomas J. Ryan, app 1978.
A computer science major at the University of Waterloo is thrown out
for repeatedly attempting to break the operating system of the
school's IBM-370.  This guy's got it bad, though; before abandoning
computers forever, he rents some time on a commercial timesharing
machine, and develops a heuristic program to break into the operating
system, incorporate itself therein, and go looking for other machines
to insinuate itself upon via telecomm links.  Unfortunately, he builds
paranoia into the program, and by the time it has taken over six
cpu's, it decides he is after it and refuses to talk to him.  Three
years later it tracks him down, having taken over just about every 360
and 370 on the continent.  The program, P-1, is having an identity
crisis.  Only one hard-to-swallow premise, and a cracking good yarn.

THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS
- Robert Heinlein.
The computer complex that runs the moon colonies becomes sufficiently
large and complex that it somehow becomes intelligent and conscious.
The field service engineer responsible for the system forms a
friendship with the entity, and together they decide its name should
be Mycroft Holmes.  Meantime, they become involved in a revolution to
free the moon colonies from the control their parent countries on
earth.  Probably the great-granddaddy of all conscious-computer
stories.  Also my idea of Heinlein at his best, but that's my opinion.

OCTAGON
- Fred Saberhagen, app 1981.
A program to thwart federal computers from getting a throttlehold on
society lies latent for years, then accidently triggered.  Times have
changed since the program was written in the early sixties, and the
program gets somewhat confused and consequently goes beserk.  The
program's authors, now somewhat advanced in years, work to figure out
how it got triggered and how to stop it before IT gets a throttle-
hold on society.  The nephew of one of them helps out immensely with
the legwork.  I must admit I zipped through this one, so I've gotten
the story line a little fuzzy.  It's actually much better than I've
made it sound.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 12-Jan <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #8
*** EOOH ***
Date: Tuesday, January 12, 1982 2:39PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #8
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest        Wednesday, 13 Jan 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 8

Today's Topics:
           SF Books - Here's the Plot...What's the Title &
       Vinge Query & Wandering Stars & Query Answered & Pashin,
           SF Topics - Asimov and Tandy,  SF TV - Dr. Who,
       SF Movies - Options & Revenge of the Jedi & Star Trek II
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Jan 1982 12:48:31-PST
From: CSVAX.peter at Berkeley
Subject: here's the plot ... what's the story?

Over vacation my aunt recalled this fragment that she heard quoted by
Nikki Giovanni on a radio or tv show about writing in general.  It's
already third-hand coming from her, fourth-hand from me, and it may be
too far gone for recollection, but you might enjoy the idea even if no
one knows from whence it comes:

    A man notices a new key on his computer terminal marked "future".
    He pushes it and sees displayed "You will be killed by lightning
    at six o'clock.  Do you wish to continue?"  Intrigued, he types
    "Yes." and learns that he will marry his current girl friend,
    have three children, build his own home, etc., etc.  He is so
    interested that he does not see the approaching storm -- and is
    killed by lightning at six o'clock.

            ... peter

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jan 1982 09:26:48-PST
From: jef at LBL-UNIX (Jef Poskanzer [rtsg])
Subject: Vintage Vinge

I am looking for old stories/novels by Vernor Vinge.  The only ones I
know of so far are "The Science Fair" and @u<Grimm's World>.  Can
anyone help me find more?
--- Jef

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jan 1982 13:48:14 EST (Monday)
From: Amy Mori <amori at BBN-UNIX>
Subject: PLANT LOVER

To really answer the question back in December whether the story about
the girl marrying the plant was "On Mars Have We Got a Rabbi" by Isaac
Asimov, which got answered as being "On Venus Have We Got a Rabbi" by
William Tenn:

The story is "Look, You Think You've Got Troubles" by Carol Carr.  It
IS in the Jewish SF Anthology called WANDERING STARS and the girl
marries a plant from Mars. "On Venus Have We Got a Rabbi" IS by
William Tenn and is also in WANDERING STARS. The introduction to WS is
written by Isaac Asimov, who also has a story in there called "Unto
the Fourth Generation".

WS was published by POCKET BOOKS and edited by Jack Dann. The book
came out in 1975 but is out of print now.

The song that hjjh at UTEXAS-11 wanted to match with the story is
quite appropriate when it says, "My family thinks that I'm a fool to
love an asparagus." In the story, the father of the girl says, "Does
Lorinda fully understand how he works, or one day will she make an
asparagus omelet out of one of his appendages, only to learn that's
the part that doesn't grow back?

***Amy Mori***

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jan 1982 2141-EST
From: HEDRICK at RUTGERS (Mngr DEC-20's/Dir LCSR Comp Facility)
Subject: Pashin

Someone asked about Alexei Panshin, and mentioned the following books:
            Masque World Star Well The Thurb Revolution

Unless I am confusing two people, this is the same fellow as the
author of "Rite of Passage" (written before the stuff you mentioned)
and "Earth Magic" (I think that is the title), written more recently
with his wife as co-author.  I would hate to think of him as being
remembered for "Masque World" rather than these books. "Rite of
Passage" is very well-known.  I think it won one of the major SF
awards.  [ It won the Nebula Award for best Novel.  - Jim ] It is
"soft" SF, rather along the lines of (earlier) LeGuin.  It involves a
rite of passage into adulthood in a space-faring human civilization.
(This description is probably so brief as to be misleading.) I rate it
as one of the top dozen SF books. "Earth Magic" is probably best
categorized as fantasy.  It is sort of a religious experience in an
alternate world (alternate both in the sense that magic works and the
sense that it has an earth-mother goddess instead of the God that
rules in this universe).  It is an attempt to deal with the ultimate
meaning of life by someone who in my opinion doesn't know what the
ultimate meaning of life is, and thus seems to me to be a bit too
self-consciously "deep".  But it is well worth reading.  Certainly you
should read it before searching for more of the kind of stuff you had
mentioned.  However if you want religious experience in a world ruled
by alternate gods, you would be better off reading "Til We Have Faces"
by C.S. Lewis (by far his best ficition), which is a retelling of the
Cupid and Psyche myth.  It has all of the good points of his other
fiction but completely avoids his tendency elsewhere to ram
Christianity down the reader's throat.

------------------------------
Date:  9 Jan 1982 0113-PST
From: Timothy P. Mann <CSD.MANN at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #7

The story I heard, via a TRS-80 users' grapevine, was that Asimov had
stated that he was not interested in going over to computerized text
editing to write his books, instead sticking with his trusty
typewriter.  In response, Tandy gave him a Model II, and after using
it a while he was converted.  This version of the story may be nothing
but output from the rumor mill, but it sounds somewhat plausible.  The
similarity of the TRS-80 Pocket Computer (actually made by Sharp) to
the hand computers seen in Foundation and other Asimov stories could
have been dreamed up later by the P.R. men.
        --Tim

------------------------------

Date: 9 January 1982 10:06-EST
From: Thomas L. Davenport <TLD at MIT-MC>
Subject:  Isaac at the pitch

The ads have already started.  There was a 1/4 page ad on page 2 of
the January 8th issue of The Wall Street Journal(!) showing Asimov
leaning on a TRS-80 under the headline "You Don't Have to Write As
Much As I Do to Appreciate A Radio Shack TRS-80 Word Processor."

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jan 1982 18:56:11-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!bts at Berkeley
Location: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Subject: Dr. Who

        The missing story in the "Key of Time" series was "The Pirate
Planet".

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jan 1982 13:21:12-PST
From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley
Subject: Doctor Who and movie options.


>From my Doctor Who episode guide, on the "Key to Time" series (the
16th season of Doctor Who, aired in England from Sept 2 1978 to
February 24 1979)

The second episode that was missing from the SFL message of yesterday
is "The Pirate Planet", by Douglas Adams, who should be well know to
SFL readers as the author of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

As far as I know, this is the longest running series of the Doctor
with a common theme - am I right?

As far as options on To Your Scattered Bodies Go are concerned, don't
get your hopes up.  Options are purchased on books all the time.  My
father, who writes bestsellers for some of his living (I've tried to
get him to write some SF, but to no avail) received several options on
his first book before it was made into a film.  He has other books
that he has sold options on many times buy have never seen celuloid.
I'm told this is fairly common.  Such options usually lost only a
year, and then all rights revert to the author, who also gets to keep
the money - it's part of how they make it.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 1982 07:35:43-PST
From: CSVAX.wildbill at Berkeley
Subject: Revenge of the Jedi

According to Peter Stack's column of this morning, production for
Revenge of the Jedi has begun today at Elstree Studios in England. The
director and principals are in place, and actual filming will begin as
soon as everything gets shaken down. Release of RotJ is currently
scheduled for Memorial Day weekend of next year (1983).

------------------------------

Date: 11 January 1982 19:54-EST
From: "Martin B. Gentry, III" <GENTRY at MIT-AI>

Subject: Spock lives(?)

        If you wish Spock to live, call (900) 720-6000, if not call
        (900) 720-6600. This poll was announced at the end of a
        segment about Spock and Star Trek II that was featured on
        tonight's \Entertainment Tonight/. The results of the poll are
        to be announced tomorrow night (12-Jan-82) and supposedly
        passed on to the 'powers that be'.

        [BTW, It was mentioned in the segment that several alternative
        endings have been proposed and one has been filmed]

                                Live long, etc.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 17-Jan <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #9
*** EOOH ***
Date: Sunday, January 17, 1982 1:36AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #9
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest         Friday, 15 Jan 1982        Volume 5 : Issue 9

Today's Topics:

                 Administrivia - Physics Discussion,
       SF Topics - Physics Imaginary (Variable Speed of Light)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15-Jan-82 00:00:00
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Administrivia - Physics Discussion

The physics discussion in this and the next issue of the digest was
initiated in the SPACE digest, and was CCed to SF LOVERS.  Enjoy.

Jim

------------------------------

Date: 14 January 1982 00:26-EST
From: Ken Harrenstien <KLH at MIT-AI>
Subject: Question on Michelson-Morley experiment

Apologies to those receiving duplicates.  I was reading through a
friend's pile of old magazines the other day, and came across a
curious statement.
        In the November 1979 issue of ANALOG there is a guest
editorial titled "Beyond Relativity" by G. Harry Stine.  It is a
fairly standard treatise on Einstein, the nature of science, and so
forth, at least until page 161.  At that point there is a paragraph
which made me blink several times:

        "And, while it is true that Michelson and Morley did not find
        the expected 60 kilometer per second differential that would
        have confirmed the existence of the luminiferous ether, THEY
        DID FIND A DIFFERENCE OF ABOUT 8 KILOMETERS PER SECOND!"
         (caps are italics in original)

        There is more following this, to the effect that these results
have been duplicated repeatedly, and it seems as if the speed of light
is not, in fact, independent of the motion of the observer!

        Naturally I am very curious to know what more knowledgeable
readers might have to say about this, or the article itself if they
can find it.  Is the quote, for example, a correct statement of fact?
Is G. Stine given to wild conjectures or distortions?  (Doesn't strike
me that way, though.)  Considering the desperate search of SF for
holes in the lightspeed limit, I'm a little surprised that Analog
doesn't seem to have followed up on that in later issues.  Perhaps
somebody has already explained it away?

--Ken

------------------------------

Date: 14 January 1982 06:31-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Question on Michelson-Morley experiment

Harry gets carried away sometimes.

He also told of the chap who did the Michelson Morley experiment
hundreds of times and got all kinds of relative motion.  I asked Bob
Forward about that, and Bob said,
        "Yep, he did the same experiment with the same crummy
equipment and kept getting the same erroneous results..."

I have often thought of doing an SF story in which they go to the Moon
and someone does the M-M experiment and gets the relative velocity of
Moon around Earth...

------------------------------

Date: 14 January 1982 13:27-EST
From: John G. Aspinall <JGA at MIT-MC>
Subject: Question on Michelson-Morley experiment

The Michelson-Morely experiment has been repeated many times.  A
summary of a number of these experiments appeared in a review article
by Shankland et al. [1] in 1955.  The best test I could find a
reference to, is one using lasers in 1964 [2].  (I found pointers to
both these references in "Special Relativity", by French.)

In none of these experiments, was there any detected fringe shift that
could be ascribed to ether motion.  Later experiments put successively
lower bounds on any possible motion.

In the laser experiment, "... No change in beat frequency ... was
detectable within the accuracy of the measurement (about +/- 3kHz).
This was less than 1/1000 of the change that one would calculate from
an ether-wind hypothesis...." (Quote from French.)  Now fringe shift
(or beat frequency shift - same thing) is proportional to the square
of the velocity difference, so this means that any motion is down by a
factor of more than 30 from the ether-wind hypothesis.  This is
certainly not the detected motion that Stine claims.

I haven't read the Stine column, and I would be interested to hear if
the letters section in following months had any complaints about this
in it, but I will inject one personal note here.  This is the sort of
thing that gives SF a very bad name - if we (the collective SF
community, editors especially) let this sort of thing go unchallenged,
then we deserve the reputation of not being able to distinguish fact
from fiction.  SF might as well be all fantasy.  Any claims to being
intelligent speculation about "what might happen" go out the window,
in the eyes of many.

Agreed, there is a line to be drawn between stifling creative thought,
and "print everything as fact", but you don't overcome "math anxiety"
by telling the student that all answers are right.  Likewise you don't
encourage intelligent speculation about OUR world, by ignoring what we
know already.

[1] Shankland et al., Rev. Mod. Phys., 27, 167, (1955).
[2] Jaseja et al., Phys. Rev. 133, A1221, (1964).

John Aspinall.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 1982 1712-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: Harry Stein and Physics

Please don't believe what Harry Stein says about more abstract physics.
There is an excellent rebuttal to this particular article in an issue
of analog a few months later written by some graduate student.

In particular, the feeling you get from the article that physicists
don't really know as much as they pretend to, that there really may be
an ether, and that there is lots wrong with relativity is pretty much
hogwash.

Stein also writes about the Dean drive, an new reactionless drive
which is really bizzare and so on.  His book, "The Third Industrial
Revolution" is quite good, and he has written much about space
industrialization which is quite good, however, after the things he
writes about physics, or about the dean drive, I wonder how correct
his other information is.

                                Alan

------------------------------

Date: 16 January 1982 04:20-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Harry Stein and Physics

I suspect Harry's physics is a little better than some people's
spelling.
        G. Harry Stine worked for a number of years as assistant to
Dr. (Col.) William Davis.  Now "Spacedrive" Davis was indeed
considered wrong; but he was pretty well respected even so.  Not a
crackpot.
        I thought Harry's article a bit intemperate, but I've noticed
a number of physicists who didn't seem very interested in looking at
new data either.  A few years ago we had a big meeting on Davis
Mechanics and the Dean Drive, on the theory that if there was ANY
chance of experimental data in contradiction to relativity it would be
worth preserving.
        Dr. Robert Forward of Hughes Research wasn't too proud to come
to the meeting.  Dr. Robert Bussard hasn't been too proud to discuss
the subject.  True, the evidence is skimpy to non-existent, and if
you had to bet you'd have to put your money on general relativity; but
even Forward points out that in the Einstein tensor, inertia and
gravity aren't NECESSARILY equal.  Empirically they turn out to be so
to about 11 decimal places, but the Cal Tech people way there's still
no really definitive reason why they should; at least that's what I
think Lee and Lightman were saying.  Certainly Forward says it.
        It's one thing to be convinced of orthodox physical theory and
to defend it; it's quite another to become intemperate in the defense.
Harry is probably wrong, and he loves to rattle people's cages anyway;
leave it at that, and don't think it necessary to destroy the man.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 17-Jan <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #10
*** EOOH ***
Date: Sunday, January 17, 1982 1:38AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #10
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
    Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-MULTICS, CLJones.Multics at MIT-MULTICS,
    CSpitzer.WFSO at MIT-MULTICS, Greenwald.INP at MIT-MULTICS,
    JSLove.PDO at MIT-MULTICS, Malik.ARCS at MIT-MULTICS,
    Palter at MIT-MULTICS, Polucci at MIT-MULTICS, RHarvey at MIT-MULTICS,
    Roach at MIT-MULTICS, sf-list.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS,
    Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS, Sibert.SysMaint at MIT-MULTICS,
    Spratt.Multics at MIT-MULTICS


SF-LOVERS Digest        Saturday, 16 Jan 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 10

Today's Topics:
  SF Topics - Physics Imaginary (Variable Speed of Light/Dean Drive)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 January 1982 11:41-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Question on Michelson-Morley experiment

Analog has a long history of making absolutely matter of fact
statements which are totally false, to support their latest big hoax.

-- Remember the "Dean Drive"? Campbell, then editor, made a flat
 statement in a reply to a letter to the editor that a Dean Drive
 hanging from the ceiling on a rope and aimed sideways will rise up at
 an angle, thus refuting the claim that all thrust was really just
 nonlinear vibrational effects on the bathroom scale they had been
 using. I actually started believing in the Dean Drive after that
 letter-reply, for a few years, sigh.

-- Remember the crystal that dissolved about 1 second before it struck
 water, so they hooked up a chain of them with each dissolving of a
 crystal causing water to drop on the next? They went pretty
 matter-of-fact on that, although I was smart enough not to believe
 them.

-- I don't believe this stuff about Michelson-Morley experiment
 showing a positive result. More likely the velocity reported was the
 experimental error, the claim being that an upper bound on our motion
 thru the "ether" was found, and Analog distorted the truth to make
 their hoax. (If experimental error is 8, and you measure 0, then it's
 possible the correct value is anywhere from -8 to +8, you can't say
 it's zero for sure, but Analog has no right to say it isn't zero
 either. Probably the measured value was not zero, but close enough to
 zero to be within the range of experimental error. The best
 (simplest) conclusion to make is that it's probably exactly zero but
 that more accurate equipment will be needed to either bracket it
 closer to zero or actually bracket it away from zero.) Now if Science
 had made the same claim, I'd be more willing to look into the matter
 instead of just dismissing it.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 1982 1108-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Analog 'hoaxes'



I think Robert has his facts a little confused about Analog
participation in gross deception.

        - The Dean Drive has never been tested (or the tests were not
          reported in Analog) by hanging it pendulum-fashion.  Analog
          carried several articles saying that this is the proper way
          to test alleged reactionless drives (I agree).  Dean never
          let his drive system get into the hands of people who could
          test it scientifically.  Analog NEVER said it was a real
          reactionless drive, only that it MIGHT be one and somebody
          should try and find out.  Several people did try (Stine
          among them) but nobody ever got a Dean Drive to play with
          and thus nobody knows.

        - Thiotimoline (the crystal that dissolved before the water
          hit it) was the subject of a series of fiction stories by (I
          believe) Isaac Asimov.  You are the first person I have
          heard from to believe they were NOT intended as fiction.

As for the differences in the Michelson-Morley experimental data, I am
inclined to treat them as experimental error.  In any event, I recall
reading that article and being somewhat annoyed that Stine did not
provide references to back up his claim.  Flaming on a technical
subject is fine as it stimulates thought, but if you can't back it up
you lose credibility as far as I am concerned.

------------------------------

Date: 16 January 1982 04:09-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Analog 'hoaxes'

        (1) John W. Campbell personally saw the Dean Machine and
stated many times that he saw a (small) reduction in the apparent
weight as measured by a bathroom scale when the machine was turned
on.  The machine jumped around a lot, however.

        (2) G. Harry Stine actually touched it and states that when
turned on, it had a much stronger resistance to horizontal motion (it
was at that time turned on its side with a push-rod along the axis of
'thrust') when turned on than when turned off.  He took no
measurements because he was not permitted to.

        (3) Several aerospace firms including Boeing and MMM
attempted to purchase the dean Machine after the famous picture in
LIFE of Dave Garroway thrusting a peice of paper under the machine.
Dean wanted about $1 million and a Nobel prize IN ADVANCE.  I know for
a fact that one aerospace firm sent an irrevocable letter of credit
worth $500,000 if signed by all of a three-person team (two engineers
and one lawyer); their instructions were to buy the damn thing if there
were ANY lift or thrust whatever, on the grounds that a major company
would get it working (and if you build airplanes you can build
spaceships if you have a drive...)

        They were unable to examine the machine sufficiently to be
able to form an informed conclusion.

        (4) No one knows what happened to the original Dean Machine.
The one described in the patent is NOT the machine that we saw
operate.

------------------------------

From: Marvin Minsky@MIT-AI (Sent by MINSKY@MIT-AI)
Date: 01/17/82 00:25:30
Subject: Dean Machine History

Shortly after the Dean drive was described in Astounding, John
Campbell published a picture of it.  I examined the picture with a
lens and managed to read the brand name of the bathroom scale used to
measure the loss of weight of the machine.  My college roommate,
Roland Silver, and I conjectured correctly that this scale had a
"diode" in it that coupled the platform and the reading device.  So we
went to Sears Roebuck in Porter Square, Cambridge and bought that very
scale.

When you stand on it it reads your weight fine, but if you pump your
arms up and down -- just as did the dean machine itself -- then the
weight fluctuates a lot -- with the mean weight (and even the maximum)
far below the real weight.

So then Clause Shannon and John Pierce and I wrote a sharp detailed
letter to Campbell about this.

John Campbell didn't print our letter, but he sent me (knowing I was
the instigator) a long letter that I still have here, denouncing
establishment scientists for their reactionary and unimaginative
rigidity and general intolerance.

Suitably chastened, I dropped the matter and continued with my
reactionary, establishment-bound studies.

Anyway, this incident jibes with Pournelle's account about Campbell
seeing the machine which "jumped around a lot" on a bathroom scale.  I
checked out all the other scales, too, and finally found one that
reads high when you bounce.  But these were much less common.  So,
possibly, Dean was hoist by this pitiful petard.  But I maintained
that this was extremely unlikely since, obviously, he was all too
familiar with flakey, vibrating, weighing mechanisms.

  -- marvin

P.S..  I should add that much as we hated him, we loved him greatly
too, and for all he did for all of us.  And same for G. Harry Stine.

------------------------------
End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 18-Jan <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #11
*** EOOH ***
Date: Monday, January 18, 1982 7:26AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #11
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest         Sunday, 17 Jan 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 11

Today's Topics:
          SF Books - The Sardonyx Net & Resurrection Days &
                      Sandkings & Listen,Listen,
               SF Topics - What If Books & Hacker in SF
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Jan 82 2:53-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: book

    SCIENCE FICTION
    By Roland J. Green
    (c) 1982 Chicago Sun-Times (Field News Service)
    Elizabeth Lynn's latest novel, ''The Sardonyx Net'' (Putnam's,
$13.95) is demanding, peculiar - and excellent.
    Consider the three main characters. They are Dana Ikoro, spaceship
pilot and interstellar drug smuggler; Zed Yago, commander of the
Sardonyx Net, a starship transporting slaves to the planet Chabad; and
his sister, Rhani Yago, head of the Yago family and one of the ruling
oligarchs of Chabad.
    Now consider the plot. Dana is arrested on Chabad and tortured by
Zed, who wants to discover Dana's source of an illegal drug needed to
keep the slaves docile. He is then sold as a slave to Rhani, who falls
in love with him. All three soon find themselves fighting for survival
against the terroristic schemes of a fanatically anti-drug policeman,
Michael A-Rae.
    Somehow it all works. Like Lynn's ''Chronicles of Tornor''
trilogy, particularly its concluding volume, ''The Northern Girl''
(Berkley paperback), it works so well at so many levels that it seems
like nit-picking to single out one more than another.
    Certainly the book is a triumph of characterization. Lynn draws us
into the characters until we are looking out at their world through
their eyes. We end up knowing what it will let them do, an
understanding why they do it even if we don't ''like'' them in any
conventional sense. The principle that ''no man is a villain in his
own eyes'' has seldom been so thoroughly observed in an SF novel.
    It also helps that Lynn's world is worth looking at. Chabad is a
hot, arid planet, barely habitable by human beings, and Lynn works out
its implications with fine logic. Its society is a complex mixture of
decadence and vitality, which she describes with loving detail,
usually without slowing the brisk pacing. We end up knowing where the
characters will go and what they'll eat if they get hungry at two
o'clock in the morning, or at least believing the author knows. This
can't be said of every SF novel.
    Bob Tucker has also made a fine story out of what looks at first
like unpromising material in ''Resurrection Days'' (TimescapePocket
Books, $2.25 paperback). Owen Hall, an Indiana carpenter killed in an
auto accident in 1943, wakes up in a far-future world. This world is
ruled by women, who get their labor force by reconstituting
zombie-like males from remains found in graveyards. Something has gone
wrong with Owen Hall's processing, however. He has both a will of his
own and memories of his previous life.
    The Last Man on Earth Overthrowing the Evil Matriarchs used to be
an SF cliche, and the less said about the usual results, the better.
Tucker avoids all the traps. He hasn't written a novel of the war
between the sexes so much as a story of the search for understanding.
    Owen Hall and the women are trying to overcome an enormous
communications gap in language and in almost everything else. Their
efforts are sometimes funny, sometimes moving and almost always
believable. Long and lovingly detailed passages of nostalgic
reminiscing about the Midwest before World War II will give the book
extra warmth for many readers.
    Two recent major SF collections provide an interesting contrast.
George R.R. Martin's ''Sandkings'' (TimescapePocket Books, $2.75
paperback) contains six short pieces; the title story and ''The Way of
Cross and Dragon'' won Hugo awards. Kate Wilhelm's ''Listen, Listen''
(Houghton Mifflin, $13.95) contains four novellas, two of them
previously unpublished.
    Both authors have a deep commitment to characterization, a love
for detailed backgrounds, and a fine command of language. Wilhelm uses
basically contemporary settings, with only a single SF element - in
''The Winter Beach,'' for example, it is an immortality serum. Martin
sends his characters off to the stars, where they deal with equally
universal questions among alien races on far-flung, exotic worlds.
Both approaches succeed admirably.
    This proves that both authors know their business - if any futher
proof was needed in either case for readers who have been following
Martin and Wilhelm during the '70s. For new readers, these collections
are good introductions to a pair of the field's major talents.


[ Thanks also to Lauren Weinstein (lauren at UCLA-Security) for
  contributing a copy of this article.  --  Jim ]

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 1982 09:37:46-PST
From: CSVAX.wildbill at Berkeley
Subject: Alternate universes and time travel

I have been out of town for a few weeks, which has led to my missing
about a week's worth of sf-lovers. As a result, I may have missed the
beginning of the alterate universe-what-if? discussion, and hence
mention of the two following stories.

     In the alternate-universe section of SF, one story that comes
immediately to mind is a true antique, "Sidewise in Time", by Murray
Leinster. As far as I can tell, this is the archetypical alternate-
universe story. The basic plot premise is the standard one that there
are universes in which event <foo> did or did not happen, e.g. a
universe in which the Confederates won, a universe in which Rome
conquered the entire world, a universe in which the Ice Age did not
end, etc., and that certain of these universes have suddenly become
contiguous here on Earth. Action centers around an instructor at a
college that could charitably be termed "backwater", who has Figured
the Whole Thing Out and seeks to better his state. I will say no more
lest I get spoilered.

     Moving to a slightly different area, the discussion of the Niven
black-hole story brings to mind the long version of "The Weapon Shops
of Isher", by A. E. van Vogt. (One must be careful regarding this
story, as I have read two versions, the one of which I am talking
containing the other as one of its subplots.) In one of the subplots
of this story, there is a building being used by the Empire to attack
the weapon shops which is swinging back and forth in time. One of the
central characters, having extorted a small sum of money, joins the
Imperial Army and uses the building to go back a few months and make
his small sum of money a large sum in the stock market, in the process
buying himself a colonelcy and marrying his girl friend.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jan 1982 1341-EST
From: DD-B <DYER-BENNET at KL2137>
Reply-to: "DYER-BENNET at KL2137 c/o" <YOUNG at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: SF Lovers


( Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest V5 #2 )

(PAUL DICKSON AT QUILL) I like your "meta-levels of what-if" theory of
writing, if only for the lovely name.  How do fantasy stories fit into
it?  Where, for example, would you place Lord of the Rings?  I wonder
if there are any reachable levels beyond three?

( Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest V5 #6 )

(Roger H. Goun <G.ROGER at MIT-EECS at MIT-AI>) Computer protagonist,
loses: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (Heinlein).  Does that need a
spoiler?

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jan 1982 13:38 CST
From: Johnston.DLOS at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #6

How about Loses: (antagonist or protagonist?)  HAL in 2001: A Space
Odyssey?

                                        --Rick

------------------------------

Date: 13-Jan-1982
From: JOHN REDFORD AT WAFER
Reply-to: "JOHN REDFORD AT WAFER c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: more hacker stories

A couple of other stories containing hackers come to mind:

Fireship by Joan Vinge - A government agency develops a system
breaking machine that fits in a brief case and connects to an agent's
brain.  Before trying it out on one of their agents they plug it into
a lab tech.  Separately, the machine is passive and the man is dull,
but together they form a far more powerful and creative entity.  They
escape the government lab and hack the interplanetary scheduling
system in order to flee to Mars, where the story opens.  Good stuff.

Home is the Hangman by Roger Zelazny - A collection of stories about a
man who was in on the creation of a national data base.  At first he
is enthusiastic about the project, thinking that now no one need die
in a car wreck because their medical records are in another state, or
be able to jump bail by crossing a state line.  He has second
thoughts, though, and before he leaves the project he puts in hooks to
let him change identities at will.  He becomes a free-lance trouble
shooter, an Invisible Man.  The first of the stories, "The Eve of
RUMOKO" is the best, but they're all worth reading.

Michaelmas by Algis Budrys - The hero, Michaelmas, started out as a
phone phreak in the sixties, and built a system to help him do it.
Now it's the twenty first century, and his system runs much of the
world. It's well written and philosophical like most of his stuff, but
a little slow.

And another story about phreaks is Tandem Rush by ?. I read the first
few pages of this in a drugstore and so don't know much about it. It's
a mainstream story about someone who plans to paralyze the United
States by taking over the phone system.

There seem to be a remarkable number of these stories, considering how
removed from ordinary life hackers are.  Maybe hackers are the present
day version of the Capable Man.  In earlier SF, the capable people
were engineers who could build a spaceship in their backyard.  Now
that computers are becoming a dominant type of machine, the character
has shifted to someone who can understand and control them.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 18-Jan <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #12
*** EOOH ***
Date: Monday, January 18, 1982 11:48PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #12
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest         Tuesday, 19 Jan 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 12

Today's Topics:
           SF Books - Here's the Plot...What's the Title &
       Water Witch & Lilith & Cerberus & The Pride of Chanur &
          The Best of Randall Garrett & The Ice is Coming &
                        The Dark Bright Water,
     SF Movies - Star Trek II & Revenge of the Jedi & The Thing,
             SF Topics - Asimov and Tandy & What If Books
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 1982 11:54:01-PST
From: b.r.schatz
Subject: could anyone give me pointers to this story?

I am trying to locate a short story entitled "Oddie the Monster".  It
concerns a science student (I think in chemistry) who runs a series of
experiments for a class.  Although he does every procedure wrong, each
experiment turns out successfully due to an amazing series of lucky
coincidences.  The story is narrated by his, understandingly, baffled
teacher.  I believe it was written in the 50's.  Any pointers would be
greatly appreciated; I have been looking for this story for years.
Thanks.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jan 1982 at 2230-CST
From: hjjh at UTEXAS-11
Subject: Books

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ RECENT AND READABLE ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

WATER WITCH by Cynthia Felice and Connie Willis

 Not good, not bad.  Okay for light filler, like taking on a trip when
 you really don't want something so engrossing you hate to be forced
 to only read it in snatches.  The alien world and race in Felice's
 earlier book offered promise not carried on in this one.

LILITH, & CERBERUS (of "Lords of the Diamond" series) by Jack Chalker

 There are a few, very few, SF authors of which even a fan might be
 impelled to ask the mundane's perennial question-- "Where DO you get
 your crazy ideas?!"  Chalker is certainly one of them.  Particularly
 in the "Well World" series, of course, tho those were something I
 could take or let alone, and did leave most of them alone.  This new
 series is not quite so outre, but weird enough and even more
 intriguing.  Chalker not being one of my Buy New, Even Sight Unseen
 authors, I let LILITH pass me by last month.  When it looked like
 CERBERUS was going to be a potential female-protagonist candidate, I
 got LILITH so as to be better prepared for it.  Well, alas, CERBERUS
 didn't qualify for my "fempro" collection, after all, but was so
 interesting that I'll shell out for the rest of the series New As
 Fast As I Can Get 'Em.

THE PRIDE OF CHANUR by C.J. Cherryh

 This one IS a "fempro", is as well-crafted as anything Cherryh's
 done, and is free from the tinge of "downer-ness" which too often
 ruin her books for me.  The aliens from whose viewpoint the story is
 told are felinoid (tho, culturally, more akin to Felis leo rather
 than felis domesticus, but Cherryh is too subtle to-- excuse the
 expression-- rub your nose in it.

THE BEST OF RANDALL GARRETT

 If you're put off by the magic in the Lord Darcy stories-- or, if
 you're their ardent fan-- try THESE on for size!  Garrett is an
 unsung master of our genre.  (There are only 2 Lord Darcy stories in
 this collection, but I'll wager anti-Darcyites reading the book won't
 be able to resist them just to be able to read more Garrett.  And
 Lord Darcy aficionados needn't feel cheated, for one of the 2 stories
 is NOT in any of the other Darcy books.)  Garrett is also master of
 puns.  One here is too good to keep-- he met Ben Bova in a bar at a
 con, and accepted the offer of a drink.  When it was served, Garrett
 said, "Deo gratias!"  Bova looked at him inquiringly, and Garrett
 said, "My father always told me not to let a day go by without
 thanking God."  (Mr. Bova, of course, is of Italian extraction.)

THE ICE IS COMING, & THE DARK BRIGHT WATER by Patricia Wrightson

 These were mentioned in SF-LOVERS a month or so ago, but I didn't
 have time then to really extol them as they deserved.  I still
 don't, but I want to mention them here so that you won't let them
 slip off the stands without grabbing copies.  (The third is also due
 out in pb soon.)  \These/ \are/ \superb/.  More on them later when I
 can better do them justice.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 1982 1621-PST
From: Jwagner at OFFICE
Subject: Boston Globe error of omission

Robert A. McLean, the man who wrote the Boston Globe story about Isaac
Asimov's commercial endorsement of Radio Shack's computer, left out an
important bit of information.  Sure, we all know Cavett endorses
Apple, Plimpton helps sell Mattel, and Cosby does ads for Texas
Instruments.  He failed to acknowledge IBM's new spokesman: Charlie
Chaplin.  Spokesman?  Excuse me, I mean mime.  (I guess these really
are Modern Times.)

Jim Wagner/jwagner@office

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 1982 1322-PST
From: Barry Eynon <CSD.EYNON at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Spock Rumors


For those with a taste for such gossip, the host of "Dialing for
Dollars" just claimed to have heard from a "reliable source" inside
Paramount, that, despite the 13,000 live/1,000 die phone vote, Spock
will be killed off in the next Star Trek picture. Apparently two
different endings were filmed, but the one where he dies has been
selected by the "powers-that-be".

Sounds to me like Paramount may be trying hype both this picture ("See
Spock die!"), and the next in what I'm sure they now are dreaming of
as a long line of pictures ("Public clamor against death of
Spock!"/"See Spock resurrected in the Omegabetron device!"). Hype. And
here I am contributing to it. Sigh...

-Barry

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 1982 2040-EST
From: G.PALEVICH at MIT-EECS at MIT-AI
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #8

        A friend who was flying home from Christmas vacation sat next
to a woman who had been recently fired from Lucas Films.

        For what little it is worth, I say that he said that she said
that when she left, some of the plot ideas being kicked around
included having Boba Fet (the Bounty Hunter) be Han Solo's father!
And Han Solo would therefore be free at the beginning of the next Star
Wars movie.


------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 1982 16:33:58-PST
From: allegra!psuvax!sibley at Berkeley
Subject: The Thing


I just found out that the classic movie The Thing is being remade.  Or
at least a new movie is being made based on the original story.  The
paperback version of the screenplay exists.  Anybody have any info on
the movie--e.g., expected release date?

dave psuvax!sibley

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 1982 14:50 PST
From: Woods at PARC-MAXC
Subject: "alternate-universe" vs "what-if"

Not surprisingly, there seems to be a lot of confusion over what is
meant by "what-if" stories.  I of course can't speak for the person
sending the original query, but to my mind a "what-if" story is one in
which almost all of earth history is assumed to be unchanged, but one
significant (and usually minor) difference took place in the past,
resulting in important facets of the setting or plot.  Thus, although
almost all SF involves assumptions that vary from present fact, I
would classify most of it as "let's suppose" rather than "what if".
That is, let's suppose faster-than-light travel is possible and is
discovered fifty years from now, or let's suppose than World War Three
breaks out tomorrow and has the following outcome, etc.  In a "what
if" story, though, it is specifically a minor change to a known PAST
event that leads to the interesting suppositions.

Alternate universe stories are another special case
Date: Wednesday, January 20, 1982 8:26AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #13
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest        Wednesday, 20 Jan 1982     Volume 5 : Issue 13

Today's Topics:
         SF Movies - The Thing & Time Bandits & Star Trek II,
    SF Topics - Hackers in SF & Asimov and Tandy & What If Books &
Physics Imaginary (Variable Speed of Light/Dean Drive) & Slave trade,
                 Random Topics - Etymology of "Zork"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue 19-Jan-1982 13:05-EST
From: Bill Russell <RUSSELL at NYU>
Subject: Re: The Thing

According to the Feb. 1982 issue (Vol. 12, No. 1) of Cinefantastique
the movie went into production in March 1981 with nine weeks of
interiors being shot at Universal starting in August.  Additional
footage was to be shot on the Juneau Ice Field in Alaska, and some
exteriors in British Columbia.

Since the paperback is out now, I would expect to see the movie
released within a month, but the article mentions "summer 82".

Mentioned credits:

Screenplay:     Bill Lancaster (The Bad News Bears)
Producer:       Stuart Cohn
Director:       John Carpenter (Dark Star, Halloween,
                        Assault on Precinct 13, Escape From New York)
Makeup:         Richard Bottin (The Hollowing) and Roy Arbogast

Kurt Russell (Escape From New York) has the main role of McCready.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 1982 1302-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: Time Bandits

There are two references to Horseflesh (the seventh dwarf) in Time
Bandits as well as a credit at the end even though he didn't appear
(at least I didn't see him).

1.  In one scene, one dwarf says: "Horseflesh wouldn't have gotten
    us into this mess." Another says: "Well Horseflesh is dead."

2.  Also, one says later, "If it wasn't there, Horseflesh wouldn't
    have put it on the map."

This seems to say that Horseflesh used to be the leader of the gang
and was the one who produced the map, but somehow died.


                                Alan

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jan 1982 0414-EST
From: Hobbit <AWalker at RUTGERS>
Subject: Spock Salvatus Dialitus

Didn't work from NJ....

_H*

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jan 1982 08:43 PST
From: Weyer at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: spocks in alternate universes

I think it was in a Star Trek novelization (Entropy Effect?) where
Kirk is killed, Spock discovers that this is a side-effect of
someone's tinkering with time, and Spock goes back in time (several
times) to prevent its occurrence. Given this and other time-travel
precedents in previous episodes, I don't see much problem with killing
Spock off at the end of the movie (or depending on how they kill him,
there are other ways to make it seem in retrospect not so final).

As someone else pointed out, efforts to bring Spock back over the
course of the next several movies (or retrieving and thawing Hans Solo
in another obscure movie series) should help draw them in at the box
office.

Steve

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 1982 2147-EST
From: Steven J. Zeve <ZEVE at RUTGERS>
Subject: response to the last week's worth of SF-L

Hackers in SF:

To KENN GOUTAL AT SCRIBE, I've read Octagon, I thought it stank.  It
was an almost complete waste of Saberhagen's talent.  The book didn't
feel right to me.  I couldn't believe it (mostly because of how the
program got loose).  The best thing I can say about it is that
Saberhagen probably made some money off of it.  I would rather have
seen a Beserker book.  You do have the story idea a little bit wrong.
It would be better to call it a "Gamers involve the real world" story,
or a "Computers think differently than we do" story.  I remember it
mostly because I thought it was a waste.

I was going to mention "Fireship" by Joan Vinge and "Home is the
Hangman" by Roger Zelazny but someone beat me to it.

To: JOHN REDFORD AT WAFER I don't know why, but I think that the
Zelazny book you were thinking of is "My Name is Legion".

I am surprised that no one has mentioned "Web of Angels".  I am
involved in working on my fourth literacy now.

Isaac Asimov and the TRS-80:

Perhaps someone can ask Dr. A. for the real story at Boskone.  He
(Asimov) is almost certain to be there.


"Oddie the Monster":

I'm afraid that I don't have references for it, but I think that the
story is called something more like "Oddie and Id".


Thiotimoline and Analog Hoaxes:

To: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC> According to Asimov's "Opus
100", he wrote the Thiotimoline stories to practice up for his PhD.
They were intended to be fiction, but were written in the style he
felt was appropriate for a thesis.  I do not believe that they were
ever a deliberate hoax of the nature you imply.

I realize that John Campbell went out on limbs with some pretty
strange ideas (look at his fascination with Dianetics and Telepathy,
among others); I do not believe, however, that he deliberately lied
to hoax people.  He might have wanted to shake up a few cages from
time to time, but to deliberately mislead?  Cage shaking was a
favorite sport of his, which can be seen from reading his editorials
and since Campbell's death both Bova and Schmidt in turn have tried to
continue the cage-rattling tendencies.

        Steve Z.

------------------------------

Date: 18-Jan-1982
From: STEVE LIONEL AT STAR
Reply-to: "STEVE LIONEL AT STAR c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest V5 #8

Regarding the question of whether or not Isaac Asimov uses a TRS-80
Model II for word processing - the latest issue of Isaac Asimov's SF
Magazine contains a comment by him that he indeed has started to use
such a system.  I wouldn't be surprised if Tandy had given it to him.

I also wonder at just what the similarities between the computers in
"Foundation" and Radio Shack's models really are.  The closest I can
come is that both are hand-held (assuming the TRS-80 Pocket Computer),
but there the similarity ends.  Asimov's description sounded more like
an electronic Etch-a-Sketch (tm), or one of those wax boards with the
plastic film that you use a wooden stylus on.  Gee, do you think we'll
be seeing "Official Hari Seldon Model TRS-80"?

                                        Steve Lionel

------------------------------

Date: 16 January 1982 11:13 est
From: Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-Multics
Subject: Etymology of "Zork"

Was this really inspired by the "nauseating, slime-oozing,
knife-toothed zork" that was threatening Dale Light in the 1950's MAD
magazine parody of Flash Gordon ("Flesh Garden"), or was it just a
coincidence?  And if it was deliberate, is the sickening, hairy,
many-clawed zorchton, or the horrible, palpitating, limb-ripping
zilchtron down there somewhere?  (gasp! ech!)

Earl

------------------------------

Date: 18 January 1982 17:31 est
From: Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-Multics
Subject: John Campbell's Science

Ye gods.  John Campbell, Stine, and the Dean Drive.  Takes me back to
the days when I built a Heironymous (sp?) Machine from the description
in the old Astounding. Campbell was right about one thing: it worked
best with pubescent females.  This was my first introduction into
beneficial side effects.

Earl

PS Machine description upon request for those of you who are not long
of tooth, bent of frame and grey of beard.  (Actually, the knees are
the first to go in a shaman, but that's another story).

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 1982 03:53:31-PST
From: ihnss!mhtsa!harpo!uwvax!doug at Berkeley

note to chavez:

        Also, another thing I don't understand is what happens in pair
annihilation.  Here a positron-electron pair, both with rest mass,
thus both initially with speeds less than light, are lost to the
creation of a photon which must move only at the speed of light.  If
the photon wasn't there at all before, and then it's there doesn't it
take any time at all for it to get up to speed? etc?

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 1982 1233-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Slave trade

With regard to the review of Elizabeth Lynn's "The Sardonyx Net", is
there *any* possible use for slaves that would make transport of them
across interstellar distances economical.  I realize that this depends
heavily on time and payload numbers, but it is difficult to imagine a
flourishing interstellar economy that can transport slaves easier and
cheaper than machines or information.

------------------------------

Date: 19-Jan-82 10:10:23 PST (Tuesday)
From: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #12

Along the lines of the alternate universe theme is a novel by Fred
Hoyle (October the First is Too Late) in which the sun produces a
strange ray which causes many different periods in the earth's history
to coexist in different locations on the surface of the earth. The
protagonists travel through the Greece of Pericles, World War I
Europe, pre-Cambrian US, etc. and finally settle in a nice future
setting when the earth reverts to normal.

        -- Larry --

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 24-Jan <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #14
*** EOOH ***
Date: Sunday, January 24, 1982 9:38PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #14
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest        Saturday, 23 Jan 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 14

Today's Topics:
    SF Books - Query Answered & "Oddy and Id" & A Planet in Arms,
           SF Radio - Stars&Stuff,  SF Movies - The Thing,
     SF Topics - Asimov and Tandy & Slave trade & Computers in SF
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 1982 20:56:56-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!jh at Berkeley
Subject: "Oddie the Monster"

        The story is "Oddy and Id" by (I believe) Alfred Bester and is
in one of his recent reprint collections.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 1982 2335-EST
From: Captain Polaroid <uc.B at MIT-EECS>
Subject: Oddy and whoever

"Oddy and whoever" had two titles: Campbell had a real dislike of
Freud.  It was written by Alfred Bester and has been reprinted often.
Try the SFBC edition of Starlight/Light Fantastic.  If you can't find
that anthology, dig up a copy of Contento's index to antholgies.  If
that fails, write to me and I'll look up its publication date in
Astounding/Analog.

I am not sure if the Campbell version is different from the original
version.  As I said, Campbell apparently hated Freud and removed all
the references to Freudian psychology in the story.

The story is about Oddy, a boy for whom everything goes right.  His
teachers find this out and convince him that he should become the
ruler of the Solar System.  He does, but more I should not tell you.

                                Captain Polaroid

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 1982 20:56:29-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!jh at Berkeley
Subject: "Oddy and Id"

        It's interesting to compare Oddy to Teela Brown in Niven's
\Ringworld/.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 1982 1118-MST
From: William Galway <GALWAY at UTAH-20>
Subject: "Oddie the Monster"

The story that B. R. Schatz is looking for is "Oddy and Id", by Alfred
Bester.  It appears in the collection of Bester stories--"Star Light,
Star Bright", volume 2.  (Which I picked up for about a dollar,
hardcover, at a used book sale--wish I could find volume 1.)
Apparently, it first appeared in ASTOUNDING in 1950, under the title
"The Devil's Invention".

[ STAR LIGHT, STAR BRIGHT is the second volume of STARLIGHT: THE GREAT
  SHORT FICTION OF ALFRED BESTER.  The first volume is entitled THE
  LIGHT FANTASTIC.  Both volumes are copyright 1976 and published by
  Berkeley Publishing Company in hardcover.  -- Jim ]

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 1982 19:06:06-PST
From: decvax!watmath!rsjayasekera at Berkeley

In the September 28th (1981) issue of Isaac Asimov's SF Magazine there
was a review of a book by Donald Barr called "A Planet in Arms"
(Fawcett, paperback, $2.25).  I have been looking for this book ever
since receiving the issue and have been unable to find it.  Has anyone
seen it?  (Perhaps it's just unavailable in Canada...)
                        Rohan Jayasekera, University of Waterloo
(Ontario)

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 1982 16:24:28-CST
From: jon at uwisc
Subject: SF-radio: Stars&Stuff

Fans of cheap sci-fi might enjoy the NPR Playhouse series Stars &
Stuff, featuring various short stories such as "(the incredible
Quebecois) Rocket Pierre, trapper to the stars", "the Thing that Ate
Aunt Sophie", and "The Tongue that Licked Tucson".  This has been
going on for a few weeks on WERN (89.7 in Madison), but I didn't catch
it until yesterday.  Most of the stories are tongue-in-cheek, but they
are definitely not brilliant parodies.  The production quality is
fairly low (perhaps intentionally), and the situations are more silly
than funny
--z.B. Cajun Roy flying the traffic helicopter in "the Tongue" must
have been put in for comic value, but never causes a laugh.  It's just
funny enough to be enjoyable, and there are some good(bad) puns.  I
assume this is being distributed by NPR; there was no indication where
it comes from nor where it's going.

------------------------------

Date: 23 January 1982 11:06-EST
From: Richard Pavelle <RP at MIT-MC>
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #13

I saw a preview of THE THING about two weeks ago at a local cinema and
the indications were for a release in the summer of 82.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jan 1982 01:51:37-PST
From: decvax!pur-ee!pur-phy!hal at Berkeley
Subject: Asimov

   Either the Jan. or Feb. '82 issue of Popular Computing contains an
article by Isaac Asimov about his introduction to word processing on
the TRS-80 Model II.

Hal Chambers (pur-ee!pur-phy!hal)

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jan 1982 1211-EST
From: Rajeev Sangal <SANGAL at MIT-XX>
Subject: Isaac Asimov and the word processor

There is an article by Asimov in Feb. issue of Popular Computing
describing how a TRS-80 was given to him by Radio Shack, how he
avoided it, wept over it, and finally how he mastered it. Interesting
as always, it might lay to rest some questions and curiosities raised
in this forum.

     - Rajeev Sangal -

------------------------------

Date: 22 January 1982 0142-PST (Friday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: several unrelated items

Hello all...

1) That Dial-A-Spock 900 number, like most of these NBC polls (using
   the same pair of numbers) was only active for a few hours and then
   was turned off.  This is very typical with DIALIT 900 polls of that
   sort.

2) I saw Asimov on an "educational" program about computers, and he
   talked about the Tandy deal.  Apparently alot of people have been
   bugging him for ages -- "Why aren't you writing on a computer?
   Blah Blah."  Apparently, some Tandy guy just got to him first and
   gave him the machine.  There seemed to be no real "comparison
   shopping" involved.

3) RE: Transporting slaves between star systems when machines and
   information could be moved more easily.  Well, I may have a warped
   view or something, but it seems to me that there are many things
   that "human" slaves could do that machines and info could not.
   Much would relate to the sheer satisfaction that many persons would
   presumably get from owning and controlling another human being (or
   humanoid) -- the sense of power is all important in these sorts of
   matters.  Of course, there are always the mundane items (in the
   proper situations) of forced sex and similar indignities that have
   historically often been forced upon slaves.  Presumably human
   beings are more satisfying is such situations than even the most
   futuristic version of the common mechanical "Accusuck" (a real
   device, by the way.)

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 1982 11:56:42-PST
From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley
Subject: Computers and SF

There's a good quote from Bradley's "The House Between the Worlds"
that I'd like to share (and enjoy?):

        Of course, if there was a science-fiction movie where a
        Gateway between dimensions could function, it would have to be
        done with computers -- computers were the modern-day
        equivalent of magic, which, after all, just meant something
        you couldn't understand.  Most people who made science-fiction
        movies, or went to see them, didn't understand computers but
        knew that computers did strange, difficult and supposedly
        impossible things; ergo, their equivalent of the god from the
        machine was a computer control center.

(Incidentally, the biographical blurb at the back mentions that
Bradley has just completed "a major historical fantasy dealing with
the incredible women of the King Arthur legend."  Anyone know anything
more about it?)

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 26-Jan <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #15
*** EOOH ***
Date: Tuesday, January 26, 1982 4:55AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #15
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest         Tuesday, 26 Jan 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 15

Today's Topics:
      SF Books - Bookstore Query & Memoirs of a Space Traveler,
       SF Movies - Star Trek II,  SF Topics - John W. Campbell
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 January 1982 01:20-EST
From: Charles F. Von Rospach <CHUQUI at MIT-MC>
Subject: good bookstore?


Sine I am moving in very short order to the Union City (CA.) area, if
somebody out that way knows of a good general and SF bookstore and can
point it at me, I would be greatly appreciative. I would LOVE a fairly
complete magazine rack, also, but that is hard to find. the better the
selections, the happier I am...

chuck (chuqui@mit-mc)

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 82 15:03-PDT
From: mclure@SRI-UNIX
Subject: Lem book review

By JOHN LEONARD

c. 1982 N.Y. Times News Service
    MEMOIRS OF A SPACE TRAVELER. Further Reminiscences of Ijon Tichy.
By Stanislaw Lem. Translated from the Polish by Joel Stern and Maria
Swiecicka-Ziemianek. 153 pages. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. $9.95.
    ---
    It ought to be possible - certainly I tried hard - to find
something in Stanislaw Lem's new collection of science fictions that
would permit us to think out loud about the Polish crisis. The mordant
Lem, after all, is Poland's best-known writer in the West, a Jorge
Luis Borges for the Space Age, who plays in earnest with every concept
of philosophy and physics, from free will to probability theory.
    The trouble is, we have an impossible time sorting out modern
history from science fiction in its lurid phase. All laws in both
realms seem to be martial. When Lem introduces us to the Voluntary
Universalizer of Absolute Order, a machine for harmonizing the
discordances of human vagary, he must be talking about many states
besides Poland. The principle of Civic Initiative - according to which
a proletariat called the Drudglings is permitted to be free as long as
it does not interfere with the property arrangements of the Eminent -
is incorporated into the Voluntary Universalizer. As a consequence, in
the Rainbow Palace, human beings are turned into hockey pucks.
    Is this capitalism or socialism or both? Science fiction is to the
totalitarian state what Aesop's fables were to the institution of
slavery in the sixth century B.C. It is, of course, subversive. By
taking ideas too seriously, it ridicules people. But it depends, for
its subversive power, on people who are smart enough to be afraid of
laughter. Modern history, especially as it expresses itself in the
totalitarian hockey puck, has an excess of almost everything except a
genuine appreciation of the ludicrous. So science fiction seems
sometimes to be talking to itself, or to Sirius the Dog Star, or to
the caps on our teeth; we receive its signals as if by light-years too
late beyond the bend. It's all relative.
    Lem knows this. I can't imagine what he doesn't know. And he
seldom approves. In ''A Perfect Vacuum'' he purported to review a
dozen books which, thank Heisenberg, have not been written. Modern
history, on the other hand, writes these books on our skin and brain;
they are not fiction. Many critics thought ''A Perfect Vacuum'' was a
little heavy-handed, as are many critics. Lem must wonder how heavy
his hand must be in order to get our attention. Then he would probably
bite it, because he was laughing at criticism.
    In ''The Star Diaries,'' to which ''Memoirs of a Space Traveler''
is an appendix, he sent Ijon Tichy out into the galactic wastes to
find those neuroses and psychoses we deny at home and in the
laboratory.  In the appendix, Ijon stays home most of the time. He
likes to tell stories, and he is expected to, but what he has seen in
his planet hopping and his space warp is so domestic that he worries:
doesn't this tale ''sound like the complaint of a peddler who knocks
about provincial towns?''
    Ijon is the one character in a book of ideas on whom Lem is
willing to bestow anything like a many-faceted personality. He reminds
me of Dr. Watson, open-minded, a trifle slow but willing, in search of
someone to admire. His Sherlock is science, the explication of paradox
by industry and verve, an imagination of possibilities and the pounce
of proof. He attracts madmen - monomaniacs belonging to ''the gray
brotherhood of obsession'' - and it is these he proposes to discuss.
Another's mind, we ought to remember, is the most alien of planets. On
occasion, those who think they are geniuses might really be geniuses,
but who would want to live in their fixity of perception? And those
who are not geniuses nevertheless approximate in ''their
talentlessness a creative frenzy worthy of a Leonardo.''
    And we we are introduced to brains in boxes, ''Leibnizan monads,''
attached to a drum full of ''shiny tapes covered with white zigzags,
like mold on celluloid.'' The drum contains an approximation of the
world - ''sultry Southern nights, the murmur of waves, the forms of
animal bodies and the crackle of gunfire; funerals and drinking
binges; the taste of apples and oranges, snowstorms on evenings spent
with the family by the fireside, and the pandemonium aboard a sinking
ship; the convulsions of illness, and mountain peaks, and graveyards,
and the hallucinations of the delirious.''
    Someone stuffed the drum; that someone thinks he is God, and
therefore allows the brains in the boxes to choose which tape in the
drum they want to hear. Free will means that God does a vanishing act.
    Another madman invents the soul and then finds that it is more
expensive to produce and market a soul than an airplane; besides,
nobody really wants to live forever. A third invents a time machine,
in which he ages and dies. A fourth improves on medieval alchemy by
inventing the homunculus; oddly, the homunculus, a clone, wants to
live more than his creator does. A fifth invents kitchen appliances so
good at their job that they might as well be wives or slaves or both,
and they demand emancipation, and they are short-circuited, and
according to Lem, we are all refrigerators and washing machines.
    Lem, of course, merely satirizes other science fictions. None of
this pertains to Poland or to modernity. Imagine workers wanting to
own the means of production and share in the profits. Imagine asking a
nation to vote on its ultimate economic arrangements, its imaginative
constructs. Isn't that subversive? Isn't that a hallucination? There
are lots of Polands and kitchen appliances.

------------------------------

Date: 25 January 1982 01:08-EST
From: Charles F. Von Rospach <CHUQUI at MIT-MC>
Subject: st:tmp II & campbell

First, I as long as people are throwing out random rumors about movies
from friends of friends (see earlier Jedi comment), A friend of mine
who seems to have contacts in ILM told me recently that Spock indeed
DOES die in ST:TMP II. What happens is that the Klingons find the
gateway to forever and go back in time to destroy the organians before
they become powerful enough to survive, therefore no organian truce,
and out and out warfare.  There follows a merry chase through the
times of the universe trying to put things back together again. Spock,
who was killed early in the movie, is then returned to real life when
they finally undo all the damage (I don't EVEN want to get into the
paradox problems we have going... If you keep going farther and
farther back in time to undo something before it can be done, don't
you eventually hit the beginning of time? Anyway, the script is
supposedly either an Ellison, or a rewrite of an Ellison, so there ARE
definite possibilities...).

re: Campbell
As a person who was much too young to read Campbell when he was around,
all I can say is that as a person who immersed himself in the
editorials once I found them (conservatively I think I read 10 years
of Analog/Astounding in 6 months just for Campbell and the letters at
one time), my opinion is that JWC Jr. was not happy unless he was
rattling cages. Through all the verbiage I read of his were two
underlying concepts: He was constantly trying to make his readers
THINK, and he always seemed to speak with his tongue in his cheek to
one level or another. He spent a lot of time playing devils advocate,
and he seemed to question anything that was accepted as fact simply
because it was accepted fact, and he could usually find at least SOME
contradiction or logic to make you at least take some time to wonder
why he seemed to make sense when you KNEW he was wrong. By reading him
when I did, I feel that I am much more able today to see more than a
single side to something, and act more logically, simply because he
could always show an alternate side to things. I should also point out
that JWC Jr. spent time debunking frauds, as well as researching them.
I still vividly remember an editorial of his that took Von Daniken
(remember him?) to task for 'chariots of the Gods' by conclusively
proving that New York City was an ancient space port.  (note the
geographically perfect grid of lines, the spires pointing to the home
of the ancient Gods, and the highly religious square of greenery in
the middle of all that cement and asphalt). By using von Danikens
perfected techniques of half-truths and outrageous, but logical
assumption, he did for me what nobody else had done before, prove him
wrong, simply by assuming his ideas and assumptions to be write and
letting them bury themselves...  I, for one, don't try to second guess
him, and there are quite a lot of things I don't think we will ever
know for sure about the man. However, I don't think attacking him is
proper, because he has done more for the genre than most cities of
people around him.

chuck (chuqui@mit-mc)

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 27-Jan <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #16
*** EOOH ***
Date: Wednesday, January 27, 1982 1:34AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #16
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest        Wednesday, 27 Jan 1982     Volume 5 : Issue 16

Today's Topics:
                    FTP - Jay Ward Film Festival,
                 SF Fandom - Jay Ward Film Festival,
                    SF Books - "Lest We Remember"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27-Jan-82 00:00:00
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Subject: FTP - Jay Ward Film Festival

The map showing one how to get to the Jay Ward Film Festival (see the
next message from Lauren for details of this event) is now available
for FTP'ing.  Everyone interested in reading this material should
obtain the file from the site which is most convenient for them.  If
you cannot do so, please send mail to SF-LOVERS-REQUEST and we will be
happy to make sure that you get a copy.

Please obtain your copies in the near future however, since the files
will be deleted in one week.  A copy of the material will also be
available upon request from the SF LOVERS archives.  Thanks go to
Lauren Weinstein for providing this material, and to Alyson L.
Abramowitz, Roger Duffey, Richard Lamson, Doug Philips, Bob Weissman,
and Paul Young for providing space for the materials on their systems.


   Site                 Filename

MIT-AI                  AI:DUFFEY;SFLVRS JWFF
CMUA                    TEMP:JWFF.TXT[X440DP0Z]
PARC-MAXC (text)        [Maxc]<Weissman>SFL.JWFF
PARC-MAXC (press)       [Ibis]<Weissman>SFL>JWFF.press
SU-AI                   JWFF.TXT[T,JPM]
MIT-Multics             >udd>sm>rsl>sf-lovers>jwff.text
DEC VAX/PDP-11          KIRK::DB1:[Abramowit.SF]wardfest.txt
DEC TOPS-20             KL2137::FTN20:<SF>JWFF.TXT

[Note:  You can TYPE or FTP the file from SU-AI without an account.]

------------------------------

Date: 24 January 1982 1902-PST (Sunday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: ********** FILM FESTIVAL **********



**********************************************************************
*****   FILM FESTIVAL  ***   FILM FESTIVAL   ***  FILM FESTIVAL  *****
**********************************************************************

Attention all readers of SF-L and their friends, enemies, lovers,
associates, superiors, inferiors, acquaintances, extraterrestrial
contacts, relatives, kajirae, kajiri, and just plain folk.

                       ============================
                        A * SPECIAL * ANNOUNCEMENT
                       ============================

Using my erratic, erroneous formula, I have determined that it is once
again time for a FILM FESTIVAL!  In the past, I have concentrated
mainly on "The Twilight Zone", but this time, we take a new twist into
a different region of entertainment.  Yes, indeed -- for it is my
pleasure to announce:

                   !!!!! THE JAY WARD FILM FESTIVAL !!!!!

For those of you for whom the name "Jay Ward" does not trigger an
immediate rush of recognition, allow me to mention that Jay Ward
Productions was responsible for some of the most fascinating (and
satirical) animated (and non-animated) television programming of the
last 25 years.

Included among the stable of Jay Ward productions are such memorable
series as:

    Rocky and His Friends, Fractured Flickers, Crusader Rabbit,
    George of the Jungle, and many, many more.

Of particular note is the classic "Rocky and His Friends" program
(retitled to "The Bullwinkle Show" during part of its syndication
cycle).  This fine program, which introduced us to the evil,
ubiquitous Boris and Natasha (not to mention Fearless Leader) still
reigns supreme in the leagues of "cult" animation classics.

So... exactly what do you get to see at this film festival?  Well, if
film rotation schedules operate as promised, it should include:

  1) The "Jay Ward Film Festival Program".  This is a 90 minute
     collection of Jay Ward classics, with particular emphasis on
     "Rocky and Bullwinkle".

  2) FIVE (5) Entire, Complete, and Unexpurgated "Rocky and
     Bullwinkle" serials from "Rocky and His Friends":

       a) Three Mooskateers (8 segments)
       b) Goof Gas Attack (8 segments)
       c) Louse on 92nd St. (6 segments)
       d) Pottsylvania Creeper (6 segments)
       e) Weather Lady (6 segments)

     The segments from each of these serials will be shown in a
     contiguous format with none of the filler material which was
     present during the original airings of these segments over a
     period of weeks on television.  Together, these serials represent
     slightly over 1.5 hours of programming.

If there are still some hardy soles remaining after the Jay Ward
screenings and after our SPECIAL EVENT (to be announced below), some
other bizarre films will also be available, including:

  a) A "Three Stooges" short.

  b) One or two "classic" "Green Acres" episodes.

  c) Half of an "American Bandstand" program from 1964 (in case you
     don't remember 1964, the #1 song (to which all of the kids on the
     show attempted to dance) was "House of the Rising Sun" by The
     Animals.)

  d) A 1/2 hour "Stump the Stars" television game show (exact vintage
     unclear, but rather ancient) -- complete with the ancient and
     amusing commercials (which I've found are often much more popular
     than the shows themselves...)

  e) Maybe other stuff as well.

Note that these additional films will only appear as time permits.

All material is on 16mm film.  Video may be fine at home, but it has
no place at this festival!

             --------------------------------------------
             >>>>>>>>>> AN EXTRA SPECIAL EVENT <<<<<<<<<<
             --------------------------------------------

It appears that, with a bit of luck, we will be honored to have
three or more VERY SPECIAL GUEST STARS at the festival.

Their schedule is subject to change, of course, but it appears likely
that June Foray, Bill Scott, Walker Edmiston, and possibly another
talented "voice actor" will be present at the festival!

In case the names are not familiar (shame on you!), June Foray is the
voice of Rocky the Squirrel, Natasha, and innumerable other classic
Jay Ward animated characters!  Bill Scott was a co-producer of
programming with Jay Ward, and provided the voice for Bullwinkle, Mr.
Peabody, Superchicken, Dudley Do-right, and (to borrow a phrase) "a
host of others"!  Walker Edmiston was involved with the classic "Time
For Beanie" (the forerunner of "Beanie and Cecil") in the "early" days
of television, and has provided voices for uncountable Hanna Barbara,
Filmation, and other animated and live productions (including a number
of Star Trek (original, not animated) episodes).

The exact format of their guest appearance is of course open to
development as we go along, but a live "recreation" of a Rocky and
Bullwinkle script is a definite possibility.

Outside of the obvious delight I myself feel over the prospect of
their appearance, this is our chance to show these fine persons how
much their work has meant to us over the years!

I will emphasize again that schedules are often subject to change, but
right now things are looking really good!

        >>>>>  WHEN, WHERE, HOW, and HOW MUCH?  <<<<<

     The festival will be held in MOORE HALL 100 at UCLA.
     It will begin at approximately 7 PM on the evening of
     Friday, February 5, 1982.

I suggest that everybody arrive in as few total autos as possible,
since UCLA has this nasty habit of charging $2.00 to park, and there
is essentially no nearby street parking.

For those not familiar with MOORE HALL, UCLA, Los Angeles, or this
portion of the Galaxy, a finely detailed online map has been made
available to the SF-L powers-that-be.  We now pause to allow our
friendly moderator to announce the online locations of this
cartographic wonder...

[ The map is available at the various locations as per the first
  message in this digest.  --  Jim ]

Thank you, moderator.  Aren't networks wonderful?  But I digress.
Admission to the festival is FREE!!!!  However (isn't there always a
catch?) donations (of whatever you can manage) will be gratefully
accepted for the UCLA Computer Club, which has fronted well over $100
which was required to obtain the Jay Ward films and the facilities for
the festival itself.  This is most certainly a voluntary donation and
is not required, but will be appreciated and will help ensure future
festivals.

One final note.  The Jay Ward materials are rather difficult to
obtain, and they will not physically appear until shortly before the
screening date.  While the releasing company has promised me delivery
in time for the Feb. 5 date, there is always the possibility that
something might "go wrong".  If such an unfortunate incident should
occur, I will send word (via SF-L) as quickly as possible.  This is
just a warning; hopefully it won't be necessary.

That's about it.  As the so-called "master of ceremonies" (this
usually means I end up running the projector) I hope that many of you
manage to attend this "gala" event.  The festival will run as long as
a reasonable number of people are still around and I don't run out of
films.  Tell your friends!  If you have any questions, please contact
me (Lauren@UCLA-Security) directly.  Hope to see you there!

--Lauren--

P.S.

      "Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat..."
      "But that trick NEVER works!"
      "This time for SURE!"

--LW--

------------------------------
Date: 26 January 1982 22:56-EST
From: Daniel F. Chernikoff <DFC at MIT-MC>
Subject: Isaac Asimov writing Science Fiction again???

In the February 15th issue of Isaac Asimov's SF Magazine, there is a
"brand-new, never-before-seen-anywhere Isaac Asimov story".  I thought
he had vowed many years ago to never write another SF story, since he
felt it was `the duty of all scientists who could write, to write
science non-fiction to educate the layman'.  I wonder if he is sick of
non-fiction, or if he just couldn't keep his fingers out of the pie
forever.  Not that I am complaining, mind you.  The story is entitled
"Lest We Remember", and is about a drug that improves memory and
learning by neutralizing the "recall-inhibitor" that is present in all
mammalian brains.  It is classic Asimov, and a lot of fun!
        Dan Chernikoff

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 31-Jan <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #17
*** EOOH ***
Date: Sunday, January 31, 1982 2:01AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #17
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest         Sunday, 31 Jan 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 17

Today's Topics:
                     SF Fandom - SF Lovers Party,
                 SF Books - Claw of the Conciliator &
             Here's the Plot...What's the Title & Asimov,
        SF Bookstores,  SF Radio - Boogie Woogie to the Stars
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 27 January 1982
From: Mike Peeler <Admin.MDP at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SFL-PARTY at MIT-AI
Subject: Boskone SFL Party

    SF-Lovers will hold a party the evening of convention Saturday at
the upcoming Boskone.  We expect some big names to show up, like Roger
Duffey and Chip Hitchcock.  Mail to SFL-Party@MIT-AI to tell us you're
coming and we'll keep you posted.  (Readers on DEC's E. Net may RSVP
via SFL-Party@KIRK or KIRK::SFL_Party.)

                                Hope to see you there,

                                                Mike Peeler

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 1982 1253-PST
Subject: Claw of the Conciliator
From: Mike Leavitt <LEAVITT at USC-ISI>

                 **************BULLETIN*************

I just found the \Claw/ in my local Dalton's in paperback.  It has a
February, 1982 printing date on it.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jan 1982 17:57:22-PST
From: r.f.soyack
Subject: HELP


When I was young I read a story that I would like to pass along to my
oldest son, but I can't remember the title.

The story opened on desolate planet that housed a forgotten garrison
of mechanics.  I remember that they had to pull plows to plant food.
They trained constantly but no one could remember being visited by a
space craft in need of repair.  There was, however, an inspector
general (the title may be "Inspector General" but who wrote it)
visited them in a powered space suit.  A junior mechanic found the
suit and wound up in space.  He was rescued by a ship and I don't
remember the rest of the story.

I believe this was a short story, or perhaps a short novel.  If anyone
out there knows the title and author I would appreciate it if they
would tell me.

                                                Thanks,

                                                Rich

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 1982 00:42:58-PST
From: menlo70!sytek!zehntel!berry at Berkeley
Subject: SF Bookstore in Bay area; Asimov

CHUQUI might like to try "The Other Change of Hobbit" in Berkeley.
True, it is not too near to Union City, but it is well worth the trip.
I consider it the finest SF bookstore in the Bay Area.  Location is
near Durant and Telegraph.  It's in that big brick parking garage with
Cleo's Copies on the ground floor.  Also in the same building is
"Bob's Smoke Shop" (or some such homeomorphistic name) which has the
largest selection of magazines I have ever seen.  It has, for
instance, Playboy in the American, French, German, Spanish, Japanese
and English editions!  The rest of the selection is proportional.
Where else can you find "SCIENCE" on a newsstand?  where else can you
find four (4!) magazines entirely devoted to making quilts!  It's
great.

As for Dr. A. swearing off SF, I got the distinct impression from his
autobiography that he NEVER swore off it, it just got less important
to him.  judging from the book, there has never been a year when he
didn't have SOMETHING new in SF written, if not published.

                -berry kercheval

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jan 1982 18:19:44 EST (Thursday)
From: David Mankins <dm at BBN-RSM>
Subject: Boogie Woogie to the Stars, etc.


A few days ago, someone reported that "Boogie Woogie to the Stars" was
playing on an NPR station in Madison.  "Boogie Woogie to the Stars" is
a part of a series of programs put out by the ZBS Media Foundation.  I
first heard about them on KPFK (Roy of Hollywood's show, for those of
you in the Know) a couple of years ago.

ZBS Media also has a Science Fantasy cassette club.  You can reach
them by writing:

        ZBS Foundation
        RD #1
        Ft. Edward, New York 12828

Ask for a catalogue.

Their programs are what would happen if the Firesign Theatre met the
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy met Pink Floyd and Frank Zappa.  Very
fine stuff--movies for the mind.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  2-Feb <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #18
*** EOOH ***
Date: Tuesday, February 2, 1982 1:52AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #18
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest         Tuesday, 2 Feb 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 18

Today's Topics:
           SF Movies - Here's the Plot...What's the Title,
          SF Magazines - IASFM,  SF Books - Query Answered &
        Shadow of the Torturer & Vernor Vinge & SF Bookstores,
                     SF Fandom - Bay Area Fandom
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 01/29/82 1547-EDT
From: J. Baldassini <GNC at LL>
Subject: Here's the plot, what's the title ?

   My roommates and I were discussing SF movies the other night, and
 on of them recalled the following plot:

   A large crack has developed in the earth (possibly the result of
nuclear weapons experiments).  A large chunk of the Earth breaks off,
and becomes a new moon.

   Anyone remember the title of this film ? (circa 1950, we think)

------------------------------

Date: 1-Feb-82 10:07:08 PST (Monday)
From: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #17

Re: Title query.

The story was indeed called "The Inspector General" and I am almost
positive it was by C.M.Kornbluth. If I have the author correct, it may
be found in an anthology of his stories very creatively named "The
Best of C.M.Kornbluth".

Dr. A. and SF: The February issue of Isaac Asimov's SF Mag. contains a
new SF story by the man himself. As for swearing the stuff off, I
doubt there is an SF writer alive who hasn't done that at one time or
another.

By the way, said issue of IASFM contains a very unusual piece called
"The Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine March". Those of you who
can play piano will find it relatively interesting, and all will enjoy
the commentary which accompanies it.

        -- Larry --

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 1982 1713-EST
From: BARRETT at BBNG
Subject: Re:  Author & Title request

In reply to r.f.soyack's title & author request: a friend says the
story you are refering to is called "The Spectre General" by Theodore
R. Cogswell.  There is a sequal to it (called "Early Bird") in the
ASTOUNDING Cambell Memorial Anthology (edited by Harry Harrison).

                                Kim

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jan 82 20:33-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Shadow of the Torturer

I was unimpressed by it. Wolfe strikes me as the sort of writer who's
desperately trying to produce SF worthy of literary criticism. This
seemed particularly true with his "...Other Stories...Other
Stories..."  collection, and less so with SotT. Maybe it's just
because I don't particularly care for fantasy-stories-with-the-
proverbial-journey.  I didn't much care for Varley's Titan books
either.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 1982 2214-EST
From: "DYER-BENNET at KL2137 c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: SF Lovers

In response to Jef Poskanzer's request for information on old stories
or novels by Vernor Vinge (published in SF-LOVERS Digest Vol 5 Issue
8, I have obtained the following list from my housemate Jerry
Boyajian:

Novels:
    Grimm's World             Berkley 1969
    The Witling               Daw 1976

Stories:
    Apartness                 New Worlds 6/65
    The Accomplice            If 4/67
    Bookworm, Run!            Analog 3/66
    Conquest by Default       Analog 5/68
    Grimm's Story             ORBIT 4 1968 (short version of
                                            GRIMM'S WORLD)
    Bomb Scare                Analog 11/70
    Just Peace                Analog 12/71 (with William Rupp)
    Long Shot                 Analog 8/72
    Original Sin              Analog 12/72
    The Science Fair          ORBIT 9 1972
    The Whirling of Time      STELLAR 1 1974
    The Peddler's Apprentice  Analog 8/75 (with Joan D. Vinge)

------------------------------

Date: 1 Feb 82 9:55:44-PST (Mon)
From: Doug Faunt at Hewlett-Packard Labs <faunt@hp-labs>
Subject: Bayrea SF Bookstores

Tom, Debbie and Dave, proprietors of the OCOH thank you for the good
review of their store.  The Elves, Gnomes, and Little-men's
Science-fiction, Chowder and Marching Society of Berkeley, one of the
older SF clubs around, meets there on alternate Friday evenings.
 There is also Dark Carnival, run by Jack Rems and Lisa Goldstein
("Red Magician"), is just down Telegraph from the OCOH.
 Future Fantasy in Palo Alto, probably closest, since its just across
the Dumbarton Bridge has a reasonable selection, and is a good place
to find out about PENSFA, which meets on alternate Saturdays from
Little-men's.
 Fantasy Etc in San Francisco is worth the occasional trip all by
itself since Charley has remainders, good used books, and is also a
mystery and adventure bookstore.  He also has new books.
 Old Wives Tales, also in the city, is a womens bookstore that has a
very good selection of SF and fantasy by and about women.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  3-Feb <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #19
*** EOOH ***
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 1982 6:18AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #19
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest        Wednesday, 3 Feb 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 19

Today's Topics:
             SF Books - "Sur" & Query Answered & Asimov,
           SF Movies - Query Answered & Crack in the World
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 February 1982 16:00 est
From: Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-Multics
Subject: New Le Guin Story

"Sur," a rather nifty new story by Ursula K., is in the newest (1 Feb)
New Yorker.  Plus a relevant cartoon on pg 46 for anybody who has ever
tried to explain a scientific subject to the current generation of
VidKids.

Earl

------------------------------

Date: 2 February 1982 1120-EST (Tuesday)
From: Joe Ginder <Joseph.Ginder at CMU-10A>

The story which Rich inquired about is "The Spectre General" by
Theodore Cogswell.  It appears in one of the SF Hall of Fame volumes.
-Joe

------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 1982 18:12:15-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: asimov & sf

   Asimov notes at the end of THE REST OF THE ROBOTS that he began to
get heavily into science fact around 1957, which is why the third
robot novel (to make a balanced trilogy with THE CAVES OF STEEL (Earth
has too few robots) and THE NAKED SUN (Solaris has far too many), and
probably set on Aurora) has never been published. Personally, I'd like
to see that a lot more than another Foundation novel---there could be
material for another dozen Foundation novels in the 800 years of
interregnum remaining but the robot series was much better at
exploring the social effects of technology.
   Obviously, he didn't stop writing SF then, and so far as I know
he's never said anything since about swearing off fiction for fact;
he's simply putting a lot more work into fact (probably because he can
produce it a lot faster and is more likely to be asked for it).  He
won his first current Hugo in 1973 (Best Novel, THE GODS THEMSELVES)
and took another in 1977 (Best Novelette, "The Bicentennial Man"),
besides getting one for best all-time series. Various channels have
also been full of the $100,000+ contract he signed for LIGHTNING ROD
(aka "Second Foundation and Empire"). "The Bicentennial Man" was
collected with other original stories; I am reasonably certain that no
year has gone by without him publishing some "real" SF (i.e., not a
custom story about dentists in 2087).

------------------------------

Date: 02/02/82 1402-EDT
From: KG Heinemann (SORCEROR at LL)
Subject: Movie Title Query in February 2 SFL Digest


Yes, I remember the film which J. Baldassini describes !!

I believe that its title was "Crack in the World". As I recall the
plot, a group of scientist detonate a nuclear bomb *** VERY *** deep
in the Earth's crust, in order to open a passage between the surface
and the mantle. The goal of this project is tapping the heat of the
mantle for geothermal energy. The results are not what the scientist
predicted, and indeed a crack develops in the Earth's crust. This
fissure threatens to split the Earth's crust into two pieces, and
grows as though a zipper were opening. The scientists attempt to halt
the process by detonating more bombs, but this scheme is ineffectual.
The Earth does break into two pieces, at the end.

My vague memories also include the notions that : 1) One of the
scientists is dying of cancer. and 2) One of the stars was Dana
Andrews.

Perhaps Lauren can provide more information.

I found the movie quite scary when I first saw it, as a kid, and
thought it was pretty dumb, when I caught it on T.V., as an adult.

                              Enjoy,

                                 Karl Heinemann

------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 1982 17:35:59 EST (Tuesday)
From: Edward D. Hunter <edh at BBN-RSM>
Subject: Crack in the world

The movie referred to is "Crack the World" starring Dana Andrews.  The
basic plot is that some scientist have dug a hole towards the center
of the Earth.  They have run into a barrier and decide that an atomic
missile can blow a hole in it. The explosion causes the crack to start
traveling around the globe.  Actually, it splits in two and the two
cracks meet at the site of the original hole.  The carved out section
of the globe is blown free forming a new moon.  All in all worth
watching at least once.
-edh

------------------------------

Date: 2 February 1982 0229-PST (Tuesday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: CRACK IN THE WORLD

The film about the large crack forming in the Earth (eventually
resulting in a new moon being formed) is called "Crack In the World".
The crack results from an experiment in tapping the volcanic magma for
energy purposes.  The researchers use a nuclear missile (aimed DOWN)
to penetrate an inner crust layer, and all sorts of havoc results.

By the way, the film is generally a loser, but still has some
entertainment value.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: Tue 2-Feb-1982 09:17-EST
From: Bill Russell <RUSSELL at NYU>
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest Vol 5 #18

The answer for the request for a title of a film about a new noon of
Earths:

Here is the entry from "The Science Fiction Encyclopedia", Peter
Nicholls, Ed.

CRACK IN THE WORLD Film (1965).  Security Pictures/Paramount.  Directed
by Andrew Marton, starring Dana Andrews, Janette Scot, Kieron Moore
and Alexander Knox.  Screenplay by J. M. White and Julian Harvey.  96
minutes.  Colour.

An attempt to tap the energy at the Earth's core causes a large and
ever increasing crack in the crust, and a bid to halt the process with
a nuclear explosion sends into space a large chuck of the Earch, which
forms a new moon.  This ambitious idea is undermined by a weak script
and too small a budget.

                >---------------------<

That's how I would rate this picture myself.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  7-Feb <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #20
*** EOOH ***
Date: Sunday, February 7, 1982 10:08AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #20
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest          Sunday, 7 Feb 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 20

Today's Topics:
       SF Books - Shadowline & Oath of Fealty & Asimov & Wolfe,
  SF TV - World War III,  SF Topics - William Shatner and Commodore,
    SF Movies - Crack in the World,  Spoiler - Crack in the World
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 1982 1133-PST
From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich)
Subject: SHADOWLINE

You may have seen all the publishers hype for Glen Cook's new book
(part 1 of the "Starfisher's" trilogy), "Shadowline".  Well, it's
\worth/ all that hype.  Go buy it.  Interstellar warfare and business,
Family plottings, possibly the last great fight between mercenary
freecorps before the resurging confederation breaks them up, lotsa
scheming and double-dealing.  If you like things like Dickson's Dorsai
and Anderson's Polesotechnic League stories, you'll probably like
this.

I liked Shadowline a lot more than I did Glen's "Dread Empire" series
books (which aren't bad, and actually seem to be getting better as
they go along - possibly the author is gaining in experience), and am
going to go nuts waiting for books 2 and 3.

Enjoy,
Rich

------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 1982 1643-MST
From: Walt <Haas at UTAH-20>
Subject: Oath of Fealty [SPOILER?]

I shelled out for the hard cover edition, but I wasn't very satisfied
with it.  I haven't read a Niven & Pournelle book since "The Mote in
God's Eye", which I enjoyed, and since I'm interested in arcologies I
thought the authors might have something useful and instructive to say
about the subject.  I guess that's expecting rather a lot from a
novel, though.  It seems to me that the main problems to be solved in
building a community like that are in the areas of sociology,
psychology and politics.  The residents of Todos Santos all seem to
get along pretty well because they seem to be able to agree on what
standards are to be enforced/not enforced by the government - for
example, there is no great conflict over how the police should deal
with someone who is drunk in a public place.  In a community where
half the people are teetotallers for religious reasons, there is no
such general agreement.  The authors don't say, however, what produced
this unanimity in a population of a quarter million Americans.  One
could probably invent a selection test that would produce this type of
homogeneity, but the only selection mechanism we see in the novel is
Barbara Churchward's decisions about which small businesses to invest
Todos Santos' money in.  These decisions seem to be motivated by good
commercial judgment rather than any evaluation of how the folks will
fit into the community.

Another major issue that such a society has to resolve is, how do you
settle conflicts that arise between people of different tastes and
interests?  The politics inside Todos Santos are a weird cross between
Libertarianism and Fascism.  The system is described as "feudal", but
a real feudal system doesn't seem credible for a society that does the
type of advanced technology development and marketing that Todos
Santos does - most feudal societies collapse (or stop being feudal) as
soon as commerce becomes the principal source of wealth.  Japan
certainly does high technology in a tightly knit society, but it
couldn't be described as feudal.  Most of the societies that are very
homogeneous and tightly knit don't seem to be terribly inventive - and
so their most creative young people move to tumultuous, disorganized
places like the United States.

Probably the thing that bothered me personally the most, however, was
that the authors decided that the bad guys should be militant
environmentalists who were trying to blow up Todos Santos on the
grounds that it might succeed.  I'm sure there are people like that in
the environmental movement, somewhere - I've never met them in the ten
or so years that I've been actively involved in that movement, but
statistically they probably exist.  Even if Niven & Pournelle had
picked on somebody I didn't like, such as the Ku Klux Klan or the
Creationists, their characterizations are so extreme as to make the
reader barf.  I had the same problem with C. S. Lewis, and didn't ever
bother to finish those of his books that I started.  Actually the only
reason I finished OoF was because I shelled out fourteen bucks for it.
What a waste of fourteen bucks.

------------------------------

Date: 3 February 1982 23:12-EST
From: Daniel F. Chernikoff <DFC at MIT-MC>
Subject: Asimov swearing, off Science Fiction

Now I remember!  Isaac Asimov gave a talk at the University of
Maryland around 1976, which I attended.  When a hue and cry arose for
another Foundation book, he explained that he had sworn off SF because
he felt that science was progressing too rapidly for the lay person to
keep up, but that it was crucial that people keep abreast of
scientific developments in order to make the proper decisions for the
good of mankind.  Therefore, he felt, it was the sacred duty of all
scientists who could express themselves to laypeople, to do so by
writing science non-fiction.  Seemed a bit extreme to me at the time
-- I would think someone as prolific as he could do both -- so now I
am glad to see something new of his in print.

------------------------------

Date: 2-Feb-82 12:36:05 PST (Tuesday)
Subject: Gene Wolfe's style
From: Teri Pettit at Xerox <Pettit at PARC-MAXC>

I think McClure at SRI's assessment of Gene Wolfe as "the sort of
writer who's desperately trying to produce SF worthy of literary
criticism" is unfair.  While he does produce a type of fiction which
has much in common with works noticed by literary critics, there is
absolutely no reason to suppose that he does it for the purpose of
gaining that notice, or that he is particularly desperate about
anything.

I imagine Wolfe, like most authors, writes, insofar as he can, in the
style he most enjoys reading.  For him, this is a highly recursive
style in which his creation and the process of creating it is as much
its own subject as is the apparent story it tells.  All his works are
essentially about layers of reality, and shifting between those
layers.  Those layers usually include that of the purported writer as
writer, and Wolfe as writer, as well as the purported writer as
protagonist in some events.

Literary critics write essays about writing.  Naturally they tend to
most enjoy fiction which is in some sense art about writing.  But an
SF writer is always inviting readers into an alternate reality, and
thus SF writers too often enjoy artistic recursion.  If Wolfe were
desperate for literary acclaim, he'd write stories like Fowles or
Preust or Nabakov in which the surface story, which weaves through the
story about stories, was set in "our world".  He has the talent for
it.  Instead he sticks to fantasy worlds which, however intrinsically
suited to themes of layered realities, are anathema to the world of
"serious literature".  This to me is sufficient evidence that he
writes 'em that way simply because he LIKES 'em that way.

        -- Teri

------------------------------

Date: 3 February 1982 20:28-EST
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: World War III


Did anyone catch the recent NBC movie "World War III," shown in two
parts Sunday and Monday nights?  Personally, I thought it was
extremely well done.  The plot is that, sometime in the near future,
the U.S. imposes a grain embargo on the Soviet Union that begins to
cause starvation in that country, leading to riots.  An isolated
Soviet commando unit, with the support of a high government official,
but unknown to Brian Keith, who plays the Soviet leader, invades
Alaska, planning to seize the oil pipeline and demand an end to the
embargo, on the penalty of damage to the pipeline.  Naturally, this
causes a crisis in the relations between the two countries.

The plot is coherent, logical, and as suspenseful as you would expect
from any drama.  The film has an effective, dramatic conclusion.
Brian Keith as the Soviet leader is good (except for the ridiculous
Russian accent he attempts), and Rock Hudson is perfect as the capable
yet compassionate President of the United States.  The only defect is
a stupid subplot involving Cathy Lee Crosby, who plays the aide to the
Colonel in command of the small U.S. force in Alaska.

------------------------------

Date: 6 February 1982 17:22-EST
From: Stuart M. Cracraft <MCLURE at MIT-AI>
Subject: WWW III

I watched the first 30 minutes of WWIII. Pure hokum.

------------------------------

Date: 6 February 1982 17:26-EST
From: Stuart M. Cracraft <MCLURE at MIT-AI>
Subject: people who hawk

It seems that Asimov is not the only SF person hawking computers.
William "Jim Kirk" Shatner has a TV commercial in which he hawks
Commodore computers. In his case I can understand it. He was
practically torn apart by the critics for his awful acting in Star
Trek: the motion picture.

------------------------------

Date: Sunday, February 7, 1982 10:08AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following message is the last in the digest.  It discusses some
plot details of the movie Crack in the World.  Some readers may not
wish to read on.

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 3 February 1982, 07:28-EST
From: Robert W. Kerns <RWK at SCRC-TENEX at MIT-AI>
Subject: What's the title? (I don't know, but this is a spoiler...)

    Date: 01/29/82 1547-EDT
    From: J. Baldassini <GNC at LL>
    Subject: Here's the plot, what's the title ?

       My roommates and I were discussing SF movies the other night,
     and on of them recalled the following plot:

       A large crack has developed in the earth (possibly the result
     of nuclear weapons experiments).  A large chunk of the Earth
     breaks off, and becomes a new moon.

       Anyone remember the title of this film ? (circa 1950, we think)

I believe the title was something like "The Crack in the World" or
something, but I don't remember for sure.  I *DO* remember the movie
itself very well.  I've seen it several times, and it STILL scares me.
The basic scenario is that some group is trying to tap geothermal
power on a grand scale, plus lots of iron, etc, by going project
Mohole one better and drilling down to the molton core of the earth.
However, just as they are about to reach their goal, they strike an
extremely hard layer.  Rather than drill through it, which would be
difficult or impossible, they hit on the idea of using a nuclear
warhead to punch through it.

There develops a debate between the head of the project and an
opposing scientist.  The opposing scientist fears that this could have
bad consequences, by fracturing the foundation of the planet's crust.
In a classic confrontation at a meeting of scientists from all over, a
demonstration is made by one of them (I think the proponent, but it
would make sense the other way too, since it fairly described both
their views).  A frame with two sheets of glass was set up, and the
proponents view of what will happen is demonstrated by taking a heated
rod and melting it through the glass.  The opponent's view is shown by
taking a hammer and punching it through the glass.

The scientists are convinced by the proponent, and the device is set
off.  All seems to go well, and after a short delay, magma comes
welling out of the ground, and everyone is being congratulated on a
new era of plentiful energy and minerals, etc.  The only thing out of
place is a herd of animals decides to stampeed for some reason (zebras
as I recall?).  Nobody pays too much attention, but that was just the
start of a series of larger and larger earthquakes.  It moves offshore
almost immediately, and before long is visibly a crack opening up
under the ocean floor, and is eventually noticed by some
oceanographers as I recall.  Eventually everybody must agree that
there is a problem, and someone proposes setting off a second warhead
in a volcano to try to provide a locus for the tear to stop.  With
much suspense and difficulty they manage to get the warhead to the
volcano, and again think they have had success.  For a while.  But the
crack has switched directions, and ultimately it makes a full circle,
and an octant or so of the earth goes flying off into space, with all
the important characters just barely making it off the wrong section
just barely in time.  All except for one old guy who it seems is dying
of cancer (he's been getting "radiation treatments" all along), who
insists on staying and documenting what happens, for when people come
out to this new moon.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 10-Feb <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #21
*** EOOH ***
Date: Wednesday, February 10, 1982 6:15AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #21
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest        Wednesday, 10 Feb 1982     Volume 5 : Issue 21

Today's Topics:
                     SF Fandom - SF Lovers Party,
    SF Movies - Shock Treatment & Brainstorm & Crack in the World,
        SF Books - Elfquest & Centaur Aisle & Octagon & Wolfe,
                  SF Topics - Industrial Feudalism,
              SF TV - Twilight Zone,  Spoiler - Octagon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 February 1982 00:00-EST
From: SFL-PARTY at MIT-MC
Subject: Change of Address

Due to unforeseen hardware changes at MIT-AI, the system will not be
available this week. Therefore, people on the ARPAnet wishing to RSVP
for the SF-Lovers party at Boskone should send to SFL-PARTY@MIT-MC
instead.  Additional information on the party is being mailed today to
everyone who has informed us they will be attending. Please note that
Enet users should still send to SFL-Party@KIRK or KIRK::SFL_Party.


        Alyson L. Abramowitz
        James Turner
        Mike Peeler

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 1982 1117-PST
From: Per Bothner <CSD.BOTHNER at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Shock Treatment

I'm surprised no one has discussed "Shock Treatment" yet. By now I
assume a number of people have seen it. Does it live up to the hype?
Is it worth a 30-minute midnight bike ride?

------------------------------

Date: 29-Jan-1982
From: JONATHAN OSTROWSKY AT GALAXY
Reply-to: "JONATHAN OSTROWSKY AT GALAXY c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: Douglas Trumbull fans, take note

The following article appeared in today's Boston Globe.

                      Wood Film to be Completed

By Dale Pollock Los Angeles Times

    HOLLYWOOD--Filming will resume Feb. 8 on "Brainstorm," the
troubled science-fiction thriller abruptly halted by the death of its
star, Natalie Wood, in November.  The $12.5 million production has
been in limbo since Wood drowned off Catalina Island Nov. 29, and MGM,
the studio financing the production, shut it down.
    But it will be Lloyd's of London, one of the two insurance
carriers on the film, that will complete the movie.  When principal
photography is finished, MGM will evaluate whether to release the film
through United Artists, according to an MGM spokesman.
    The agreement was worked out a few days ago following weeks of
negotiations in Los Angeles and London.  The decision was confirmed by
MGM and Lloyd's.
    Following Wood's death, MGM had tried unsuccessfully to collect
almost $15 million on its two policies rather than attempt to complete
the film.  However, director Douglas Trumbull and cast members want to
finish the movie.
    Wood was scheduled for just three more days' filming, but her
remaining scenes were said to be among the most important in the film.
It remains unclear whether a double will be hired.
    Sources close to the production said Lloyd's agreed to pay nearly
$3 million to enable the film to be completed.  Almost $10 million had
been spent on "Brainstorm" before production was suspended Dec. 1.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 1982 1510-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Crack in the World, Elfquest

CitW:  I saw this movie several years ago on TV, and thought it was
trash.  I mean, the idea behind the film is ludicrous.  Where does the
energy to toss the piece of earth into the sky come from?  The bombs
they use?  Sorry, nowhere close.  The rotation of the earth?  Ditto.
And who cares if the earth's crust gets cracked?  The crust doesn't
hold the earth together (Hogan made the same mistake in his Minervan
trilogy).

Elfquest:  For all you comicbook lovers, I heartily recommend
"Elfquest" by WaRP graphics (Wendy and Richard Pini).  I picked up a
copy of volume I (the first five issues put together as a graphic
novel) at the local bookstore for $9.95+tax.  The series is supposed
to run for fifteen issues, coming out at a rate of three per year,
finishing sometime next year.

------------------------------

Date: 02-Feb-1982
From: JOHN FRANCIS AT EIFFEL
Reply-to: "JOHN FRANCIS AT EIFFEL c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: Book Reviews

I thought I would pass on my opinions of the following two books I
read recently.

1) Centaur Aisle, by Piers Anthony

This is the fourth volume of the Xanth trilogy. (Yes, I know what a
trilogy is, but Anthony states this quite categorically, and implies
there are more to come). If you haven't read the earlier books (A
Spell for Chameleon, The Source of Magic, and Castle Roogna) I would
suggest that you read them in the right order, as later books act as
spoilers for the earlier ones.
 This book contains no great surprises, and most of the characters are
already known to afficionadoes of this series. I found it to be at
least as good as the earlier books, and in fact considered it a
stronger book than the second volume.
 For those who are not familiar with the series, these books are set
in the land of Xanth, where magic works in an interesting fashion.
The underlying premise is that each person is born with a unique
magical talent (i.e. magic is an innate ability, rather than something
that can be learnt). Xanth is also populated with all the familiar
creatures of mythology (Centaurs, Harpys, etc.), and several other
strange creatures and plants. Some of these appear to have been put
there simply to allow Anthony full rein for introducing some of the
worst puns I have seen since Asimov, but they form a plausible and
convincing whole without any loose ends.  In short, if you enjoy
light-hearted fantasy and bad puns these books are good value for
money.

2) Octagon, by Fred Saberhagen

This book describes the strange happenings that occur to players in a
game of STARWEB (a trademark of Flying Buffalo). [This is NOT a
spoiler] From what I know of STARWEB it seems to be fairly accurate,
but the book will NOT be well recieved by most readers of this
newsletter.  Unfortunately I cannot give my reasons for disliking the
book here, but I will do so in the spoiler section at the end of this
digest.

------------------------------

Date: 9 February 1982 11:54 est
From: Spratt.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject: Gene Wolfe

For those who are unaware, Gene Wolfe does write mainstream fiction.
The book I've read is called "Peace" and is a bizarre set of
reminiscences by an old(?) man dying from a stroke.  A beautiful book.

Not all of Wolfe's stories play with the reader in an explicit
fashion.  In "The Devil in a Forest" he stays pretty well within the
bounds of normal historical fiction.  Except that the events related
in the story have no particular significance, historically.

Certainly Wolfe is concerned with writing books of extremely high
"literary technical" quality.  He succeeds at this so well and so
consistently that one can't seriously posit it happens by accident.
Perhaps this concern stems from a desire to be noticed by literary
critics, perhaps not.  Whatever the motivation, I'm deeply grateful
that someone of his ability is producing works I so enjoy and at the
same time he is expanding the limits of the genre of science fiction.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 1982 03:31:45-PST
From: decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!smb at Berkeley
Subject: Industrial Feudalism

It's far from clear to me that feudalism is incompatible with an
advanced industrial society.  Although empires, aristocracies, and
forms of feudalism are common themes, most authors lift their societal
structures straight from the history books.  But others, such as Poul
Anderson, present arguments to show that such arrangements are not
only possible but perhaps inevitable.

Remember that feudalism is more than an economic system; it's a way of
life that also provides for defense.  An individual on the bottom may
not have very much freedom, but is presumably guaranteed a certain
security in return.  In a small, closed environment -- say, a domed
city on an otherwise uninhabitable planet -- it's quite easy to see
how one person could gain control:  there's literally no place for
dissenters to go.  But that type of situation is unstable -- *unless*
people are convinced that their other needs are being met by the boss.
Add in a very weak central government, or an anarchic frontier, and a
feudal society could very easily evolve.

Nor do I accept that argument that feudalism is incompatible with
technological development.  Yes, one must allow the bright minds
freedom to create, but that could be done within the confines of a
feudal structure.  The important thing is incentive; if producing neat
gadgets gets you someplace -- say, a technocratic knighthood, or a
privileged userid on the local Subethernet machine (sorry, couldn't
resist) -- then people will produce neat gadgets.

I think I can summarize my conditions as: (a) society is composed of
small communities with a reasonably pyramidal authority structure
(i.e., no complex interactions); (b) very limited opportunity for
individuals to switch communities; (c) external needs can be met by
the boss; and (d) incentive to invent.

Two notes:  one, I haven't yet read "Oath of Fealty", so I don't know
if my conditions apply there (I suspect that 250,000 people is too
many); and two, I'm not saying that I like, want, or otherwise approve
of industrial feudalism; I'm merely saying I think it's possible.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Feb 1982 00:57:34-PST
From: decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!smb at Berkeley
Location: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Subject: Twilight Zone

The UNC Center for Public Television is polling its viewers to
determine the 10 best episodes of the "Twilight Zone".  These episodes
will be shown March 5-21 during their annual fund-raising "Festival".
In addition, the top nine will be shown three per night, at 11 pm, on
March 13, 19, and 20.

------------------------------

Date: Sunday, February 9, 1982 11:32PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following message is the last in the digest.  It discusses some
plot details of the novel Octagon, by Fred Saberhagen.  Some readers
may not wish to read on.

------------------------------

Date: 02-Feb-1982
From: JOHN FRANCIS AT EIFFEL
From: "JOHN FRANCIS AT EIFFEL c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: Book Reviews (Part II - Spoiler)


[SPOILER SECTION - Discussion of Octagon, by Fred Saberhagen]

I feel that this is another of those books that preys on the general
public's fear and mistrust of computers. The main protagonist of the
book turns out to be a self-aware computer program which is able to
access all the federal governments data base by using gateways
programmed in MANY YEARS AGO ON A DIFFERENT GENERATION OF HARDWARE (my
emphasis). Those of us in the computer field will realise just how
hard it is to program an undetectable gateway even if you have full
privileged access to the machine where the data lies, let alone how
you would do it on a machine where your only access is through a
remote-access network such as the ARPAnet. Unfortunately most people
do not have this awareness, and will be only too ready to believe that
a CRAY-4 in a research lab in Los Alamos could reach out and touch
someones data on a payroll computer, or on a police records computer,
or any other computer that can be reached by a modem.  I would be
prepared to suspend my disbelief in the other minor things in the book
which I doubt (such as a modem with a 'super high baud rate' working
over the public telephone network, or the probability of a 12- year
old kid producing a self-aware program) if I felt the book was
worthwhile, but I feel that this book is going to do far more harm to
the public image of computing than is justifiable for the amount of
enjoyment it might otherwise bring to its readers. Maybe if the book
contained a disclaimer I could accept it, but in the foreword I get
the feeling that Saberhagen himself actually believes in the
possibility of the events he describes.  In short - a book written by
someone who is ignorant of the field in which he sets his story, and
as such dangerously inaccurate.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 10-Feb <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #22
*** EOOH ***
Date: Wednesday, February 10, 1982 10:22PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #22
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest        Thursday, 11 Feb 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 22

Today's Topics:
                  Random Topics - LA l-5 convention,
      SF Books - Title Query,  SF Topics - Industrial Feudalism,
      SF Movies - Superman Time Travel Query & New Conan movie &
         World War III & Here's the Plot...What's the Title,
             Spoiler - Here's the Plot...What's the Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 February 1982 04:05-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: LA l-5 convention

The L-5 Convention is at the Hyatt International (LA AIRPORT HYATT)
over the weekend of 2-4 April.  Usual convention costs (around $30 at
the door; "professional membership" including banquet, some papers,
and a reception is about $75).

        Guests of Honor: Robert A. Heinlein
               Fred Haise (Grumman VP, Commander of Apollo 13)

        Keynote Speaker: Dr. Hans Mark, Deputy Administrator NASA,
               former Secretary of the Air Force.

        Featured Guest:  Honorable Newt Gingrich, Representative from
               Georgia, CoChair of the Congressional Space Caucus.
               Arthur Kantrowitz, Gary Hudson (private rocket
               constructor) Harry Stine, George Merrick and Chuck
               Gould of Rockwell, General Dan Graham, and a buncha
               other notables.

        Convention cochaired by Jerry Pournelle and Milton Stevens
(Stevens, a former Worldcon SF type, does most of the work).
        Purpose is to get enthusiasts and professionals together, and
to generate a strategy for the advancement of the space program.
        Please feel free to pass this message on to whoever you like.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 1982 19:07:09-PST
From: decvax!duke!chico!harpo!jtg at Berkeley
Subject: Thomas Covenant look-alikes

A while back I sent this in but never received a reply.  Does anyone
know what the name of the book was that tells untold tales of the
Illearth War (not the one by Steven Donaldson).  I believe it was
called Gilden Fire by Underwood Miller, but am not sure.  Also, does
anyone know where I can get a copy of this (I'm on the east coast
(NJ)).  Thanx, jtg.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 1982 1305-MST
From: Walt <Haas at UTAH-20>
Subject: Re: Industrial Feudalism

As far as I can see, the primary characteristic of feudalism is the
concentration of productive capital in the hands of the local Lord of
the Manor.  In OoF, the capital is concentrated in the corporation
that owns Todos Santos.  The traditional agricultural feudalism had
capital primarily in the form of arable land.  An industrial form of
feudalism would hold capital primarily in the form of things that
produced industrial products.  There are such industrial feudalisms;
they used to be quite common in the United States.  They are called
"company towns", and they are places where the owning company controls
all of the local economy.  Historically company towns have been
perfectly miserable places to live, because in order to maintain a
competitive position in its market, the owning company kept labor
costs as low as possible - by giving the workers as little as
possible.  This was particularly the case where the company was a
mining company, and is one reason the United Mine Workers tends to be
militant.  So long as a company has a monopoly on labor and competes
to sell its products, it has a strong incentive to keep short term
labor costs down.  Hence it has a disincentive to invest in those
things which, experience shows, produce long term benefit - like
education, research etc.

In the industrial society we live in today, labor is fortunately
highly mobile, so companies have to keep their workers reasonably
happy in order to keep them on the job.  Of course the authors of OoF
may have had this in mind - Todos Santos gets its pick of the most
desirable people because they give them the best treatment.  Lots of
companies today, especially those looking for Electrical Engineers and
Computer Scientists, take out large ads to make you believe that they
do this type of thing, so why not Todos Santos?  ... but if that's
what they're doing, it isn't feudalism, its a competitive marketplace
for skilled labor.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 1982 10:43:36-PST
From: decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!smb at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Industrial Feudalism

I don't think we disagree.  If you remember, I specified limited
mobility, and hence a non-competitive labor market.  As for living
conditions -- well, as you say, the feudal authority would own the
means of production -- which in this case includes the brains of the
engineers.  Accordingly, they'd have some provision for "maintenance"
and "upgrades" of their equipment, i.e., education.  In an industrial
environment, having good engineers can pay off in the medium or even
short term; I don't find it unlikely that some company asteroids would
evolve such a scheme.  And even in the southern mill towns in this
country, the company often provides some services (typically housing)
at low cost, to keep the workers happy, content, and out of union
meetings.

------------------------------

Date: 02/09/82 00:22:03
From: CHUQUI@MIT-MC
Subject: Superman question

This may sound like a dumb question, but after watching Superman on
the tube the last two nights, there is a question that I just can't
decide how to answer, and I was thinking it would make an interesting
topic for this thing:

When Superman goes back in time to save Lois, does he undo everything
else he did during that time, or does he exist in two places at one?
(actually, when he moves forward again, he will exist in three places
simultaneously, since he will be going forward, backward, and forward
again at any discreet time). Does anyone have a reasonable answer to
this paradox problem? Other than that, I enjoyed the film, but the
ending was somewhat ruined by this for me.

chuck

------------------------------

Date: 27-Jan-1982
From: DAVE BLICKSTEIN AT EIFFEL
Reply-to: "DAVE BLICKSTEIN AT EIFFEL c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: New Conan movie

        Confirmed rumor:  Conan the Barbarian is being made into a
movie. The film is being produced by Edward R. Pressman and the
screenplay was done by Oliver Stone and John Millus (best known for
"Apocalypse Now").

        And who did they pick to star as the barbarian? None other
than that actor's actor: Arnold Schwarzenegger (the body builder).  In
defense of that casting, we're told "Conan never was much of a talker.
His body did most of the talking."

        In the article on the movie, there's a picture of Schwar<ESC>
dressed in a sleeveless black tunic (to show flexed biceps of course),
a long black wig, and punk-styled spiked wristlets.  It looked pretty
silly to me actually, but maybe with some Hollywood magic we might get
a half-way interesting fantasy film.

        Dave Blickstein

P.S.  I have never (nor do I intend to ever) read a Conan book, which
      should explain my, perhaps, cynical view.  (This is based on the
      the striking similarity of Conan covers to Gor).  To my
      recollection, Conan was never discussed to any detail in the SF
      series topic.  Are there any Conan readers out there to
      enlighten me?

------------------------------

Date: 8-Feb-82  9:58:33 PST (Monday)
From: Pettit at PARC-MAXC
Subject: World War III TV movie

I watched the second half of this movie, and predicted the ending 10
minutes into it.  Everytime anyone came to a decision point which
could have averted nuclear war, they either took one more step in that
direction, hoping the other guys would turn back first, or they made
the "smart" decision and were blown to bits by a bad guy before they
could turn the relentless tide of fate.  The script's religious
adherence to this principle made it very predictable.  So much for
suspense.

As for logic and coherence, I found it hard to believe that a
President presented as being as intelligent and sensible as the Rock
Hudson character would steadfastly refuse to accept the easy-out
offered him by the Russians, and even harder to believe that the
Russian who pushed the button would have any reason to do so.  He knew
the Americans had turned back, the USSR was not threatened.  A vassal
America is the last thing the Russians needed, they have enough
headaches with Poland and Czechoslovakia.  And where would they get
the grain they were so desperate for with our breadbasket in ruins?

If we get into a nuclear war, it will have more akin with "Dr.
Strangelove" than "World War III".  Ideological fanatics could do it
in their blind determination, but not compassionate moderate leaders
slowly struggling against their consciences each tortuous step of the
way.

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, February 11 1982  2:08AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following message is the last in the digest.  It it a movie title
query which also discusses major portions of the plot of movie.  Some
readers may not wish to read on.

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 3 February 1982, 07:28-EST
From: Robert W. Kerns <RWK at SCRC-TENEX at MIT-AI>
Subject: What's the title? (I don't know, but this is a spoiler...)

What's the title?  The beginning?

Many many years ago, I saw the later parts of a movie on TV which  has
always had me intruiged.  Perhaps someone can fill me in on the  parts
I missed, and supply a title?

There is this guy with an  electronic talking hand.  I don't know  why
or how, and there's a lot about it he doesn't know.  A lot he  doesn't
know about  himself,  even.   Answers  seem  to  lie  in  the  missing
electronic fingers, which seem to be some sort of mass-storage device.
There are these  aliens, who come  through these mirror-like  devices,
who bring  the fingers  through one  at a  time (I  didn't catch  why,
perhaps to lure him for some  reason?).  He discovers that the  aliens
can be killed (or something like  it) by pulling off their  medalians,
which makes  them shimmer  and evaporate.   He finally  gets the  last
finger/tube from one of the aliens, plugs it into his hand, which then
explains to him that he  is the last living  person, but that all  the
rest of the earth's billions have been impressed as electrons on  this
wire which has been  imbedded into his body,  and when the right  time
comes (whenever) they could be restored.

If someone could  fill in  the gaps  in the  story for  me, you  would
relieve a bit  of curiosity  which has been  nagging me  for about  15
years.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 12-Feb <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #23
*** EOOH ***
Date: Friday, February 12, 1982 7:03AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #23
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest         Friday, 12 Feb 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 23

Today's Topics:
                       SF Fandom - Hugo awards,
   SF TV - Twilight Zone (Demon With a Glass Hand) & World War III,
       SF Movies - Superman & Brain Storm & Crack in the World,
                   SF Topics - Industrial Feudalism
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 February 1982 05:29-EST
From: "Richard H.E. Smith, II" <QUIDLY at MIT-AI>
Subject: Hugo awards

Being in Chicago, I'm probably among the first to recieve my copy of
the Chicon IV (1982 worldcon) Progress Report #3, which contains the
Hugo Award nominating ballot.  I'm also going to be among the first,
but certainly not the last, to bitch about the *tacky* full page ads
that appear in the PR on the couple pages just before the ballot.  One
of them reads as follows:

        "On your Hugo Award ballot, vote for..."

and then names the same novel whose publisher supposedly sent free
copies to the entire SFWA mailing list with a letter asking for Hugo &
Nebula votes.  A well-known, several-times Hugo-winning, semi-pro-zine
also has a full page ad conveniently located.

I sure hope that any of you who happen to be members of the worldcon
and plan to nominate for the Hugo Awards will think twice about these
people who want to buy your vote!

By the way, don't miss the fact that the ballots must be returned by
MARCH 15, which doesn't give you much time to figure out what to
nominate.

Just in case you care, you might consider some of my personal
favorites:

        Novella: "In the Western Tradition" by Phyllis Eisenstein
                        (March F&SF)
        Fanzine: ENERGUMEN 16 edited by Mike Glickson & Susan Wood

I hope it's not as tacky for me to mention these as it is for the
publishers to do so.

 -- Dick Smith

p.s. If I could think of a better word than tacky, I'd use it.
     Unfortunately, all I can think of is too obscene to use here.
     Nuts!

------------------------------

Date: 10 February 1982 2353-PST (Wednesday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: "glass hand"

The plot in question is from an Outer Limits episode; a classic one in
fact.

Here is the entry from my official Arpanet "Outer Limits Episode
Guide".

---
Demon With a Glass Hand                         (10/17/64)      ****
   Starred Robert Culp; written by Harlan Ellison.  A man from the
   future, with fragmented memories and a glass computer for one of
   his hands, finds himself in the present, being hunted by aliens
   from the future in an old building.  The hand keeps telling him
   that he holds the key to life or death for billions of future
   humans, but it cannot give him the details until he gets the three
   missing fingers of the hand (obviously ROMS) back from the aliens.
   A very good episode.

---

--Lauren--

[ Thanks also to Stuart Cracraft (mclure at SRI-UNIX) and Christopher
  C. Stacy (CStacy at MIT-AI) for also identifting this story.
  --  Jim ]

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 1982 09:04 PST
From: STOGRYN.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #22 *** WWIII

WWIII: the TV movie


1) I don't think I would like a President who would take the EASY OUT
and give in to blackmail: US grain in exchange for our oil pipe line
from Alaska being left in tact.

2) The KGB never intended to be satisfied with the blackmail, they
intended to gain a first-strike against the US all along. The new
Soviet leader (the KGB official) essentially said "now the US planes
have turned back and we can have the first-strike we've always
wanted."

3) In the story, as now, the US had a surplus of grain.  The Russians
had none, so if they couldn't gain US grain by blackmail, they would
gain a first-strike against the US and they would rule the world ( as
if there would be anything to rule after a nuclear war).

Steve

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 1982 00:59:39-PST
From: CSVAX.upstill at Berkeley
Subject: Superman query

   I missed the second night of Superman on TV this week.  Would
somebody who saw the theatrical version and the TV one help me out
with a list of the new scenes?  I only spotted two the first night,
worth maybe 5 minutes, and there was supposed to be 45 minutes of new
stuff.
   Reply to me, not the group.

Steve

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 1982 1559-PST
From: Craig W. Reynolds  from III via Rand  <REYNOLDS at RAND-AI>
Subject: "Brain Storm"

I saw a network news interview with Doug Trumbull just after Loyld's
agreed to bankroll the rest of principal photography on "Brain Storm"
in the wake of Ms. Wood's death. He needed to deny that the character
that Wood had played would be recreated by "special effects
techniques"!

It sounded like some misguided person had seen "Looker" (one of the
few) and the computer simulated computer simulations that we did here
at III and accepted them (and the story line (such as it was) as well,
for all I know) at face value. Sigh.

-c

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 1982 1248-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: Re: Crack in the World

That back of the envelope calculation sounds suspicious to me.
Remember, large parts of the earth ARE liquid - the outer core is
liquid iron/nickel, and the mantle is very viscous semi-liquid rock.

The steam explosion is silly.  At the temperatures and pressures found
in the mantl, water has long since passed its critical point, where
gas and liquid become indistinguishable.  And if you put the energy
required into all the water in the oceans you'd have to heat them to
ridiculous temperatures.

You'd have to transfer the energy to that chunk of earth with near
perfect efficiency, or the atmosphere gets blown off into space and
everything fries.  Come to think of it, does the atmosphere flow down
into the hole left behind?

Back to the liquid/solid model for the earth.  As it turns out, if you
treat the earth as liquid you get something very close to its true
shape, a kind of pear-shaped almost sphere.  This indicates that the
liquid model is good.  Also, their are tides (yes, tides) induced in
the earth by the moon of substantial size (several feet, I believe).

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 1982 11:22:30-PST
From: jef at LBL-UNIX (Jef Poskanzer [rtsg])
Subject: Crack in the World

I believe the movie explicitly said that the energy to lift up the new
moon came from a steam explosion caused by most of an ocean meeting
the Earth's core.  I guess you could look at this like a giant cannon;
the new moon is the projectile, the Earth is the barrel, and steam is
the propellant.  This makes it clear that the projectile would not
make it to orbit, since no matter how long a gun's barrel is, the
muzzle velocity is limited by the speed of the individual propellant
molecules.  Steam, even at many thousands of degrees, does not have
orbital velocity.

More interestingly, the movie and our reaction to it reveals an
interesting disparity between how the general public and scientists
view our planet.  The general public seems to think the Earth is bound
entirely by chemical energy - i.e. it is just a rather large chunk of
rock, and removing part of it would just leave a big hole.  Scientists
seem to think the opposite, that gravitational binding energy
dominates and the Earth is like a large drop of liquid.  I once did a
back-of-the-envelope calculation and found that, to within an order of
magnitude, the Earth is bound EQUALLY by gravity and chemistry.
Perhaps the best model is Silly Putty.
--- Jef

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 1982 1220-MST
From: Walt <Haas at UTAH-20>
Subject: Re: Industrial Feudalism

You make a good case for the plausibility of this happening under some
types of circumstances.  One that occurs to me is a world with little
remaining fossil resources, but a highly developed technology of
sending bits long distances in efficient light pipes between efficient
silicon chips.  The people would have to eat of course, and you can't
eat bits or silicon, and there aren't any fossil fuels to haul food
into large cities, so the people live under virtually feudal
conditions, but there is a larger economy based on information.  I
believe this would meet the types of conditions you set - if the
software market was competitive on a national basis, but the groceries
were strictly local, you might have limited labor mobility but
competition to develop the best technology.  Chips would be carried
from town to town by itinerant merchants, and there would be great
rejoicing when the chipsmith came to your manor, because then you
could /finally/ get a part to fix the flickering tube that had been
driving you blind.  Anyhow it's fun to think about.  My complaint with
OoF is that the authors didn't make their claim of a feudal society
credible to me.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 1982 at 0015-CST
From: hjjh at UTEXAS-11
Subject: Industrial Feudalism in Japan

I checked out the possibility with John M. (who reads SF-L over my
shoulder every chance he gets) and he says--

 In re:  "Japan certainly does high technology in a tightly knit
 society, but it couldn't be described as feudal."

 Japan...  no.  But definitely the big Japanese corporations.  A
 number of them provide their employees with housing, health care,
 schools for the children, etc.  In turn, the employee stays with
 the same company for his entire working career.

 Back during the flap over the Chrysler bailout there was a report
 on the babblebox that is relevant.  It seems that in 1972 or 73
 Mazda got into a similar fiscal bind when their rotary engine
 turned out to be a real gas guzzler.  As I recall, the following
 things were done:  1) Mazda did NOT go to the Japanese government
 for help.  2) Arrangements were made with the banks to reschedule
 loan payments.  3) NO ONE was laid off.  Line workers idled by
 production cutbacks were found jobs in dealerships or elsewhere.
 When the paycuts came, they started AT THE TOP and went down,
 eventually only going as far as half way through middle
 management.

 3) and 4) show the feudal set-up:  the workers (samurai) are taken
 care of; and the Big Boys (daimyos and feif administrators) whose
 decision to go with the rotary engine caused all the problems in
 the first place, got stuck with the pay cuts (which is certainly
 less messy than seppuku).

 This is also, except for 2), exactly the opposite of the way the
 Chrysler mess was handled.

 John M.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 1982 1020-EST
From: Larry Seiler <LSI.SEILER at MIT-SPEECH>
Subject: Industrial Feudalism
Reply-to: Seiler@MIT-XX

    I am given to understand that industrial feudalism is being
practiced right now in Japan.  It works like this.  Every morning when
the workers arrive at company X, they all gather together and sing the
company song, which is about how they will love and honor their
company and it will protect them.  Apparently, they do and it does.
Hardly anybody is fired or laid off; it is not unusual to spend your
whole life working for one company.  Workers (and I mean professionals
too, not just manual laborers) tend to skip paid vacations so that
they can work more.  Japanese workers were polled as to who they would
contact first if they got in an accident and the vast majority said
they would call their company first.  Only a few said they would call
their wives first.  I'm sure that the Japanese could be just as mobile
as we are if they wanted to be, so apparently they practice this form
of feudalism by choice.

Larry Seiler

    PS - My source for all this is the Boston Globe, if that helps you
to decide whether to believe it.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 16-Feb <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #24
*** EOOH ***
Date: Tuesday, February 16, 1982 6:51AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #24
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest         Sunday, 14 Feb 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 24

Today's Topics:
               SF Movies - Superman & New Conan Movie,
                SF Books - Series (Conan/GOR) & Congo,
        SF Topics - Optical Computers & Industrial Feudalism,
           SF TV - Outer Limits (Demon With a Glass Hand),
           Spoiler - Outer Limits (Demon With a Glass Hand)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 February 1982 19:44-EST
From: Andrew Scott Beals <BANDY at MIT-AI>
Subject: Superman's time-warp

Well, as near as I can figure, Superman went back in time, and worked
parallel to himself while he was saving Lois Lane. Yes, this does mean
he exists in 3 places simultaneously (original time-path, going back
in time, and going forward once again.), but it's only a movie, and
so normal physics don't have to operate in it (for example: Why would
a piece of his home world be so deadly to him-after all, millions of
Kryptonians lived on a very large piece of it long before he was
born.).
                                        -Bandy

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 1982 15:49:10-PST
From: menlo70!hao!woods at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Superman Time Query

   I thought this ending was really a cop-out. It ruined the whole
movie for me. This going back in time is one thing that Supie was
NEVER able to do in the comics I remember reading. I even remember him
trying several times, including one story in particular in which he
had a really bad fight with Lois and he attempted to go back in time
to patch things up (I think he missed her birthday party or something
typically ridiculous like that). While he was in the past, something
blocked his memory and he missed the party again, proving once again
that Supie cannot change history.
  There were several other things in this movie that failed to stick
to the original script, too, like the total elimination of Superboy,
and making formerly very important people (like Lana Lang and Jimmy
Olsen) into bit parts. Oh,well, if they had adhered totally to the
original story it might have been more boring anyway.

            GREG (ucbvax!menlo70!hao!woods)

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 1982 16:56 EST
From: CHRONIS.henr at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: New Conan movie

If you've never read a Conan book, your really missing out.  They(the
REH stories) are the best escapist literature I've read, save a few
RAH, Ursula K. and Bradbury stories.  The plots aren't complex, the
baddies aren't either, but Conan himself is the most cynical barbarian
ever imagined.  REH had considerable fun putting down "civilization"
in many of his stories.  By the way the first 20-odd /B.Smith Marvel
comics about Conan, are worth reading, even if you don't like comics.

                                                T. Chronis

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 1982 1305-EST
From: Steven J. Zeve <ZEVE at RUTGERS>
Subject: Conan

To Dave Blickstein, I think it would be more appropriate to say that
the Gor book covers resemble the Conan covers.  Conan is a MUCH older
series, dating back to the 1930s.  Conan is, in many ways, the
standard form for heroic (or if you prefer Sword and Sorcery) fantasy
against which all others must be judged.  Although you might not like
the Conan books, you should at least read one or two of them before
dismissing them as being just like the Gor books.  It is hard for
anything to be as bad as the Gor books.  Not only are the Gor books
degrading in their attitudes about women, they are so predictable and
badly written that you can't ignore their attitude about women even if
you try.  I for one await the movie to see if it can actually be made
to work, since I agree with you that it could come out very badly when
transferred from the imagination and pen and ink to live flesh.  By
the way the picture you describe sounds like a standard image of
Conan.

        Steve Z.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 1982 0019-PST
From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich)
Subject: Re: Conan as compared to GOR books

There ain't no comparison!  Conan is actually a bit on the chivalrous
side for the barbarian he's supposed to be.  If you like sword &
sorcery, the Conan books are fairly good (at least the original ones
by Howard are; I personally don't care for some of the later fill-in
books at all, especially the ones by Lin Carter).  I received my
introduction to S&S from these books, and they're still some of my
favorites for light reading.

What I've seen of the Conan movie stills looks pretty good, with the
usual exception that the characters as portrayed in the movie don't
seem to match the descriptions in the books at all (or even the
depictions in the comic books).  Given most of the recent efforts in
fantasy movie-making, I'm not expecting too much from the movie, but
hope it's at least worth a $1.50 or $2.00 "Rush Hour" matinee price.

If there's anybody else out there who hasn't at least tried one of
Howard's original Conan books, break down and give it a shot.  You
might try to start with the first one, and if you like them, work
through in chronological sequence.  There's a progression from lone
youth to leader to high station in the series, and it makes more sense
if they're read in order.  I'm not sure of the order of some of the
more recent fill-ins, and need to reread the whole series to figure
them out properly, but here's the approximately correct chronological
list:

Conan, Conan of Cimmeria, Conan and the Sorcerer (?), Conan: the Sword
of Skelos (?), Conan the Mercenary, Conan the Freebooter, Conan:  the
Road of Kings (?), Conan the Wanderer, Conan: the Flame Knife (?),
Conan and the Spider God (?), Conan the Adventurer, Conan the Rebel,
Conan the Buccaneer, Conan the Warrior, Conan the Liberator, Conan the
Usurper, Conan the Conqueror, Conan the Avenger, Conan of Aquilonia,
Conan of the Isles, Conan the Swordsman (no sequence - contains
stories scattered throughout Conan's life)

Enjoy, Rich

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 1982 20:23:55-PST
From: b.r.schatz
Subject: optical computers
Date: 2/11/82, 10:02 PM

I have just finished reading a pretty good high-technology thriller by
Michael Crichton, "Congo".  The plot revolves around the discovery of
a natural source (in a lost volcanic African mine a la "She") for Type
IIb boron-coated blue diamonds which, when doped, can be used to make
"the Fabry-Perot Interferometer, the optical equivalent of a
transistor, which can respond in 1 picosecond, at least 1000 times
faster than the fastest Josephson junctions".  These would form the
next generation of optical computers, whose speed would make the
current-day electrical ones obsolete.  It was also stated that laser
transmission along fiber optic cables required these doped
semiconductor diamonds.  Is this for real?  Most of Crichton's other
speculations (e.g. on ape language) seem at least well founded.

------------------------------

Date: 13 February 1982 01:43-EST
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Industrial Feudalism in Japan

Some (short) historical background might be helpful here....  (This
doesn't have a whole lot to do with SF, but there have been a number
of unsupported assertions lately about "feudal Japan" that ought to be
contradicted.)

In some ways, Japan might be considered feudal, since the land was
long divided into Han ruled in a feudal manner by the Daimyo.
However, beginning in the 17th century with the Tokugawa shogun the
independence of the daimyo was curtailed.  For example, the daimyo's
families ware required to live in Edo (now Tokyo) as hostages by the
shogun.  The rule of the shogun was much more effective than that of
the kings in Europe.  There were also strong economic links between
Edo and the countryside, and the Japanese economy was highly
commercialized before modernization began.  And when economic
development really got going, under Okubo Toshimichi's ministership,
the central government continued to play a leading role, thus reducing
the power of the daimyo further.  Even so, the individual Han
continued to work together as units, and many of the great Japanese
corporations of today are directly descended from them.  So although
Japanese society contained feudal elements, IT WAS NEVER REALLY FEUDAL
AS THE TERM WAS USED IN EUROPE.  Indeed, some economists believe that
Japan (and England, for that matter) was able to develop so rapidly
precisely because of the non-feudal elements (such as the precocious
commercialization).

Today, Japanese society can hardly be called feudal, although it is
marginally closer to feudalism than U.S. society is.  A chief
distinguishing element of feudalism -- the relative isolation and
almost complete independence of the individual "estates" -- is largely
absent.  Indeed, I posit that industrialization and technological
advance have ONLY taken place when different parts of a society could
freely interact: the antithesis of feudalism.

------------------------------

Date: Sunday, February 14 1982  2:08AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following message is the last in the digest.  It it a response to
the recent "glass hand" query that discusses major portions of the
plot.  Some readers may not wish to read on.

[ Thanks also to Dudley Irish <IRISH at UTAH-20>, Tom Wadlow <TAW at
  S1-A>, and Larry Reed <Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC> for also answering
  this query.  -- Jim ]

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 1982 1414-EST
From: Bob Krovetz <KROVETZ at NLM-MCS>
Subject: re: title query (spoiler)

The title of the "movie" is an episode of The Outer Limits entitled
"The man with the glass hand" and is by Harlan Ellison.  I haven't
seen the series in a very long time so my memory is also somewhat
fuzzy.  As I recall, the man being chased was played by Robert Culp
(of I Spy fame).  The hand was a talking computer which could answer
some of Culp's questions, but not all, due to missing critical
components in the fingers.  With the acquisition of each finger the
computer is able to answer more of his questions.  I think the aliens
that were pursuing him came from earth's future via that mirror
device.  The medallions enabled them to remain in the past; pulling
them off just returned them to the future.  He eventually manages to
destroy the mirror, cutting off the supply, and pulls the medallions
off the rest.  I think the people of earth were stored on the wire
because the earth became radioactive and would become safe again some
3000 years in the future.  The acquisition of the last finger enables
the computer to inform Culp that the wire was wrapped around a spool
in his chest and that he is actually a robot that has been entrusted
with the safekeeping of the wire until the earth is again safe to
inhabit.
   I heard a talk by Ellison several years ago in which he discussed
the episode.  He mentioned that the show was made on a very low budget
(the alien's costume included a stocking over their heads with blacked
out eyes).  He also mentioned that Culp did his own stunts (which were
very good).  Does anyone know if the series is still in syndication?

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 18-Feb <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #25
*** EOOH ***
Date: Thursday, February 18, 1982 9:40AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #25
To: SF-LOVERS at SU-SCORE


SF-LOVERS Digest        Thursday, 18 Feb 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 25

Today's Topics:
                  Random Topics - LA l-5 convention,
     SF Books - Majipoor Chronicles & Series (Conan/GOR) & Congo,
        SF Topics - Optical Computers & Industrial Feudalism,
                SF Movies - Superman & Quest For Fire,
    SF TV - Outer Limits & World War III,  Spoiler - World War III
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 82 1:33-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: More on upcoming L-5 conference

From Pournelle:

L-5 CONFERENCE   2-4 april 1982  Los Angeles AIRPORT HYATT

THEME: Citizens in space; space development.
GUESTS OF HONOR: Robert A. Heinlein, author
  Fred Haise, VP Grumman (Apollo 13 Commander)
KEYNOTE SPEAKER:  Hans Mark, Deputy Director NASA
Honored Guest: Representative Newt Gingrich

Workshop to design lunar colony; space suit design; strategy and
  tactics of space politics; propulsion; asteroid mines.  Most
  members of Citizens Advisory Council an National Space Policy
  will attend.
Membership: General, $35 ($25 L-5 or AAS members); Banquet $25
  Professional Membership (includes banquet) $75
  Professional membership includes reception for guests of
  honor etc. Friday evening.  There will be an open party for all
  members Saturday night (poolside,  weather permitting).
Intention is to mix enthusiasts and professionals and
  politicians and citizens and everyone try to learn from the
  others.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 1982 10:21:19 EST (Wednesday)
From: Andrew Malis <malis at BBN-UNIX>
Subject: "Majipoor Chronicles"

This past weekend I was in a bookstore and I saw "Majipoor Chronicles"
by Robert Silverberg (Priam Books (Arbor House), 5.95 trade
paperback).  By co-incidence, I had just finished reading "Lord
Valentine's Castle", so I snapped it right up.  In a nutshell, if you
liked "Valentine", you'll love this as well.  As you could well guess
from the title, it's set in the same world as "Valentine", and
consists of episodes from Majipoor's history interleaved with events
following the end of the previous book.  I'm only half way through it,
but I highly recommend it.  Be sure to read "Valentine" first,
however, to get background information that is quite necessary for one
to enjoy the book.

Andy

P.S. I hope that this trend towards trade paperbacks doesn't continue.
They're less convenient to carry around, need more shelf space, and
harder on the wallet to boot.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 1982 05:59:10-PST
From: sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!berry at Berkeley
Subject: Conan the Barbarian Books

Allowing for the fact that they were written in the 20's and 30's (I
think), Robert E Howard's "Conan" stories are quite good.  They are
NOWHERE NEAR as disgustingly sexist as the Gor stories.  A few writers
have taken it on themselves to finish some of Howards unfinished
stories and write new ones, notably Sprague deCamp and Lin Carter.
Recently I picked up a Conan novel (I forget the title, but like almost
all of them it was something like "Conan the <foo>") by Poul Anderson
(!).  Poul's is the best of the lot, if you ask me.  He fleshes out
the characters in a believable manner, and brings his full, not
inconsiderable story-telling talent to bear.
   --berry

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 1982 0912-PST
Subject: Optical computers
From: William "Chops" Westfield <BillW@SRI-KL>

I haven't read Crichton's new book, and from some of the reviews I've
seen, I probably won't.  It seems Crichton knows next to nothing about
computers or electronics.  Ill comment on a couple of things you
mentioned:

1) Diamonds:  Are not used in optical fiber communications.  Carbon is
   sort of in the semi-conductor family, so it might be possible to
   build devices out of diamonds.  They have a higher bandgap than
   silicon, which may be good or bad, I forget.  A major disadvantage
   is that you can make complex silicon integrated circuits by virtue
   of the fact that you can grow nice insulating layers of silicon
   dioxide on the wafer... Carbon dioxide, on the other hand will tend
   to evaporate.

2) 1pS = "1000 times faster than the fastest josephson junction"
   "Respond in 1 pS"??? well, if you were talking about gate delays,
   1pS would be only about 10,000 times faster than go-to-the-radio-
   shack-and-buy-it type integrated circuits (LS TTL). GaAs Chips
   under development have gate delays of about 3 pS (I think) and
   Bell Labs has achived similar times using silicon. JJ's are
   already down below 1 pS, if I remember the most recent news blurb
   in the trade journals properly.  Besides which, The next big hurtle
   in electronic speed has little to do with switching times.  It has
   to do with the speed of light.  In 1 pS, light travels about .3 mM
   in a vacuum (much less in a material with a high refractive index
   like diamond - light travels slower), and its very hard to fit
   enough devices in such a small area.

Oh well - makes me doubt all the neat things I read in Andromeda
Strain...

Bill W

------------------------------

Date: 13 February 1982 21:30-EST
From: "John Howard Palevich, & CO." <TANG at MIT-AI>
Subject: Japanese Feudalism


        I just spent six weeks writing a paper on the Japanese
semiconductor industry.  Big Japanese companies, especially those on
the Ministry of International Trade and Industry's "right for Japan"
list, are allowed to run up very large debt/equity ratios.  Mazda, for
instance, could borrow six times as much money (from Japanese banks
that know that the Bank of Japan will lend them the money) than
Chrystler could borrow from US banks.  When a Japanese firm get into
trouble, the very worst thing that could happen is a merger; the
Japanese government is virtually committed to see that no major
Japanese corporation goes bankrupt.

        And workers get 1/3 of their income in the form of two big
bonuses per year, so in lean years Japanese companies can reduce their
labor costs significantly by simply reducing bonuses.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 1982 12:18 CST
From: johnston.DLOS at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Superman Time Query, SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #24

I think you're probably right about working parallel to himself.
However, although this doesn't really pertain to the enjoyability of
the movie, I believe this raises the spectre of changing history and
all associated paradoxes.  If somebody sees a way out of that
question, I would be interested in responses.


Response to menlo70!hao!woods at Berkeley:

Superman/Superboy often traveled in time in the comics.  Case in
point-going to and from the 30th century to work with the League of
Super Heroes.  I do agree that the comics firmly believed that history
could not be changed by going into the past, though.

Rick

------------------------------
Date: 16 Feb 1982 15:32:00-PST
From: Cory.c153-3ad at Berkeley
Subject: Superman Movie

The Superman I Movie has an internal inconsistency: while Superman is
flying around reversing time, we see photos of the earthquake
un-happening.  In particular, we see the flood backing up & the dam
rebuilding itself.  So after Supes is finished, Jimmy Olsen should be
hanging off the dam again, right?  /* Wrong */ His save by Superman
apparently works across time reversals, whereas little things like
Lois Lane's death don't.

                                        Michael Chastain

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 1982 09:50:21-PST
From: allegra!jdd at Berkeley
Subject: Superman's Time Travels

Superman was always able to go forward and backward in time.  What
menlo70!hao!woods is probably thinking about is that he was never able
to \change/ the past, which is what he did in the movie.  He could
always visit it.

The problem with the Three-Supermen Theory of BANDY@MIT-AI is that
there is a paradox.  If Superman[1] sees Lois die, then travels back
in time (Superman[2]) and emerges in the past (Superman[3]) to save
her, then Superman[1] will have no reason to time-travel and we get
stuck with two Supermen (my opinion is that Superman[2] would vanish).

Of course, this is just one way that time-travel could work (ignoring
laws of physics, of course).

Cheers, John DeTreville Bell Labs

------------------------------

Date: 13 February 1982 1938-PST (Saturday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: "Quest For Fire"

Greetings.  Anybody out there have some comments on "Quest For Fire"?
It has recently opened here in L.A. -- it might be a limited
distribution at this time.  Any info would be appreciated.  Thanks.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 1982 at 1428-CST
From: ables at UTEXAS-11 (King Ables)
Subject: re: Outer Limits still in syndication?

Yes, it is. KTVT Channel 11, an independent station in Ft. Worth, runs
it on weekends and as a filler at other times. We could see it here in
Austin until recently when our cable company dropped KTVT.  I assume
other places would carry it, too.
-ka

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 1982 1045-MST
From: Dudley Irish <IRISH at UTAH-20>
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #24

        Yes, Outer Limits is still in syndication.  It shows here in
beautiful Salt Lake City, on an independent station.  I suppose that
the chances are that one of your local stations will be picking it up
eventually.
        There was an other episode by Ellison that I would like the
name of if some one could supply it.  It was about a soldier that got
transported back in time.  The key that will remind many of you of
which episode it is is that he had to keep his helmet on to keep the
noise to an exceptible level.  This is because he was used to getting
his orders over a radio in his helmet.
        One last thing, does any one know of a guide or synopsis for
the Outer Limits show?

                                                Dudley Irish
                                                Irish@Utah-20


[ Yes, a guide to both OUTER LIMITS and the TWILIGHT ZONE was
   compiled by Lauren Weinstein (Lauren@UCLA-SECURITY) and
   made available to the SF-LOVERS readership quite a while
   back.  Lauren is presently in the process of revising and
   updating these guides, and I hope that the "second editions"
   can be made available to the readership in the relatively
   near future.  -- Jim ]

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, February 18 1982  2:08AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following two messages are the last in the digest.  They discuss
the recent TV movie World War III in more detail than previous
messages, mentioning some of the details of its conclusion.  Some
readers may not wish to read on.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 1982 1305-EST
From: Steven J. Zeve <ZEVE at RUTGERS>
Subject: World War III

In reply to "Pettit at PARC-MAXC"'s comments on the WWIII movie, yes
it was a little predictable.  As to the Russian leader (who appears to
be a very high ranking KGB officer) who pushed the button, it was
clear to me that he was a fanatic.  Although it isn't clear whether he
ordered the execution of the secretary general (played by Brian
Keith), it is made clear throughout the movie that he okayed and maybe
even drew up the plan to invade the U.S..  Furthermore, the reactions
of the American leaders to him makes it clear that they believe he is
a fanatic.

        Steve Z.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 1982 09:03 PST
From: Pugh.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Stogryn.ES at PARC-MAXC Review of WWIII


Steve --

I believe you misinterpreted the final minutes of the movie.

I do not believe the KGB intended to follow through with a
first-strike.  The KGB official, before picking up the telephone to
converse with the American President, commented that the dead
Secretary-General had credibility with the Americans and that the
coming discussion with the President would not be easy.  After his
conversation with the President, the KGB official commented that "he
didn't believe me" (meaning the President didn't believe that the
Soviet planes would be withdrawn), and something to the effect that
they had 25 minutes until the American leader received a Congressional
OK for the nuclear strike.  At that point, the Soviets realized that
war was inevitable.  The rest is ...  history?  If the conversation
had been different in that the American President would have gone
along with the Soviet "request" would it make much sense to push the
button?  That would not have helped the starving Russians which (if
you will remember) was the original reason for the venture into
Alaska.

/Eric

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************Date: Tuesday, March 9, 1982 2:29AM

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 27-Apr                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #26
*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 88 08:23:27 EST
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #26
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest          Monday, 8 Feb 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 26

Today's Topics:
                Administrivia - Resumption of Service,
      SF Lovers - Outer Limits and Twilight Zone Episode Guides,
  SF TV - Outer Limits (Demon With a Glass Hand),  SF Books - Congo,
       SF Topics - Chinese Science Fiction & Optical Computers,
           Spoiler - Outer Limits (Demon With a Glass Hand)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, March 9, 1982 2:29AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS-REQUEST at MIT-AI
Subject: Resumption of Service

    Hello again.  It's been a long time since we've had a SF-LOVERS
Digest, over two weeks.  The last digest, V5 #26, went out on
Thursday, February 18th.  After that, we had to stop sending it out
from Score.  We are now transmitting from BRL.  The mailboxes for
SF-LOVERS and SF-LOVERS-REQUEST should be moving to another site
shortly, but the MIT-AI addresses will continue to work as usual.
Please note that the SU-SCORE addresses are NOT working, and any mail
sent to them will be lost.

                                    Happy reading,

                                                Jim

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 1982 1946-CST
From: Rich Zellich <ZELLICH at OFFICE-3>
Subject: Outer Limits and Twilight Zone Episode Guides

Versions of Lauren's Twilight Zone and Outer Limits episode guides are
permanently available for FTP over the ARPANET from host OFFICE-3.
These files are maintained in various forms to suit just about
anybody:  The message-format files have one episode per message and,
along with the BABYL files, were reformatted by Frank Wancho somewhat
over a year ago; the text, line printer and Augment/NLS files were
reformatted by me even longer ago...if you find anything wrong with
these files, it's probably our fault, so don't bug Lauren!  OFFICE-3
supports the net "standard" ANONYMOUS login within FTP (use anything
for a password).

The Tenex message-format files are:
   <ALMSA>TZEG.MESSAGE
   <ALMSA>OLEG.MESSAGE
The BABYL files are:
   <ALMSA>TZEG.BABYL
   <ALMSA>OLEG.BABYL
The straight line-oriented text files are:
   <ALMSA>TZEG.TXT
   <ALMSA>TZEG.OUT (this one is formatted for lineprinters,
                    with embedded CTL-L FormFeeds)
The Augment/NLS file is:
   <ALMSA>TZEG.AUG

Enjoy,
Rich

------------------------------

Date: 21 February 1982 1426-PST (Sunday)
From: mike at UCLA-Security (Michael Urban)
Subject: Demon with a Glass Hand

   Minor trivia on the Outer Limits episode:  for years I had wondered
what neat old building they had used for filming that particular
episode, what with the exposed elevators and wrought-iron banisters
etc.  About ten years ago, I found out quite by accident that the
building is in fact here in downtown Los Angeles and is in fact an
architectural monument known as the Bradbury Building.  It used to be
free, but nowadays admission is, I think, $1.  Truly a remarkable
place.

        Mike

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 1982 11:58:08-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: "Demon with a Glass Hand"

   Wasn't the script for this the source of one of Ellison's awards
from the Screenwriters Guild? The awards are judged solely on the
script, rather than whatever the director made of it; Ellison has
three (including one for the pilot of THE STARLOST), which nobody else
in the Guild has achieved.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 1982 13:22 PST
From: Hoffman at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Chinese Science Fiction


From the Los Angeles Times, Friday, Feb. 19, 1982:

               China: A New Horizon For Science Fiction
                           By Michael Parks
                          Times Staff Writer

[excerpts of a lengthy article:]

PEKING--. . . .
   Science fiction was little read here until three years ago, but it
is rapidly becoming one of the most popular literary genres in China.
Zheng's books are published in editions of 100,000 and more--and sell
out within a week.  An anthology of foreign science fiction with a
printing of 420,000 was gone as quickly, and some books have had sales
of more than a million in three or four printings.  . . . .
   Many fans have formed clubs to buy books as they are published.
Copies of books published even six months ago are hard to get, and
sell for four or five times their original price.  Half a dozen
provincial science fiction magazines have been established within the
past two years.  After importing the 1976 American film "Future World"
and the television series "Man From Atlantis", China now is starting
to make its own science fiction movies.
   By American or European standards, Chinese science fiction seems
very basic.  The usual themes--interplanetary journeys, robots, time
travel, experimental medicine, monsters from beneath the sea, thought
control, and mad scientists--are of an early vintage, and their
handling is not sophisticated.  . . . .
   The upsurge in interest in science fiction, banned during the
Cultural Revolution, began with the 1978 National Science Conference
here. . . .[A] publishing company decided to put out an anthology of
foreign science fiction in translation--Ray Bradbury, Isaac Asimov,
Arthur C. Clarke, Stanislav Lem were among the authors--and the
enthusiastic response led to a Chinese anthology and then an
additional 10 books in the last two years.  . . . .
   Much of the new Chinese science fiction...is intended to popularize
modern science, an effort strongly supported by scientists here. . .
But the value of science fiction as an educational tool is debated
here.  A prize-winning story, "The Death Ray From Coral Island," which
was made into a popular movie, was criticized for "misrepresenting
science" and being too fantastic to be believed.  Other critics said
the writing was too poor to qualify as literature.  . . . .
   [Quoting several Chinese s-f writers:] "[We must] also deal with
scientific ideology, the scientific way of thinking." ..."Chinese
science fiction must reflect China's real problems."..."The inner
workings of man are more interesting than space travel...It is not
only past problems I want to examine, but the roots of the tragedies
(such as the Cultural Revolution) within ourselves."
   This might ordinarily put a Chinese writer in danger of violating
Communist Party policy on the role of literature.  But
Zheng...explained, "In outer space, there is no capitalism, no
socialism and no political problems to worry us."
   But the charter that Chinese science fiction has from the country's
leadership clearly puts science first and fiction and social problems
second.  . . . .
   Meng Weizai, a prominent novelist, is among the established Chinese
authors who have turned recently to science fiction.  Meng's new
novel, "Interview With the Missing Persons," has been praised as
China's first Utopian science fiction novel.  It deals with nine
Chinese, taking part in a 1976 demonstration in Peking's Tian An Men
Square, who are kidnaped, taken aboard a spacecraft, and spend the
next 50 years in adventurous travel in outer space.
   Meng's travelers tell of the "Green Pine Planet," where they found
an ideal society in which everyone is equal, eternally youthful and
full of pure love, where the leader-president is not first but last,
where all seek wisdom and where evil is so unknown that there are not
even words in the dictionary for it.
   Such Utopianism is perhaps the most controversial aspect of Chinese
science fiction, for Marxism's "historical optimism" allows little
room for the pessimism found in some American and European science
fiction.
   "Among Chinese science fiction writers, the future of the world
will be bright," said [a publisher].  "We are confident of the future,
and we are striving now for a brighter world tomorrow.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 1982 1541-PST
From: Craig W. Reynolds  from III via Rand  <REYNOLDS at RAND-AI>
Subject: Crichton's failings

Regarding BillW@SRI-KL's (are you called "chops" by your FRIENDS?)
comments on Michael Crichton; I'll second the notion. While Crichton
has become known as a writer/director of "technological" suspense/
adventure movies, the sad fact is that he seems to have a very
superficial knowledge of science and technology. Well, what do you
expect of someone who went to Harvard Med School?

While our group was working on the effects for "Looker" (his last
film) my respect for him was a monotone decreasing function. The
screenplay was bad, the science was essentially fantasy and the movie
itself had a lot of problems. Of course the FX were great ...

I'm not holding my breath for "Congo".
-c

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 1982 13:14:02-CST
From: jon at uwisc
Subject: Congo: technical facts?

Some time ago, a lengthy review (an attack, really) of Crichton's
"Congo" appeared in "The Institute", IEEE's newsletter.  The reviewer
had quite a bit to say about the technical content, and especially the
very serious manner in which numerous non-facts were presented:  as if
half the purpose of the book were educating the reader.  Crichton
responded in a subsequent issue that it was all fiction, he considered
it proper to make up facts as much as to make up characters, and
nobody was expected to take it seriously.

Enjoy his books if you can, but frankly, if he claims there are
diamonds in Africa, you better double-check with DeBeers.

                        Jon Mauney
                        jon@uwisc/uwvax!jon

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 1982 1435-PST
From: William "Chops" Westfield <BillW@SRI-KL>
Subject: my times for gate delays...

were off by a factor of about 10.  ECL and GaAs both have gate delays
around 30 pS, and JJs have gate delays around 12 pS.  My basic
arguments still hold - Crichton doesn't know what hes talking about.

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, March 9, 1982 2:29AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following message is the last in the digest.  It it a response to
the recent "glass hand" query that discusses major portions of the
plot.  Some readers may not wish to read on.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 1982 16:50:36-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Demon pt. II

   As I recall, taking away their medallions does kill the Kyben; the
medallion is necessary to stabilize them in current time after they
come through the "mirror", and the shock of being jerked back a few
millennia does them in by the time they [arrive]. I strongly suspect
that Ellison was remembering the ending of "A Gun for Dinosaur" by L.
Sprague de Camp.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  9-Mar                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #27
*** EOOH ***
Date: Tuesday, March 9, 1982 4:14AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #27
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Tuesday, 9 Mar 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 27

Today's Topics:
                   Administrivia - Misdated Digest,
         SF Movies - Quest for Fire & Superman & Brainstorm &
       Revenge of the Jedi,  SF Topics - Industrial Feudalism,
                    Spoiler - Revenge of the Jedi
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, March 9, 1982 2:29AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS-REQUEST at MIT-AI
Subject: Misdated Digest

Issue 26 was dated February 8, 1982, when the correct date was
actually March 8, 1982.  Apologies.

Jim

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 1982 2039-PST
From: Dave Dyer <DDYER at USC-ISIB>
Subject: Quest for Fire


 I have seen it and was favorably impressed with it as a "period"
drama, where the period is the stone age.  Its biggest virtue is the
gritty realism of the recreation of the living conditions.  Most of
the time, everyone looks like hell, apparently feel terrible, and are
involved in something really important like avoiding being eaten.  I
like that.

 The special E ( mastodons, sabretooh cat, etc.) are pretty
convincing, and certainly not hokey.  Desmond Morris (of "The Naked
Ape" ) developed the "gestures" used in communication, and Anthony
Burgess (of "Clockwork Orange") developed the languages.  Both achieve
verisimilitude.

 The plot is mainly a travelog random incidents during the quest, with
a minimum of dramatic embellishment.  There are no heavy handed
messages to be conveyed, and not much transparent emotional
manipulation.  The exception to this is the "fire making" demo, which
is definitely a heart throb.

 Another major virtue is novelty.  This is definitely off the beaten
track of hollywood movies, but unlike many novelty movies, it is
carefully crafted and mostly internally consistent.

 My biggest nit to pick is that the time is VERY opportune for the
plot: some (but not all) tribes in the area know how to make fire,
some (but not all) tribes in the area have developed throwing sticks,
and so on. The lenth of time where such "technological" differences
among tribes existed would be very short.

Last word:  See it.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 1982 09:56 PST
From: Hoffman at PARC-MAXC
Subject: "Quest For Fire"


   I saw "Quest For Fire" just before it opened, with an audience
mainly of anthropologists, though I am not one.  The anthropologists
found the movie very entertaining for all the wrong reasons--they were
continually laughing about all the technical goofs and the
silly-looking mammoths and saber-tooth tigers and the impossible
juxtapositions of cultures and so forth.  They were not charitable in
their final judgments.

   On the other hand, I enjoyed most of it.  (It may also be true that
I'm quicker to suspend my disbelief.)  There's sufficient "adventure"
to keep most kids (of all ages) amused.  More interesting, there is
food for thought from time to time.  I think any viewer will leave
wondering about the growth and development of culture, and I tend to
feel any movie that makes people think is generally OK.

   For the technically pure, the marketing is a mistake--all that
emphasis on the research they did and Anthony Burgess's linguistic
help and Desmond Morriss on gestures....They set themselves up to be
hooted at for all flaws.  For the more forgiving among us, an attempt
worth checking out.  Not the "2001" of its sort (as the hype might
have it), but still worth seeing.

--Rodney Hoffman

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 1982 15:32:00-PST
From: Cory.c153-3ad at Berkeley
Subject: Superman Movie

The Superman I Movie has an internal inconsistency: while Superman is
flying around reversing time, we see photos of the earthquake
un-happening.  In particular, we see the flood backing up & the dam
rebuilding itself.  So after Supes is finished, Jimmy Olsen should be
hanging off the dam again, right?  /* Wrong */ His save by Superman
apparently works across time reversals, whereas little things like
Lois Lane's death don't.

                                        Michael Chastain

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 82 16:14-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Brainstorm update

                    16 Feb 82   Times News Service

    HOLLYWOOD - Douglas Trumbull gave a party on Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's
Stage 29 Feb. 5 and presented the cast and crew of his movie with
champagne and bright red T-shirts. What was unusual was the legend
printed on the shirts: ''Lloyds of London presents 'Brainstorm.'
Coming soon to a theater near you.''
    Stage 29 was ''hot locked'' Dec. 20, three weeks after
''Brainstorm's'' star, Natalie Wood, drowned in the waters off
Catalina Island. The simulated computers, robot arms, ape cages and
shelves of chemicals that dressed the central laboratory set of
''Brainstorm'' were padlocked away while M-G-M argued with the two
insurance companies that had provided $15 million worth of cast
insurance on the movie.
    M-G-M felt ''Brainstorm'' could not be completed without Miss
Wood.  Trumbull, the director, disagreed. In the end, Lloyds of London
sided with Trumbull and agreed to spend $3 million to complete
production of the movie, instead of writing a check to M-G-M for its
share of the approximately $12 million the studio had already spent.
Stage 29 was unlocked.
    ''I can't express my appreciation enough to Lloyds,'' said
Trumbull, as he paced the set, which was stiflingly hot because the
laboratory that sprawls across Stage 29 has a ceiling. It is the end
of the first week of 18 days of new production. Reassembling the
movie's co-stars - Cliff Robertson, Louise Fletcher and Christopher
Walken - its featured players and nearly 130 members of the
original140-member crew is only the first of his hurdles, however.
M-G-M is barely talking to him. And another $3 million and six months
will be needed to layer special effects into the science-fiction
thriller.
    But Trumbull, an Academy Award nominee for special effects for
''Close Encounters of the Third Kind'' and ''Star Trek,'' said with
absolute certainty, ''If M-G-M doesn't allow us to finish
'Brainstorm,' somebody else will.'' How much of his confidence is
wishful thinking is hard to assess. He has directed one other movie,
the $1.3 million ''Silent Running,'' in which he created robots that
presaged R2D2 of ''Star Wars.'' For ''Silent Running,'' he had so
little money to spend that he had to create his space ships out of
Dixie cups and toy model kits. So he has a great emotional stake in
completing the now $16 million ''Brainstorm.''
    Robertson also has an emotional stake in the film. Before he was
hired to play the head of the laboratory in ''Brainstorm,'' he had not
acted in a Hollywood movie for three and a half years, not since he
accused David Begelman, then president of Columbia Pictures, of
forging his name on a $10,000 check. Begelman was eventually convicted
of forgery.
    Robertson, who won an Academy Award for best actor in 1968 for
''Charly,'' carefully avoids saying he was blacklisted: ''It was just
that my agent would get calls from directors who would ask if I was
available and seem excited when I was. Then, within 24 hours they
would call back and say, 'Sorry, it's not going to work out.' ''
Ironically, Begelman had lived down the forgery conviction and had
become president of M-G-M by the time Robertson was signed for
''Brainstorm.''
    When the picture was canceled by M-G-M after Miss Wood's death,
Robertson felt as though a rug had been pulled out from under him.
    ''But my misfortune was nothing compared with the tragedy,'' he
said.
    The day before Valentine's Day, the set of ''Brainstorm'' seemed
like any other movie set - groups of seemingly aimless people lounging
in clusters until galvanized into sudden and frantic activity. Between
takes, someone passes around a pink, heart-shaped box of candy.
Robertson lounges in corduroy pants and hacking jacket, because his
character apparently rides his favorite jumper from 6 to 7 every
morning and then shows up in his riding clothes at the laboratory he
has founded.
    But beneath the surface, things are different.
    ''What is obvious is that what happened is never talked about,''
Robertson said. ''It's studiously avoided.''
    Added someone who asked not to be identified: ''Everything's
different. Because of the weirdness of her death.''
    Miss Wood's death - in the middle of the night Nov. 29, when she
fell while trying to step from her yacht into a dinghy - has, of
course, caused changes in the script. A crucial scene that had not yet
been shot, in which Miss Wood helped her husband, Walken, in an
experiment has been redesigned so that Joe Dorsey, playing Walken's
laboratory assistant, helps instead.
    Another important scene in a hotel room has simply been dropped.
    ''People kept saying that scene was crucial to the plot, but it
wasn't,'' Trumbull said. ''Even if Natalie had performed it, I would
have cut it out in the end. I've had the luxury of a two-month break
in production, and that has allowed us to cut the fat, to pare the
movie to the bone.''
    But there are other necessary changes. In the movie, by bizarre
chance, a character drowned. That scene, which coincidence has made
ghoulish, will not be retained. And how can Trumbull handle some of
Miss Wood's dialogue that was to have been rerecorded?
    On Stage 29, the battle is just beginning.

------------------------------

Date: 23 February 1982 13:49 est
From: Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-Multics
Subject: Japanese Society

The best reference I have encountered on the feudalism/industrialism/
militarism subject is "Japan's Imperial Conspiracy" by David
Bergamini.  This is one of the few, if only, histories of Japan
written by a Westerner who can read Japanese.  The prose is excellent,
the research appears impeccable, and most of the revelations about the
events leading up to World War II are fascinating.  It's out in
paperback, and easy to find because its about 1200 pages long.  Takes
a bit of effort, since (as in Japan), everybody seems to be named
Tanaka or Suzuki.  I have spent a lot of time with Japanese engineers
in and out of Japan, including participating in a multimillion-yen
proposal effort (where you really get to know each other), and I find
his analysis of Japanese character to be strikingly perceptive.

Earl

PS. Read the book and learn about the extraordinary homogenaety of
Japanese society before you object to generalizations about the
"Japanese character."

------------------------------

Date: Sunday, 21 Feb 1982 16:57-PST
Subject: Spoiler warning: Revenge of the Jedi
From: mike at RAND-UNIX

Spoiler warning: information follows (possibly valid) about the new
Star Wars film.

From Variety, Thursday, Feb. 11, 1982:

"Many employees at Lucasfilm don't even know it yet," admitted ROTJ
producer Howard Kazanjian on the London longhorn, " but George (Lucas)
has been in contact with Alec Guinness for several years.  He's read
this script and -- were happy to say he'll be back." All major
characters from "Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back" will also
return in this $32,500,000 opus. ....

As for Guinness, he'll work in March and appears "in the flesh."
What's the explanation for Ben Kenobi's return from the dead? "Our
'dead' is a different thing," Kazanjian laughed...  In addition to the
regulars, many new, "interesting" mechanical characters will
appear....

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 11-Mar                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #28
*** EOOH ***
Date: Thursday, March 11, 1982 8:09AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #28
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest        Thursday, 11 Mar 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 28

Today's Topics:
                  SF News - Philip K. Dick Obituary,
                 SF Books - SF Hall of Fame Vol. III,
            SF Movies - Brainstorm & Crack in the World &
             Superman & Star Trek II,  SF Radio - HHGttG,
      SF Topics - Chinese Science Fiction & Interstellar Flight,
                        Spoiler - Star Trek II
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4-Mar-82 01:09:54-PST (Thu)
From: INGVAX.kalash@Berkeley (Joe Kalash)
Subject: Philip K. Dick died Tuesday


        Phil Dick died Tuesday after suffering a recent stroke. I have
heard the the Locus memorial will (probably) be by Ursula K. Leguin.

                        Joe

------------------------------

Date: 9 March 1982 21:17 est
From: York.Multics at MIT-MULTICS (William M. York)
Subject: obituary

So why is it that I had to read Time to find out that Phillip K. Dick
died this week?  Few details are given . He died of a stroke in Santa
Ana, CA.  He was 53.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 1982 0903-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: RIP: Philip Dick

For those that haven't heard, Philip Dick died last Tuesday.  I was
told that he had suffered a massive stroke some time before and died
without ever regaining consciousness.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 82 16:57-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Phillip K. Dick, Rest in Peace

Our local SF shop, Future Fantasy, confirms that Phillip K. Dick died
this week after suffering a stroke.  Very unfortunate.  In my opinion,
Dick was the best "idea man" working in SF.  His endings left a lot to
be desired, but his fascinating ideas and treatment of paranoia and
particularly schizophrenia, not to mention mind-altering substances,
were marvelous.  I've only read four of his books, but I found all of
them to be top-notch, easily making mincemeat of the usual junk and
space opera in SF.  The titles are THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE, THE
THREE STIGMATA OF PALMER ELDRITCH, MARTIAN TIME-SLIP, and VALIS.  When
I want something thought-provoking, the first author I turn to is PKD.

------------------------------

Date: 6 March 1982 17:49-EST
From: Landon M. Dyer <ZEMON at MIT-AI>
Subject: SF Hall of Fame, Vol. III


        I just saw a copy of the Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Vol.
III, in a local bookstore.  It includes Vance's THE LAST CASTLE,
MacCaffrey's DRAGONRIDER, and a host of other goodies.
        The bad news is that you have to shell out $3.95 for it.

-Landon-

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 1982 1545-EST
From: S. W. Galley <SWG at MIT-XX>
Subject: hacking in "Brainstorm"

Cliff Robertson lounges around the set of "Brainstorm" in a /hacking
jacket/?  Sounds like useful apparel for many of us!

------------------------------

Date: 1 March 1982 19:05 est
From: Walters.SoftArts at MIT-Multics
Subject: Crack in the World

Boston area readers following the comments in SF-LOVERS on "Crack in
the World" may want to note that it's scheduled for broadcast 3:10
a.m. Friday night, March 5th on channel 4 (WBZ-TV).

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 1982 15:37 EST
From: Stevenson.WBST at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #27

        "The Superman I Movie has an internal inconsistency: while
        Superman is flying around reversing time...


                                        Michael Chastain"

Aw, c'mon, not even Superman can reverse time!  He was travelling back
through time, so he could save Lois Lane while his earlier self was
saving everybody else.
Bill Stevenson

------------------------------

Date: 28 February 1982 1528-EST (Sunday)
From: Roy.Taylor at CMU-10A
Subject: HitchHiker's Guide Guide

At long last, as local NPR stations air the Guide for the Nth time, my
quest has succeeded.  After thrashing my way back up the distribution
hierarchy, I finally extracted the following publicity information
from the frustratingly reluctant NPR Audience Services (!?)  office:
[my comments in brackets]

"The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy:  A satirical send-up of
mankind's foibles.  This 12-part series follows the adventures of the
last surviving earthling who is plucked away seconds before earth is
demolished to make way for an intergalactic freeway.

"Episode 1 -- Our hero, Arthur Dent, takes off on an epic adventure in
time and space.  Included is some helpful advice on how to see the
Universe on less than 30 Altarian Dollars a day.  [Make way for the
bypass]

"Episode 2 -- Our hero, Arthur Dent, after being saved from certain
death during the demolition of Earth, now faces a hopeless choice
between certain death in the vacuum of space, or finding something
nice to say about Vogon poetry.

"Episode 3 -- Our [redundant] hero, Arthur Dent, improbably rescued
from doom by ['at the hands of' would be more accurate] the Vogons,
experiences a mysterious missile attack from which there is no escape.
[Infinite Improbability Drive]

"Episode 4 -- Our hero, Arthur Dent, learns that Earth has been built
by Nagratheans and run by mice.  [Deep Thought] In the meantime, his
hitchhiking companions are temporarily lost and confronted with a
highly improbable force that threatens their lives.

"Episode 5 -- Our hero, Arthur Dent, having been sent to find the
Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything, finds himself
cornered by two Humane Cops who, it turns out, aren't really that
humane.  [Restaurant at the end of the universe]

"Episode 6 -- Our hero, Arthur Dent, and his companions commandeer a
stolen spaceship and are followed by an enormous fleet of battle
cruisers.  [Ravenous Bugblattar Beast of Traal] Amid their escape,
Dent is stranded on Earth, 2 million years before its destruction.
[Arc fleet of telephone sanitizers]

"Episode 7 -- Zafod, in search of a mysterious Mr. Zaniwhoop, is
captured and carried off to Frog Star, the most totally evil place in
the galaxy.  [Meanwhile, back at HQ]

"Episode 8 -- Zafod, who escapes from the Total Perspective Vortex
only because of his cosmic ego, attempts to decipher clues to rescue
his companions from the past.

"Episode 9 -- Dent and Zafod -- who is revealed to be President of the
Galaxy -- manage to evade the Vogons, who are out to destroy the last
Earthling as part of a galactic power struggle.

"Episode 10 -- Landing on the planet of Brontitol, Arthur Dent
encounters a race of bird people who worship an ancient statue of Dent
discarding a lousy cup of tea.

"Episode 11 -- Our hero, Arthur Dent, solves the mystery of the planet
Brontitol:  An uncontrolled proliferation of shoe shops apparently
pushed the once-proud civilization into economic collapse.

"Episode 12 -- Due to a fluke, Arthur Dent loses the answer to the
Ultimate Question and becomes a fugitive with an unknown future.  [My
Lord, the existential cat]

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 1982 1843-PST
From: Mark Crispin <Admin.MRC at SU-SCORE>
Subject: an interesting SF note...

According to "Beijing Review", a weekly published in Beijing, China,
there have been 4,300 popular-science books published in China between
1978 and 1980.  Also, "since 1976, China has published 30,000 science
fiction books.  These include adventures in outer space, the world
beneath the seas, prehistoric animals, the world of tomorrow, robots
and synthetic creatures."

     Indirectly, Beijing Review admits the publications have not kept
up with the demand; "there are always long lines at the doors of
bookstores".

     The full article is about Popularizing Science in China by Li
Ming, starting on page 20 in the March 1, 1982 issue.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 1982 1132-PST
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
Subject: Spaceflight info of interest to SF-Lovers, I believe...

Just ran through an accumulation of back issues of Electronic
Engineering Times, and have the following items that may be of
interest to the list:

From the 1 Feb., 82 issue:

NASA recently published a document titled "Space Astronomy Program
Plan for the 1980's and 1990's" which discusses, among other areas,
plans for interstellar flight.  The Management Operations Working
Group For Space Astronomy (MOWGSA) states, "An interstellar mission is
envisioned in the 1990 to 2000 time frame.  An actual unmanned
interstellar encounter [THAT could mean ALL sorts of things!  - WM] is
projected for the latter part of the 21st century."
"The following types of drive systems have been considered, and
deserve further study: ion electric propulsion, in which heavy ions
are created and then accelerated electrically; a magnetohydrodynamic
drive, in which a stream of propellant passes through an electric
current, creating self-induced magnetic fields which interact with the
current to provide acceleration; solar sails, utilizing solar
radiation pressure to provide a boost out of the solar system;
continuous thrust nuclear propulsion and pulsed explosive nuclear
propulsion."

[This document may well be of interest -- you may be able to get a
copy as an individual citizen just by writing NASA or your
congressperson and asking for it.  Or a public or university library
designated as a government documents depository may have it, but the
St.  Louis Public library says they didn't get it because it wasn't
published by the GPO.  - WM]

Other items of interest in this same column (DC Circuit, by Howard
Roth):

A study done by the National Science Board (part of the NSF) polled an
unknown sample of people and came up with the findings that 58%
thought that "scientific discoveries make our lives change too fast."
Out of 13 areas of science and technology on which to spend tax
dollars, health research was #1, but "discovering new knowledge about
man and nature" and "exploring outer space" and "predicting and
controlling weather" were #s 11, 12, and 13, respectively.  [The other
choices were not listed.]

The other item in the column: The William Sword Co.  of Princeton, NJ,
is raising $1 billion to buy a space shuttle through a subsidiary,
Space Transportation Co.  The purpose is to serve industrial
requirements for materials processing and R&D.  This project could
serve as a test case for involving large private investment in space.

From the March 1 issue, same column: Soviet development of a
space-shuttle-type winged reuseable spacecraft was acknowledged
recently by the Soviet Embassy in Washington.

The science and technology attache told an American Astronautical
Society meeting that launch of the system could occur in about five
years.

Another article from one issue in this range discussed Soviet
industrial activity in space -- the Soviets published a report on the
subject which discusses materials melting phenomena and
crystallization.  Also mentioned are "giant mirror reflectors suspended
in space that will help scatter the dark of the polar night in the
streets of northern cities and produce nearly cost-free power."  [An
SPS?  - WM]

Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, March 11 1982 2:29AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following message is the last in the digest.  It provides some
information/speculation about the upcoming movie sequel to Star Trek:
the Motion Picture.  Some readers may not wish to read on.

------------------------------

Date: 19 February 1982 02:56 est
From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject: Clipping Service - Is Spock alive?

From the Personalities column, by Vernon Scott (UPI)

Mr. Spock: Is our favorite Vulcan dead or alive?


   Hollywood (UPI) -- Have they killed off Mr. Spock, the emotionless
Vulcan science officer of the space ship Enterprise in the "Star Trek"
sagas?

   Rumor is rampant in Hollywood that the saturnine, pointed-eared
Spock has been blown away in "Star Trek II", the second movie based
on the greatest cult TV series ever made.

   Trekkies the world over are in a swivet. Have the moviemakers
killed off Spock who withstood ray gun attack by vicision hordes of
Klingons and other intergalactic space heavies?

   Would any movie producer dare eliminate the most popular and
beloved space alien in the history of the planet Earth -- Yoda of the
"Star Wars" films not withstanding?

   The producers aren't talking. And neither is Paramount Studios.

   The closest and most reliable source of information in the Spock
death mystery, which won't come to light until "Star Trek II" is
released, is Leonard Nimoy who plays the inscrutable Vulcan.

   Nimoy waffled. Nimoy hedged. Nimoy was an unreadable as Spock
himself.

   "Let me put it this way," Nimoy said pleasantly enough, "I think
the ending is subject to interpretation. After all, what is death?
Can it truly be defined where a Vulcan is involved?"

   The actor lighted a cigarette and narrowed his eyes speculatively.

   "If Paramount decided to go ahead with a second sequel to 'Star
Trek', I could speculate that Spock could reappear because of several
factors in the story line of the current movie.

   "Also, I can't remember a case of anyone dying in science fiction.
They tried with Alec Guinness in 'Star Wars' but he popped up again as
Ben (Obi-Wan) Kenobi when they made 'The Empire Strikes Back'.

   "They killed off Superman's father when they made the sequel but
that was only because they couldn't afford to bring back Marlon
Brando."

   Nimoy is delighted about playing Spock again and says, not that
"I'm a little older, a little more resigned to these things," he's
finally reached a point where he's unconcerned that he is so closely
identified with the popular Vulcan. That may be because, unlike his
earlier fears, his association with Spock has not interfered with
other acting assignments.

   [The remainder of the interview is about Nimoy's other works, and
is not transcribed.]

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 14-Mar                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #29
*** EOOH ***
Date: Sunday, March 14, 1982 3:11AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #29
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Sunday, 14 Mar 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 29

Today's Topics:
             SF TV -  Here's the Plot...What's the Title,
                SF Books - SYZYGY & Crichton & Verne,
                     Humor - Dr. Dobb's Journal,
             SF Movies - Special Effects (Doug Trumbull)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 1982 1015-PST
From: Wes Winkler <OR.WINKLER at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Here's the plot, what's the title...

I recall an old TV sitcom about a couple of astronauts sent through a
timewarp (?) to the stone age.  The series might have been named "It's
About Time."  Anybody know exact titles, dates, stars, basic plot,
etc.?

Wes Winkler

------------------------------

Date: 4 March 1982 03:43-EST
From: Stuart M. Cracraft <MCLURE at MIT-AI>
Subject: plot query

"It's About Time", mid-60's. A real dud.

------------------------------

Date: 08-Mar-1982
From: AL LEHOTSKY AT METOO
Reply-to: "AL LEHOTSKY AT METOO c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: The Jupiter Effect

I just finished reading "SYZYGY" by Pohl, which is okay when you are
facing a 6 hr. transcontinental plane trip --- especially when you are
LEAVING L.A.  My micro-review is that it reads just like a
"mainstream" disaster novel.  Pohl keeps hinting that the world is
going to end, but by the end of the book, you don't particularly care
one way or another.

What I was wondering was if we could all get together and wave goodby
to California when it falls into the ocean next week as a result of
the "Jupiter Effect".  I'd guess that somewhere near Denver ought to
be safe.

It might solve a lot of problems, as IBM and the east-coast mini mfgrs
wouldn't have to worry about inroads from Silicon Valley.  The
tidal-wave would sink all those Japanese freighters full of steel,
Toyotas and color TV's, and Las Vegas would make a GREAT seaport!

But, we'd no longer have Lauren's limitless stock of TV and movie
trivia and the networks would be forced to re-run old Battlestar
Galactica and Leave It to Beaver episodes, so I guess we ought to
spend some time coming up with a way to shore up the California coast.
\Perhaps a few Pak Protectors could come up with something....  let's
get Niven to work on it...\

------------------------------

Date: 10 March 1982 21:07 est
From: SSteinberg.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: Crichton and Verne

The SF writer I could best compare Crichton with is good old Jules
Verne!  While Verne was much more prolific their formulae are
identical.  The technology is approximately contemporary with a few
years thrown in to get the bugs out.  It works surprisingly well.  The
characters are largely stick figures and the story is episodic
narrative.  I would compare CONGO with Village in the Tree Tops or
Measuring a Meridian.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 1982 (Thursday) 0942-EDT
From: PLATTS at WHARTON-10 (Steve Platt)
Subject: Dr. Dobb's Journal -- where are we?


   ...from the editorial, Dr. Dobb's Journal, March 1982 (just rec'd
today)...
  "But as Heinlein noted in his great Foundation trilogy, mutants are
unpredictable."
  Which universe am I in, anyway?

       -Steve

------------------------------

Date: 22-Feb-82 20:20:31 PST (Monday)
From: Newman.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Special effects, Doug Trumbull in Technology Review

The February/March '82 edition of TECHNOLOGY REVIEW has a number of
articles on Special Effects, including an extensive interview with
Doug Trumbull.

Trumbull said he originally intended to make the upcoming "Brainstorm"
with his Showscan process, in which film is shot and projected at 60
frames per second instead of the usual 24 fps.  Unfortunately he had
no luck in getting the theatre owners to agree ("we don't want to
change over our projectors and screens because the rest of the movie
industry is not making movies that way").

He also commented extensively on the failure of Star Trek's "previous
special-effects team" (presumably Robert Abel).  He feels that they
overcommitted themselves to an untested, complex, motion-control
technology to the exclusion of everything else:

  "They actually said that they wanted to do the entire project
through this technology and never have to go on a stage or look
through a camera lens.  And that was a total denial of aesthetic
judgments that, to me, play the larger role in the equation."

(Not that the final film showed much aesthetic judgment anyway, but
the lack of a plot wasn't Trumbull's fault.)

/Ron

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 1982 1450-PST
From: Craig W. Reynolds  from III via Rand  <REYNOLDS at RAND-AI>
Subject: Re: Special effects, Doug Trumbull in Technology Review

In my opinion, that article in Technology Review had some serious
problems. It seemed like the writer had read all of the back issues of
CINEFEX and rewritten them. For instance, he mentions triple-I but he
has never been out to talk with us. (Presumably since he was writing
for the MIT alumni mag, he would have wanted to mention that some of
the software systems we use were developed at MIT, etc.)

The interview with Trumbull seemed very unfair and one sided. His
remarks about Abel & Ass. were completely incorrect. Richard Taylor is
drafting a letter to the editor to refute several of the writer's
points.

As Ron said, the final film was lacking in some aesthetic aspects, and
while the plot wasn't Doug's fault, some of the visual short-comings
were!

I also thought that the whole article was somewhat misdirected, he
talked a lot about motion control photography and little about
computer simulation. Computerized motion control is pretty old hat,
that stuff was written about when Star Wars was being made, the new
state-of-the-art stuff was described in less that one page.  Articles
should be appearing soon in Newsweek, Life and Pop Science about "the
making of TRON" - coming soon to a newsstand near you!

TRON should be out on July 9, 1982 (so rezz up, bit brain!)

-Craig

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 17-Mar                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #30
*** EOOH ***
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 1982 2:48AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #30
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest        Wednesday, 17 Mar 1982     Volume 5 : Issue 30

Today's Topics:
        SF Fandom - Hugo Award Nominations Deadline Extended,
  SF Books - Story Line Query,  SF News - George Scithers and IASFM,
 SF Movies - Revenge of the Jedi,  SF TV - HHGttG & It's About Time,
         SF Topics - ESP,  Random Topics - The Jupiter Effect
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 March 1982 05:13-EST
From: "Richard H.E. Smith, II" <QUIDLY at MIT-AI>
Subject: Hugo Award Nominations Deadline Extended

I just received a press release from ChiCon IV [the 1982 World SF
Convention] which announced that the deadline for Hugo Award
nominating ballots would be extended to March 31.  In ChiCon's
Progress Report III, the deadline was given as March 15; various fans
have commented that this didn't give foreign members of the convention
much time to nominate.

The press release cited "computer problems" as the reason for the
delay.  As FORMER "Head of the Department of Data Processing" for
ChiCon, I can only express my own rather biased opinion that "that
trekkie that replaced me doesn't know beans".  I haven't found out
[yet] what the actual problem was.

Just a reminder, you must be a member of ChiCon to nominate (and later
vote) for the Hugo's.  You can also send in your money ($50, I
believe) with your Hugo ballot if you wish.  SF Chronicle's March
issue contains a copy of the Hugo ballot if you can't find one
anywhere else.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 82 23:38-PDT
From: mclure@SRI-UNIX
Subject: SF story-lines

A while back I recall hearing something about a fixed set of
story-lines for SF novels/stories. Does anyone have the complete set
available on-line?

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 1982 1002-PST
Subject: George Scithers
From: Mike Leavitt <LEAVITT at USC-ISI>

I just noticed that Scithers is no longer Editor of Asimov's magazine.
Anybody know the story on this?

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 1982 09:21 PST
From: STOGRYN.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Mystery Movie Set for Lucas

From the LA Times - Wednesday Calendar, March 10, 1982:

                 Mystery Movie Set Amid Arizona Dunes

Is it a bantha? Is it the Millennium Falcon? Is it "Star Wars"? If the
people at Lucasfilm Ltd. know what exactly is taking shape on the
desert floor 10 miles west of Yuma, Ariz., they're not saying. Original
reports said the movie set now under construction amid massive sand
dunes is for a George Lucas - financed horror file, "Blue Harvest."
But knowledgeable sources insist that the set is really for the third
chapter in Lucas' enormously popular "Star Wars" saga, "Revenge of the
Jedi," now filming in England."


The above is the caption below a picture showing a football-sized
framing structure, like the back of any movie set, with sage brush in
the foreground and towering dunes behind.

However, from the atlas:  Ten miles west of Yuma, Arizona is Southern
California not, as quoted, "Arizona Dunes."

This mini-Sahara area would be a great place to film more scenes
representative of Luke's home planet Tattoine. At the end of The
Empire Strikes Back, Luke said he would meet Calressian and Chubacca
on Tattoine. Those areas around the original Sahara are really not in
the most stable, or at least the friendliest, hands.

I hadn't heard of "Blue Harvest." Did I miss it's discussion?
Enlighten me.

Steve

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 1982 2341-CST
From: ZELLICH at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich)
Subject: "Hitchhiker" TV series scheduled in US

From the April 82 issue of LOCUS:

Douglas Adams says his third "Hitchhiker" novel, LIFE, THE UNIVERSE,
AND EVERYTHING, will be published in August.  ABC has bought rights to
the books and is planning a television series for fall release.
Before the end of April, a pilot episode will be filmed and twelve
other shows will be outlined.  The first two books were based on
scripts Adams wrote for a radio show which became a hit in England.  A
six-part British television series was done, but ABC is having the
show re-adapted for American tv because they want it open-ended.  Stu
Silver is the writer, the director is Ted Flicker, and the show's
designer is cartoonist Ron Cobb.  Computer graphics, a high point of
the British tv version, will be done for the ABC series by the same
person who produced the British ones.

------------------------------

Date: 16 March 1982 11:40 est
From: Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: It's About Time

Ran from 11 Sep 66 to 27 Aug 67.  Marked the sad, last network
appearance of Imogene Coca, the funniest lady of the Fifties.

Earl

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 1982 11:38:21-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: IT'S ABOUT TIME

   Barely survived one season, I think 66-67 (may have been 65-66). So
bad that halfway through they had the astronauts invent some way of
getting back to modern times, \with/ the cave family (and how they
fitted six people into a Gemini-type capsule was never explained
either...).
   The only cast member I can recall was Imogen Coca, a comedian of
considerable reputation in the 50's and early 60's, as the mother of
the cave family (which was appallingly stereotyped---thickheaded
father, dominant mother, sexy featherheaded daughter (platinum blond,
of course) and her wiseass kid brother). Strong candidate for the
Golden Turkey award for worst SF TV series ever (LOST IN SPACE and
CATTLECAR DISLEXICA at least had something for fx).

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 1982 2054-PST
From: Lynn Gold <G.FIGMO at SU-SCORE>
Subject: It's About Time

The series had a two-year run (I believe -- I don't have the exact
dates on me, although they can be obtained in several TV trivia books
available at your local bookstore).  It was about two astronauts whose
space mission blew up, causing them to travel backwards in time to the
stone age.

In the second year of the series, they managed to bring back this
family they befriended into the 20th century with less-than-good
results for either the family OR their ratings.

--Lynn

------------------------------

Date: 15 March 1982 22:35-EST
From: Charles F. Von Rospach <CHUQUI at MIT-MC>
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #29 Here's the plot....
Regarding Wes Winklers request, the series was 'It's About time'. The
Science Fiction Encyclopedia notes it as a 1966 series by Sherwood
Schwartz, the person who thought up 'Gilligans Island'. The astronauts
were played by Frank Aletter and Jack Mullaney, both of which never
worked in the industry again ( from shame... *chortle*). The cave
people included Imogene Coca, Joe E. Ross, and Mike Mazurski. It
lasted one season. Thank God for small favors...

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 1982 1006-EST
From: S. W. Galley <SWG at MIT-XX>
Subject: It's About Time

Once again, Alex McNeil's /Total Television/ (Penguin, 1980) provides
the answer:

IT'S ABOUT TIME (CBS) 11 Sept. 1966 - 27 Aug. 1967

This sitcom took its stars on a journey to the Stone Age and back
again.  It starred Frank Aletter as Captain Glenn McDivitt (Mac) and
Jack Mullaney as Hector, two astronauts who broke through the time
barrier and landed in a prehistoric world where they met and
befriended a Stone Age family; in midseason they brought the family
with them into the modern era.  The Stone Agers included Imogene Coca
as Shad; Joe E. Ross as Gronk, her mate; Pat Cardi as Breer, their
son; Mary Grace as Mlor, their daughter; Cliff Norton as Boss, the
unfriendly leader of the cave people; Kathleen Freeman as Mrs. Boss;
Mike Mazurki as Clon, Boss's henchman.  Frank Wilcox joined the cast
in midseason as General Morley, Mac and Hector's commanding officer.

------------------------------

Date: 3 February 1982 21:11-EST
From: Richard Pavelle <RP at MIT-MC>
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest


I wish to begin a discussion on ESP and where better than SF-LOVERS.
On January 25th Russ Burgess gave a "demo" on Hypnotism and ESP at
MIT. I wish to mention up the latter part of his act. He showed what
he claimed to be his abilities of telepathy and precognition and I
believe that a large percentage of the audience of 500 or so believed
he has the POWWWERRRRR. His act is rather like Kreskin's. He began
with a warmup and then proceeded to his first trick in which he
apparently forced a preselected card on a member of the audience. He
claimed only a 90% success rate but the trick succeeded. Shortly
thereafter cards were picked up which had been distributed to perhaps
10% of the audience before the show. We had been asked to write our
names and some non-trivial questions regarding the future on the
cards.  He then taped shut his eyes and placed 3 blindfolds over the
tape. His eyes did appear to be useless to him at this stage. He then
selected cards from a tray with a mystique which implied some cards
are more sensitive than others.  A typical example of his act was then
to say "do the initials RG mean anything to someone". Someone then
responded and Burgess proceeded to give some fairly substantial
information about the person. This was, in some cases, the full name
and birthdate. In addition he answered some questions on the card as
accurately as if he had read them. He also said some questionable
things such regarding a grandmother's stomach ache and a brother who
hurt his foot. In each case to person was not aware such might be the
case. He chose enough cards to convince me that he had not planted
these people in the audience.

My theory about the manner in which he gives personal information
presupposes that he does not plant people. I believe that in the week
preceding his demo he has people who dig up information about
attendees to his show. I think Kreskin does something similar.

If anyone has another view, here is your chance to tell it. And if you
believe in telepathy and precognition lets hear from you.

------------------------------

Date: 6 February 1982 17:19-EST
From: Stuart M. Cracraft <MCLURE at MIT-AI>
Subject: esp

The trick described is a standard one in the repertoire of many
mentalists.

------------------------------

Date: 16 March 1982 16:52 est
From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: The Jupiter Effect

Comment to Al Lehotsky, about California falling into the Pacific:

It'll never happen. It's help on a a network of Bermuda grass roots
that extend at least into Texas. (I guess you have to have lived with
it fully appreciate this.)

                        Paul

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 18-Mar                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #31
*** EOOH ***
Date: Thursday, March 18, 1982 1:28AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #31
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest        Thursday, 18 Mar 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 31

Today's Topics:
           SF Books - Here's the Plot...What's the Title &
                   Book Covers & New Laumer Series,
        SF Fandom - Hugo Award Nominations Deadline Extended,
                 SF News - George Scithers and IASFM,
                   SF TV - HHGttG,  SF Topics - ESP
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 05-Mar-1982
From: JONATHAN OSTROWSKY AT GALAXY
Reply-to: "JONATHAN OSTROWSKY AT GALAXY c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: here are the words, what's the story?

This is a variation on here's the story, what's the title?"  A friend
is trying to track down a long piece of fiction (novella, perhaps)
that he thinks appeared in Astounding about 25 years ago.  He doesn't
remember the plot, just some of the words used in the
story--nexialist, varish, and skren (as in, "So-and-so would varish
off into the corner and skren for a while").

I've have no idea what this might be from.  Can anyone help?

--Jonathan O.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 1982 01:26:30-PST
From: pur-ee!pur-phy!retief at Berkeley
Subject: SF novel covers?

 Does anybody know where I can get posters or prints of science
fiction novel covers (that is, other than at 'cons).  Please mail
answers to me directly.
                                Dwight Bartholomew

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 1982 11:25 PST
From: Stewart at PARC-MAXC
Subject: New Laumer Series

I saw a hardcover "Star Colony" by Keith Laumer in the local store
Printers Inc.  Claims to be part one of a trilogy.  Copyright 1981.

Anyone know anything about it?

        -Larry
------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 1982 0537-PST
From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich)
Subject: Re: Extended Hugo deadline

The "computer error" was reported by LOCUS to be that the ballots were
sent only to those of us who had joined prior to last September.  They
did a fast remailing to the rest of the convention members and
extended the deadline so the second group would have time to get their
ballots back.  Deadline is now the 30th instead of the 15th of March.
-Rich

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 1982 0741-PST
From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich)
Subject: Re: George Scithers & IASFM

As I recall, he was working not quite full-time from his home city
(not New York) and they wanted him to come in to New York where the
rest of the editorial staff was and work full time.  He didn't want to
do that, and had some other things he had been wanting to work on, so
departed IASFM.  I think only 2 issues have been put out under the new
editor.
-Rich

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 1982 11:01:36-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Re: Scithers leaving IA'sSFM.

   This happened several months ago (I recall hearing from some people
who were just back from Philcon, which was December 4-6 last year).
The exact sequence of events will probably never be known, since
George at least didn't leave in a huff and Davis publications is
notoriously closemouthed.

   Officially, George resigned; his place was taken (at least for the
time being) by a Davis staffer. The rest of the Philadelphia crew
(Schweitzer) also departed and the magazine is now being edited in New
York City. Suggested causes for Scithers' departure:

 - He was fed up with the lousy cover art and his loss of control over
   it.
 - He wasn't a "team player" by Davis standards.
 - He refused to move into NYC offices (this would be a part of the
   above) when Davis wanted operations under closer control.

   Publicly, nobody is saying anything; given what is being done with
both ANALOG and IA'sSFM and given that George has been involved with
SF forever and is fairly conservative in tastes, I doubt that his
departure was entirely amicable.

------------------------------
Date: 17 Mar 1982 11:06:39-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Re: HHG TV series

   I'm appalled. Will American TV \\never// learn the gross
limitations of "open ended" (i .e., cyclic episodic) entertainment? And
given that it's ABC, the fountainhead of crassness, I expect that
they'll ruin it.  Watch for them to transplant the beginning to some
random midwestern town (thereby losing most of the impact).
   On the other hand, if they just stick with the line of the radio
series as it appeared, they \could/ be open-ended without ruining it
(the twelfth episode doesn't exactly come to a firm conclusion). . . .

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 1982 10:24:38 EST (Wednesday)
From: Bernie Cosell <cosell at BBN-UNIX>
Subject: Being blindfolded

A good magician's eyes are NEVER rendered useless.  Laymen would be
(in fact, are) astonished at how secure-looking a blindfolding can
appear and still allow the `mentalist' to see at least a little bit
(which is always enough).

I don't know about the particular demonstrations you saw, nor have I
been tracking James Randi's relentless revelations, but I have paid
some attention to `the amazing Kreskin' -- mostly due to his TV
exposure.  Mostly everything I have ever seen Kreskin do on TV has
been garden-variety magical effects packaged up pseudo-miracle,
pseudo-ESP routines that on a strictly showmanship basis are quite
excellent.  For ESP fans, though, there is no substance whatever in
the stuff he does - it is clearly and explicitly the stuff of
magicians...

   /Bernie

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 82 10:43-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Kreskin, Randi

At least Kreskin identifies himself as a mentalist-magician rather
than passing himself off as the real thing as does Uri Geller and a
host of other magicians.  Randi strikes me as a *very* useful type of
magician to have around. Such hoaxers as Geller must be exposed.

------------------------------

Date: 17 March 1982 22:14 est
From: Frankston.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS
Reply-to: Frankston at MIT-MULTICS (Bob Frankston)
Subject: Re: ESP

As I've mentioned before, the Skeptical Inquirer is a journal that
covers such things.  I don't have the copy with me at the moment, but
you can probably find it in New York.  I was annoyed to see that MIT
was implicitly endorsing this anti scientific drivel.  It might have
been OK were it not billed as a demonstration of real live ESP.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 18-Mar                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #32
*** EOOH ***
Date: Thursday, March 18, 1982 11:30PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #32
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Friday, 19 Mar 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 32

Today's Topics:
       SF Books - Query Answered  Book Covers & "Call Me Joe",
          SF Movies - Conan the Barbarian,  SF Topics - ESP
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 03/17/82 22:21:16
From: RMC@MIT-MC

        Does anyone know when the next book in the "Thomas Covenant,
Unbeliever" series, by Stephen Donaldson, will appear?  I'm from his
home town (Albuquerque), but I don't know anyone who has any unique
knowledge about his plans.
        Thanks.
                rmc@mit-mc
                chavez@harv-10

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 1982 11:10:30-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: reprints of covers

   Are available only intermittently and depending on who the artist
is.  Most aren't available at all. Kelly Freas and Michael Whelan sell
large prints of their cover paintings themselves (Whelan as Glass
Onion Graphics); they can be seen at many conventions (Freas stuff
tends to be wholesaled to other hucksters such as Rusty Hevelin).
Ctein used to do very fancy work (costing $30-40) of selected covers
(the reissued Known Space series, the magazine cover for A KNIGHT OF
GHOSTS AND SHADOWS) but I don't know if he has kept it up.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 1982 11:07:39-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: skren & varish

   For Jonathan Ostrowsky:
   I don't recall ever coming across "nexialist", but "skren" and
"varish" are the verb forms of two additional senses discovered in
himself by Joe, the egotistical robot in Henry ("Lewis Padgett")
Kuttner's Gallagher series (collected as ROBOTS HAVE NO TAILS, I think
reissued by Del Rey).

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 1982 1155-EST
From: Paul Czarnecki <CAL.PZ at MIT-XX>
Subject: varish, skren, & nexialist

        I don`t recognize "nexialist," but I am fairl;y sure that
"skren" and "varish" are from a story called "Call me Joe."  It is
about a drunken super-inventor who creates things and promptly forgets
about him, a invisible brown animal who drinks his liquor, a large
blue plastic frob, and of course Joe, his super robot.

        I have know idea who wrote it (I can find out) but I do know
that it was reprinted in some greatest hits anthology called "Best SF
of 1949" (or maybe 1948).

                                        - Paul Czarnecki

------------------------------

Date: 16-MAR-1982 13:21
From: KERMIT::T_PARMENTER
Reply-to: "KERMIT::T_PARMENTER c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: Vulgar, Rip-snorting, Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum

I saw the sneak preview of "Conan the Barbarian" this weekend.

They don't call him the Barbarian for nothing.

Conan is played by Arnold Schwarzenegger the Hunk.  As seen on Johnny
Carson, Arnold is a charming, witty, handsome fellow, and I feared he
might try to play Conan the same way, but his Conan is the same
broody, slit-eyed, head-chopping, beast-bashing, priest-smashing idiot
that Howard wrote about and that Frank Frazetta paints.  It isn't camp
and it isn't Steve Reeves as Hercules either; it's the way its
supposed to be.

The movie has a refreshing absence of plot, meaning very few
ridiculous plot devices, but the general idea is that James Earl Jones
is the high priest of the snake cult of Set and must be stopped at all
cost.  (No Thoth-Amon in the movie; Jones's character is called Thulca
Doom, or something like that.)

There isn't a single conventionally pretty woman in the show, but
there are plenty of tough beauties, including Valeria the Thief who
pretty much out-barbarians the Barbarian.

This one's not for the kiddies, kids.  It's got multiple beheadings,
two or three sacrifices of bare-breasted virgins, fantastically staged
battles, snakes, sex (including a corker between Conan and a roadside
lamia), spirits in the dark, and a good deal of ketchup.  On the other
hand, my wife is as squeamish as anybody, and no fantasy fan, and she
liked the movie.

There was less than five minutes of boredom in the whole thing.  My
only negative comment is that it was poorly edited with abrupt
transitions and scenes that didn't end, but stopped.  Maybe that means
it really was a sneak preview.  Anyway, if you like this sort of
thing, "Conan the Barbarian" is definitely that sort of thing.

The audience consisted of not only fantasy fans, but also body
builders, and a good proportion of black people.  One side effect of
this was that different people murmured and gasped at different
things.

The house was sold out on the basis of one day's advertising and the
audience was strongly predisposed to like the movie.  The cheering
started when the Universal logo came on the screen.  (Dino deLaurentis
was the only name hissed.  L. Sprague deCamp [hiss] was listed as
technical adviser.  I didn't spot Roy Thomas's name.)

Pico review: Better than both Superman movies together.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 1982 11:14:15-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Re: ESP demo

   But the show wasn't "endorsed" by MIT; it was put on by the Lecture
Series Committee, a student organization whose motto has been quoted
(not entirely fairly) as "Anything for a buck."

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 1982 15:07:16 EST (Wednesday)
From: Bernie Cosell <cosell at BBN-UNIX>
Subject: Re: Kreskin, Randi

By the way: I believe that Randi has been scrupulously careful about
NOT `exposing' anyone.  What he mostly does (that I've seen, at any
rate) is show that he can, by strictly non-paranormal means, duplicate
any `demonstration' he has seen.  He tries to avoid maligning any
particular person or any particular demonstration (perhaps Uri Geller
excepted) lest he spend the rest of his life defending libel suits and
the like or otherwise damaging his credibility.

And I agree that having a knowledgable person injecting well-reasoned
and substantiated grains of salt is important.

    /Bernie

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 1982 1312-PST
From: Cabral at SUMEX-AIM
Subject: ESP

  Certainly an intensely interesting SF field, but what about "facts"?
A number of SF stories have dealt with such documentation.  Two that I
particularly enjoyed are Marion Z. Bradley's House Between the Worlds
and Heinlein's short story Lost Legacy in New Horizons (I hope those
titles are correct ...).  Both deal with the documentation of
personally observed phenomena.  In each case the main characters KNOW
the phenomena are real, but persistent doubting by skeptics makes life
difficult.
  For "real life" we sometimes hear of studies by various research
groups on psychic phenomena.  And for every one there are plenty of
people willing to point out how the data (if positive) could have been
faked.  The enormity of the available claims, though, seems like it
ought to carry some validity.  The message of the SF books, to me, say
that the only acceptable documentation must be personal experience of
such phenomena, or else something so incredibly undeniable that the
current state of the science would be forced into the future.
  So, for the skeptics, here is my best defined observation of such
phenomena:  On a Saturday morning in West LA, I was debating getting
out of bed and starting the day.  One of the chores in front of me was
washing my car.  The most convenient place to do that was on the
street out front, however my car was parked in back.  The streets
generally being overcrowded, I didn't see much hope for getting a
space.
  Just then an odd notion crossed my mind.  I envisioned the following
scenario.  I would hear a car start up, would look out the window to
discover it was parked right in front, and would then dash to my car
to move it and claim the new space.  The thought was so clear that I
reviewed it mentally.  Thus I am sure that it was subsequent to this
review that I heard a car door slam.
  This was too coincidental.  I raced to the window in time to hear a
car start up and then see it leave the exact parking place I needed.
The subsequent dash to claim the space felt like I was just doing
something I had rehearsed, which of course I had, mentally.  (Which
also raises the discussion of time paradox, but later).
  Okay skeptics, what's the explanation?

                                Art

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 24-Mar                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #33
*** EOOH ***
Date: Wednesday, March 24, 1982 4:46AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #33
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Tuesday, 23 Mar 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 33

Today's Topics:
                   SF Fandom - Golden Age Fanzines,
               SF Books - Star Colony & The One Tree &
                  "A Robot Named Joe"/"Ex Machina" &
                   The Voyage of the Space Beagle,
                 SF Movies - Conan,  SF Topics - ESP
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18-Mar-1982
From: CHIP NYLANDER AT EIFFEL
Reply-to: "CHIP NYLANDER AT EIFFEL c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: 40's and 50's fanishness

        I'd like to know if there are any SF fan clubs or 'zines that
cater to a special interest if SF from the 40's and 50's, or that have
an antiquitary orientation to the genre. (I like the old stuff).  Can
anybody out there tell me?

/chip nylander

------------------------------

Date: 19 March 1982 16:04-EST
From: John Howard Palevich <TANG at MIT-AI>
Subject: Keith Laumer's Star Colony


I've read "Star Colony".

Nano-review:  Aweful.

Micro-review: Really bad.  I love Laumer's old stories (The Retief
series, the Bolo series, "The Glory Game", "The War Against the
Yucks", "House in November", etc.) and I think I've read most of his
works.  But Star Colony is just junk.  It has a pseudo-history
beginning & ending tacked around it to make it seem to be a
compilation of the history of a particular planet.  It's really a
mish-mash of random events, with the only good section being a reprint
of his "Greylorn" story.

        I read the whole thing in one sitting, and I kept hoping that
it would get better, but it never did.  What's going on with Laumer?
Except for "The Ultimax Man", which he wrote for Analog a few years
ago ('78?) all his recent work has been garbage.  I'll admit that his
best works all have the same plot (derelict rises to become superman)
but I really liked them.  Nowadays his characters are just cardboard,
and his plotting non-existent.  Grumble.
Jack Palevich

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 1982 08:14 CST
From: Johnston.DLOS at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #32

All I know is that over a year ago, following the release of the first
book of volume two, a lady here wrote Donaldson expressing her
enjoyment of the book and asking about further plans.  He responded,
saying that the second book was already finished, but publisher
problems (I don't remember exactly what, but something to do
specifically with his book) were delaying it.  She has said recently
that she intends to write again and see if any more information can be
gleaned.

Rick

------------------------------

Date: 20-Mar-82 1220-EST
From: B.J. Herbison <Herbison at YALE>
Reply-to: Ben Lotto <C.472.Lotto at YALE>
Subject: thomas covenant the unbeliever

the next book in the series should be out sometime next month in
hardcover.  as far as the paperback edition is concerned, i really
can't say (and i don't think anyone can at this point) when it'll be
out.

                                         -ben

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 1982 0918-MST
From: David Kohrn <OPER.KOHRN at UTAH-20>
Subject: re:  Thomas Covenant query

        I was in the University Bookstore recently, and they were
taking orders for the hardcover edition of @u"The One Tree", "coming
in April".  $14.95.

                                David

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 1982 16:10:52-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Re: varish, skren, and nexialist

   Careful about that confusion! "Call Me Joe" is by Poul Anderson,
and tells about studying Jupiter through the eyes of biological
constructs with the help of electronically-aided telepathy; one of the
Gallagher stories \\may// have been "A Robot Named Joe" (don't have
the book here with me to check).
------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 1982 2127-EST
From: Paul Czarnecki <CAL.PZ at MIT-XX>
Subject: Re: varish, skren, and nexialist

Mea culpa.  When anthologized, the title was not "Call Me Joe" but "Ex
Machina" (Here the author was still listed as L. Padgett) It was
originally printed in the April 1948 Astounding.
        But the big question still remains.  What is nexialist?

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 1982 09:19 PST
From: Hallgren at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #32

"Nexialism" is "the science of applied whole-ism" according to A. E.
Van Vogt in "The Voyage of the Space Beagle". Elliot Grosvenor is its'
lone practicer on an inter-galactic exploration expedition.  This book
is one of Van Vogts' best, containing "Black Destroyer" and another
near classic short story written about the adventures of the Space
Beagle. Good space opera with the alien monsters viewpoints well
developed.

The next volume of the "Second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant", THE ONE
TREE, is due out in April in hardbound.  I saw the cover at a Walden
Bookstore, and it depicts two of the (I think) eloheim in much the
same style as the previous cover. Price $14.95.  Can hardly wait.


Clark H.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 1982 1004-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>

I don't recall 'skren' and 'varish' but 'nexialist' is from A.E.
VanVogt's 'Voyage of the Space Beagle'.  A nexialist is someone who
has mastered all scientific disciplines and integrated them into
one.  Oddly enough, now that I think about VotSB, I have a vague
recollection that somebody animated one of the stories for TV.  Does
anyone know more??

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 1982 2211-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: Nexialist, etc.


Nexialism appears in "The Voyage of the Space Beagle" by A.E. Van
Vogt.  It is some kind of science of everything and the hero aboard
the Beagle is a Nexialist (and is usually looked down upon by the rest
of the crew but seems to save the day).
I don't remember if the other words (skren and varish) are in there,
but they could be.  Also, other Van Vogt books may also mention
Nexialism as well as skren and varish.

The book is pretty good, not great, and is actually a series of
adventures aboard a starship. It is copyright 1939, 1943, 1950; and
was released by manor books in 1976 and is appears in new editions
every now and then.


                                Alan

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 1982 2136-PST
From: Per Bothner <BOTHNER at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Nexialist query; Conan

I'm pretty sure that nexialism was the interdisciplinary super-science
described in A.E. vanVogt's "Voyage of the Space Beagle" (also
published under a title something like: "Voyage: Interplanetary").
The space Beagle was supposed to boldly go where no man had gone
before.  It was chock-full of scientific specialists who knew nothing
about fields other than their own. Nexialism was a new discipline
which trained the practitioner to synthesize information from multiple
fields to solve new and unexpected problems. In essence, a Nexialist
is a generalist, or an updated version of the renaissance man.
Naturally the scientists were highly sceptical of this new pseudo-
science. The plot consists of a series of encounters with various
monsters, each more dangerous than the previous. By recognizing the
danger, acting on it, and finding a solution when none of the
specialists can, the hero wins acclaim and recognition for his field.

Note that already then we can see vanVogt's penchant for fascile
solutions - he would later support dianetics, general semantics and
other pseudo-sciences.  Like most of the early vanVogt novels, it was
based on a series of short stories in the Pulps (in this case 4),
which were later on glued together into a novel (or more).  The novel
is a definite classic, and a very enjoyable read, perhaps vanVogt's
best. A must for all sf-lovers.


[  Thanks also to Peter Cudhea <pcudhea at BBN-UNIX>, Ken Harrenstien
   <KLH at MIT-AI>, and hjjh at UTEXAS-11 for submitting answers to
   this query.  --  Jim  ]


By the way, Conan's antagonist is Tulsa Doom. In reality (or rather,
according to Howard), Tulsa Doom was the bad guy in a number of the
the King Kull stories. In these, Kull was an exile from primitive
Atlantis ---- By his strength and cunning, he becomes king of the
major civilized (or rather decadent) country, and has to maintain his
position against supernatural and other threats. Admittedly not too
different from Conan, but Kull is a much more introspective
character. There is only one book of short stories. I consider them
excellent, and generally better than most of REH's other stuff,
including Conan.
        --Per Bothner

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 82 17:46-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Re: Misc about James Randi, Kreskin, and ESP

Nope.  Kreskin explicitly calls himself a mentalist.  He did this on
his old program and every time he's on a talk show these days.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 1982 2215-EST
From: Steven J. Zeve <ZEVE at RUTGERS>
Subject: Re: Misc about James Randi, Kreskin, and ESP

Oh well.  I knew that Kreskin billed himself as a mentalist nowadays,
I was just under the impression that in the past he claimed to be a
pyschic.

        Steve Z.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 1982 08:33 CST
From: Johnston.DLOS at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #32, ESP

Why do you say it was "too coincidental"?  People often get in their
cars and go somewhere on a Saturday morning.  It was a happy
coincidence, but not an impossible one.  It's also, I think, highly
*likely* that you can picture a very desirable situation; that doesn't
make it paranormal.  For a similar story with a different ending, see
"Broca's Brain" by Carl Sagan.  He relates a story where he woke up in
the middle of the night with the certainty that a dear friend (or
relative) had died.  He was afraid to call the person for fear that he
might be injured getting up to answer the phone in the middle of the
night.  It turned out that the friend was fine and is alive many years
later, but Sagan admits that had the friend actually died, he would
have been quite sure that he had had a paranormal experience.  So I
don't expect to convince you that you did not, just that it *could*
have indeed been coincidence.

Rick

------------------------------

Date: 19-Mar-82  9:10:22 PST (Friday)
From: Pettit at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #32

The explanation from this skeptic is that is was simply coincidence,
the same explanation which applies to all those people who escaped
death because they heeded a premonition that their plane would crash
or the Titanic would sink, etc.  If you add up all the
possible-but-improbable wishes, daydreams and forebodings you have,
and calculate the fraction of them which come to pass, I'll bet it is
well within the statistical limits of coincidence.  But we have a
tendency to just take for granted those thoughts which don't come
true, and be awed by the uncanniness of those which do.  Come now, if
you had had that vivid odd notion, and no car had pulled away, would
you have taken it as evidence that you have no powers of ESP?  No, you
would simply have dismissed it as an idle wish.

-- Teri

------------------------------

Date: 20 March 1982 00:54 est
From: Walters.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: ESP

In reply to Cabral at SUMEX-AIM's request for a skeptic's explanation
of his ESP experience: would the incident be at all memorable if the
parking place had not suddenly appeared?  Incidents such as these tend
to stick in the mind, while the 'failures', the hunches that never
come true, do not.

I once had a strong feeling when walking home that someone was trying
to call me. I ran home and found the phone ringing.  Because of this
experience, I later paid attention when this sort of feeling recurred,
and unfortunately never was rewarded with a following phone call...so
that I eventually concluded that there was a good chance that a
coincidence had merely combined with a strong desire to believe.

In this line, I remember reading some months ago that a leading
physicist (I believe it was Nobel prizewinner Alvarez) reported that
one morning he suddenly remembered the name of someone he had not
thought of in many years; minutes later he read the name of his friend
in the obituary column of the morning paper.  His response was to
calculate how frequently such an event might occur. The argument went
something like this: Suppose that 3 or 4 times a year I suddenly
remember the name of someone I have not thought of for a long time. On
each of those days, what is the probability that the person actually
dies close to that time? Within the same day, say one in 10 to 20,000
(depending on the average age of your acquaintances), within the same
hour, about 1 in 250 to 500,000...now throw in another factor for the
chance that you'll actually find out about it in time to remember your
sudden memory, and you may get an estimate of something like a chance
of one in 1 million that you'll have such and event in a given year (I
think this this is close to the number he got). In other words, every
year in this country this particular coincidence must happen to some
200 or 300 people, no doubt convincing many of them that they have had
a freak ESP episode. And since this is only an analysis of one
coincidence, there must be many, many more coincidences of different
types that also function as "positive proof of ESP" to the people
involved.

Note that this does not disprove that ESP exists. Frankly, I wouldn't
be too surprised myself if it did...but is important to realize how
many coincidences do happen before admitting them as evidence.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 25-Mar                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #34
*** EOOH ***
Date: Thursday, March 25, 1982 8:04PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #34
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Friday, 26 Mar 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 34

Today's Topics:
              FTP - Science Fiction Convention Calendar,
             SF Books - Forward & The Many Colored Land &
                   The Golden Torc & The One Tree,
        SF Fandom - Golden Age Fanzines & ChiCon IV & Lunacon,
  SF Magazines - Amazing,  SF Movies - Star Trek II & Dark Crystal,
      SF TV - HHGttG,  SF Topics - ESP,  Spoiler - Star Trek II
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Friday, March 26, 1982 2:29AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS-REQUEST at MIT-AI
Subject: FTP - Science Fiction Convention Calendar

The latest version of the Science Fiction Convention Calendar is now
available for FTP'ing.  Everyone interested in reading this material
should obtain the file from the site which is most convenient for
them.  If you cannot do so, please send mail to SF-LOVERS-REQUEST and
we will be happy to make sure that you get a copy.

Please obtain your copies in the near future however, since the files
will be deleted in one week.  A copy of the material will also be
available upon request from the SF LOVERS archives.  Thanks go to Rich
Zellich for providing this material, and to Alyson L. Abramowitz,
Roger Duffey, Richard Lamson, Doug Philips, and Bob Weissman for
providing space for the materials on their systems.


   Site                 Filename

MIT-AI                  AI:DUFFEY;SFLVRS CONS
CMUA                    TEMP:CONS.TXT[X440DP0Z]
PARC-MAXC (text)        [Maxc]<Weissman>SFL.Con-Cal
SU-AI                   CONS.TXT[T,JPM]
MIT-Multics             >udd>sm>rsl>sf-lovers>sf-calendar.text
DEC VAX/PDP-11          KIRK::DB1:[Abramowit.SF]CONS.TXT


[Note:  You can TYPE or FTP the file from SU-AI without an account.]

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 24 March 1982  09:28-PST
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: foreward

        Does anyone know whether Forward is going to write again
(after Dragon's Egg)?

                                        Dick

------------------------------

Date: 03/22/82 1116-EDT
From: J. Baldassini <GNC @ LL>
Subject: Book review

Review : "The Many Colored Land" and "The Golden Torc" by Julian May.

  These two books (published in hardcover as one volume by Nelson
Doubleday) comprise the first two-thirds of "The Pliocene Saga".  The
story begins in the 23rd century.  There is a galactic civilization
known as the Galactic Milieu, which the people of Earth have recently
joined. This high-tech civilization has FTL, gravity-control, and
advanced metaphysics.  The people of Earth are neither the most nor
the least capable of the citizens of the milieu, but there are the
inevitable misfits, those who cannot conform to total personal
fulfillment society of the 23rd century.  For these people, there is
an option. Early in the century, an Earth scientist had discovered a
method of time-travel. His device opened a window into the Pliocene, a
time approximately 6 million years ago.  Those wishing to drop out of
the current civilization were allowed to do so, subject to such
restrictions as no weapons, greater than 28 years old, and no
metaphysical capabilities.
 The first book opens by introducing us to eight characters who, for
various reasons, will be making the trip into the Pliocene.  Due to
the nature of the time portal, not much is known of the state of
affairs in the past, but it is assumed that, since about 100,000
people have already been sent back, there is a human civilization of
some kind, and that these eight can fit into it after some
adjustments.
 It turns out, however, that 6 million years ago the Earth had been
colonized by humanoid aliens from another galaxy (called exotics), and
these exotics had established a civilization of their own, one in
which humans were slaves, controlled by "torcs" (a metal necklace
similar in operation to the Lenses of Doc Smith). The remainder of the
first book and all of the second are devoted to following the
activities of these eight characters as they become involved in the
rebellion of the human slaves against their masters.

Recommendation : I liked it.  Good characterization (and lots of
                 them), strong plot, plenty of swords and sorcery
                 (well, paranormal powers, actually), elves and
                 dwarves, heroes and villains on both sides, as well
                 as humor, pathos, and irony. If you enjoy books like
                 "Glory Road", "The High Crusade", "Empire of the
                 East", (or the Rings or Thomas Covenant trilogies),
                 then you may want to try these. The name of the third
                 book is (or will be) "The Nonborn King".

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 1982 0828-PST
From: Paul Dietz <DIETZ at USC-ECL>
Subject: The One Tree

I heard a rumor about The One Tree: the reason it is late is because
at some point the only copy of the manuscript was stolen.  It had to
be rewritten from memory.  Another rumor has it that the manuscript
was incorrectly sent to Argentina in some luggage.  Anyone know the
truth?

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 1982 11:30:33-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Thomas Covenant 2.2

   It was alleged at Lunacon (held last weekend near New York City)
that Donaldson wants more money before he'll release parts 2.2 and
2.3.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 1982 11:29:05-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Re: 40's and 50's fannishness (per Chip Nylander)

   Several possibilities:

 - The Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society is celebrating its 48th
   anniversary this year;
 - The MITSFS is over 30 years old;
 - There's this organization called First Fandom (but membership is
   restricted to those who have been involved for a long time).

Your best bet if you simply want to get hold of old SF is the MITSFS,
as they have a 99.44%-complete collection of magazines of the past 40+
years; they even have circulating copies of ASTOUNDING for most of the
period you're interested in.


[  MITSFS = M.I.T. Science Fiction (Fantasy?) Society, based
   (obviously) at M.I.T.  --  Jim  ]

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 1982 15:13 PST
Subject: ChiCon IV Membership
From: RNewman at PARC-MAXC

What address do you send to register for ChiCon IV?

                Rob

[  Chicon IV, Box A3120, Chicago, Il. 60690  --  Jim  ]

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 1982 1212-EST
From: Thomas Galloway <Galloway at YALE>
Subject: Lunacon info/Star Trek II/Amazing/Dark Crystal

I was at Lunacon (a big regional SF con in Joisey) last weekend, and
since i only saw 2 sfl people i knew, and no one seemed to recognize
my sfl t-shirt on saturday, here's a rundown on stuff which i heard
which should be of general interest.

Star Trek II will be opening on June 4th.  The title is currently The
Vengence of Khan, and all of the cast except Majel Barrett is back,
plus several new characters.  For some minor details about the plot,
see the spoiler at the bottom of the digest.

Amazing/Fantastic has been sold to TSR Hobbies (the D&D people).
George Schithers (sp?) late of Issac Asimov's is now the editor.
Amazing will be going bimonthly within the next couple of issues, and
there may be a format change.  I asked Schithers as to whether there
would be an increased emphasis on gaming type stories and fantasy, and
he said there would be a mixture of types.  The impression that i and
the princeton sf club people i was hanging out with had was that TSR
would want more of these types of stories, but he's oops he'd want
more sf.

Dark Crystal is the work of Jim Henson and Frank Oz.  It will be
opening in October in about five major cities and November in the rest
of the country.  According to the Con Artists person doing the slide
show, the characters are not being called Muppets, but if it looks
like a duck, etc... Frankly, i wasn't too impressed by the plot of
characters, but then i don't like the Muppets all that much either.

tom
GALLOWAY@YALE (ARPA)
galloway @ yale-comix (USENET)

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 82 15:04-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Mr. Roarke in new Trek film

From Variety, 17 March 1982, p. 5; "New 'Trek' Sells 'Khan'"

The second "Star Trek" feature has been retitled "Star Trek: The
Vengence of Khan" and will be launched nationally June 4, according to
Paramount Pictures distribution president Frank G.  Mancuso.

Rather than continue where the original 1979 film left off, the second
installment picks up narrative thread of the popular vidshow and
introduces Khan, a renegade from the 20th century who returns three
centuries later to make trouble.

The villainous Khan was featured in a 1967 episode of the vidseries
portrayed by Ricardo Montalban, who again essays the role in the film.

-----

As I recall, the episode referred to is 'Space Seed' and was decent.
The topic is eugenics.
------------------------------

Date: Fri Mar 19 12:52:41 1982
From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley
Subject: The Hitchhiker's Guide.

I have been aware of the English production, and have been hoping it
would come over here so I could see it.  Does this reworking by the
ABC mean we won't see the real on on PBS or the like?

Has anybody seen it on North American TV?

What about the new BBC pay-tv station that is supposed to come?

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 1982 2018-EST
From: Steven J. Zeve <ZEVE at RUTGERS>
Subject: Misc about James Randi, Kreskin, and ESP

1) For those who are interested, James Randi has written an
interesting book called "Flim-Flam" (about $20 in hardback).  Which
talks about his experiences in debunking claims of ESP and other
"psychic" powers.  The book is generally well written and tends to
show his opinions of the people involved (including Uri Geller).  I
believe that Mr. Randi's opinion of Uri Geller is based on the
unscrupulous way in which Geller has cheated and betrayed people who
have believed in him and relied on and trusted him.  Including
(apparently) Geller's own manager who to this day believes in Geller.

2) I believe that Kreskin use to bill himself as a psychic and not as
a mentatlist.

3) Please, let's not confuse magician, mentalist, and psychic.  The
terms refer to different things entirely.  Very few professional st

------------------------------

Date: 19 March 1982 18:32-EST
From: Daniel Breslau <BRESLA at MIT-AI>
Subject: esp

     Although I don`t disbelieve in ESP per se (though I don`t believe
in it, either), one thing I hold important is NOT to take any one
chance happening, no matter how unlikely, as evidence for it.  Asimov,
perhaps quoting someone else, has pointed out that the LACK of
coincidences in life would be astonishing.  I myself have experienced a
number of weird happenings, which might be due to paranormal effects
--or may not be.  There`s no way to correlate the number of cases of
an odd event happening, with the number of *chances* for that, or some
other, odd event to occur.  But it`s that impossible correlation which
is needed to show that any one event is of paranormal nature.

                                       Dan Breslau

------------------------------
Date: Friday, March 26 1982 2:29AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following message is the last in the digest.  It provides some
information/speculation about the upcoming movie sequel to Star Trek:
the Motion Picture.  Some readers may not wish to read on.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 1982 1225-EST
From: Thomas Galloway <Galloway at YALE>
Subject: Star Trek II SPOILER (about a 5 on a scale of 10)

Details given out at a Lunacon slide show...  They changed the
uniforms again.  Now everyone is wearing red jackets with a fair
amount of braid and different colored turtlenecks depending on branch
of service.  The Enterprise interior sets have been brightened up a
bit over the first movie, but are otherwise unchanged.

Somehow Chekov has jumped over Sulu, Uhura, Lt. Riley, Spock, Scotty,
etc, and is now Captain of an Enterprise class starship, the Orion.
He and another captain, played by Paul Winfield are on some kind of
secret mission to the planet where Kirk and Co. dropped Khan, the 1996
genetic superman, back in the 2nd season.  The climate has changed
since then, and many of his people have been killed, so he is rather
ticked off at Kirk and the Federation.  After Khan captures the two
starship captains, he somehow takes over the Orion, and heads for a
Federation space station where a device with the potential for
ultimate good or ultimate evil is being built.  The Enterprise, with
original crew, is told to stop the Orion.  There is a battle between
two starships, with effects by Industrial Light and Magic.

There is supposed to be more action and character development than in
STI.  One example is that in at least five separate scenes, Kirk is
shown carrying a hardcover of A Tale of Two Cities under his arm.
Don't ask.  At least three new characters are introduced, two of which
are supposed to stick around for a while. The first is a Lt. S____
(sorry) a half-Romulan half-Vulcan female.  It wasn't explained how
this happened.  Also, the space station is commanded by one of Kirk's
old flames.  The final character is a guy named David.  David is the
son of Kirk and the aforementioned old flame. Having inherited from
his father, he puts the moves on the Vulcan-Romulan.

Looks like it'll be interesting....The producer is Harve Bennett, and
the director is Nicholas Meyer.

tom galloway

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 30-Mar                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #35
*** EOOH ***
Date: Tuesday, March 30, 1982 7:09AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #35
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Monday, 29 Mar 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 35

Today's Topics:
              FTP - Science Fiction Convention Calendar,
           SF Fandom - What is CREATION?,  SF Topics - ESP
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Monday, March 29, 1982 2:29AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS-REQUEST at MIT-AI
Subject: FTP - Science Fiction Convention Calendar

An addendum to the announcement in the last issue (#31) concerning the
latest version of the Science Fiction Convention Calendar.  It is now
available on the E-NET for TOPS-20 sites.  Once again, thanks go to
Rich Zellich for providing this material and to Paul Young for
providing space for it on his system.  Remember that a copy of the
material will also be available upon request from the SF LOVERS
archives.


   Site                 Filename

DEC TOPS-20             KL2137::FTN20:<SF>CONS.TXT

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 26 Mar 1982 11:33-PST
From: obrien at RAND-UNIX
Subject: CREATION?

        I sucked over my copy of the Convention Calendar, and noted
that this outfit called CREATION in Glen Elyn, NY is putting on a
whole slew of cons all over the country.  Who are they?  What do they
WANT?

------------------------------

Date: 17-Mar-82 21:02:17 PST (Wednesday)
From: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC
Reply-to: Hamilton.ES
Subject: UCLA short course: Science and the Paranormal

UCLA Department of the Sciences presents:  SCIENCE AND THE PARANORMAL:
PROBING THE EXISTENCE OF THE SUPERNATURAL

Time:  7 Wednesdays, 7:30-9:45 pm 14 April - 26 May

Place:  Wadsworth Theatre, Veterans Admistration Center, West Los
        Angeles (west of 405 and north of Wilshire, between Federal
        and Bonsall)

COST:  Noncredit fee $65; UCLA Student Noncredit Fee $25; Credit Fee
       $85.  Tickets for single lectures @ $10.50 each will be sold
       at the door if space permits.

For more info write or call:  Dept. of The Sciences, UCLA Extension,
P.O. Box 24901, Los Angeles 90024, (213) 825-7093.  You may enroll by
phone (Visa and MasterCard accepted) by calling (213) 825-9971 or
825-9981

14 April:  James "the Amazing" Randi, "Search for the Chimera"

21 April:  Daniel Cohen, "Monsters and Romantic Zoology"

28 April:  Edwin C. Krupp, "Recasting the Past: Pyramids, Lost
           Continents, and Ancient Astronauts"

5 May:  Robert Sheaffer, "The UFO Verdict: Examining the Evidence"

12 May:  Larry Kusche, "The Other Side of the Bermuda Triangle"

19 May:  Barry Singer, "Limits of Human Rationality"

26 May:  George O. Abell, "Astrology and Cosmic Influences"

--Bruce

------------------------------

Date: 20 March 1982 21:31 est
From: SSteinberg.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: The Amazing Randi

I just finished reading Martin Gardner's book, Science: Good, Bad and
Bogus which largely consists of reprints of articles on the various
supersciences.  It was not as good as his Fads and Fallacies in the
Name of Science but Uri Geller was one of the prominent players .  Uri
claims to derive his powers from a computer in a flying saucer
orbitting the Earth.  This saucer is tied up to some galactic
civilization which resembles the one in Doris Lessing's recent
"science fiction" (I'll use quotes here) books.

Randi has repeatedly denounced Uri and has challenged him to perform
any of his "stunts" under any conditions which could even be
considered controlled.  So far he has gotten Uri to concede that he
often does "cheat" in performances and does use conjurors tricks but
he actually can manipulate matter under some circumstances. Supposedly
Uri failed to impress Johnny Carson who used to be a stage magician in
his youth.

The book covers the SRI reports and the book Superminds which deals
with a group of children who could bend spoons was latter discredited
when they decided to watch the children perform the bending.  (They
did by applying manual force.)  All told there is STILL no solid
evidence for ESP.  No one has been able to repeat anything and no one
who has gotten any results has even tried to limit simple cheating.
There is no preponderance of evidence, only a preponderance of
anecdote which is notoriously unreliable (Nope, Jews don't have
horns).

Then again, there is a strong cultural bias in favor of belief in ESP.
A recent survey written up in the Skeptical Inquirer had 15-25% of a
class of college students believing that a stage magician who wore a
priest-like robe and sounded religious was actually performing magic,
even though he was introduced as a stage magician and his "act" was
presented as prestidigitation.

P.S. Gardner's section on Sir Arthur Doyle, the creator of Sherlock
Holmes, is great.  It seems Doyle insisted that fairies could be
photographed even after the little girls who had been responsible
confessed that they had drawn the fairies on cardboard and
photographed them.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 1982 0748-PST
From: Lynn Gold <G.FIGMO at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Kreskin was NOT a psychic!

Kreskin used to bill himself as a MENTALIST on his TV show, and used
to have a disclaimer at the end of each show saying that he was not
out to foster belief in the supernatural or ESP.  He was doing his act
strictly for entertainment.

--Lynn

------------------------------

Date: 19 March 1982 16:55-EST
From: Allan C. Wechsler <ACW at MIT-AI>
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #32

This moderately long flame was prompted by a message to a previous
digest, giving an anecdote, presumably as positive evidence for
precognition.


Science is done these days according to a fairly strict protocol.
This protocol may be right and it may be wrong, it may be fair or it
may be unfair, but it does have one big advantage.  It's hard for
outright hoaxes to become established as accepted facts.

Some babies may get tossed out with the bathwater.  There may be
important truths out there that will of necessity be missed by
scientists working according to traditional methods.

I guess scientists today are willing to risk that in order to protect
themselves from hoaxers.  I can't say I entirely disagree.

One part of the current protocol is that scientific evidence for
theories has to be gathered by experiment.  For a sequence of actions
to be a valid experiment, it has to be planned and described in
advance, in writing.  The description has to include an unambiguous
explanation of possible outcomes, especially which outcomes will be
considered to confirm or refute the motivating theory.

Anecdotes about psychic experiences simply can't be accepted as
scientific evidence.  At best, they may suggest motivating theories
for subsequent controlled experiments.

"I was walking down the hall, and thought suddenly of Amy Camus, whom
I hadn't seen in three months.  I had a strong mental image of a
red-and-blue scarf she used to wear.  Suddenly, Amy came out of the
ladies' room just down the hall from me wearing that very scarf!"

This is not evidence for precognition.  There are too many other
possibilities.  Whether they are likely or not isn't relevant, since
there isn't enough information in the anecdote to judge probabilities.

Possibilities that occur to a careful experimentalist are:

1.  Informant is lying, or deliberately concealing information in
    order to dramatize a mundane occurrence.
2.  Informant subliminally registered the scarf at an earlier instant,
    and subsequent thoughts were triggered by the subliminal
    perception.
3.  Informant has inadvertently confused the order of mental and
    physical events.
4.  The events actually occurred as described, but informant
    represents a population large enough that such events are likely
    to occur in some period of time.  Without an enormous amount of
    information not present in the anecdote, a sane judgement of
    probabilities cannot be made.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 1982 16:16:20-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: your esp anecdote

   I could throw off half a dozen explanations, beginning with the
unreliability of personal observation, but the most obvious one (based
on dream research) is that you weren't actually awake; available
evidence (which I can attach several personal experiences to) suggests
that certain stimuli perceived by a sleeper can be melded in seconds
into a dream that seems to take much longer.
   I went through chunks of the JOURNAL OF PARAPSYCHOLOGY while doing
a paper on psychokinesis; the only positive conclusion was that any
such powers exist solely on an incredibly finely divided basis (all of
the evidence for PK is basically statistical over hundreds of trials
with many different people) and are fundamentally uncontrollable.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 1982 1115-PST
From: Jwagner at OFFICE
Subject: ESP

I think everyone has experienced deja vu at some time or other, and
many attribute it to some kind of psychic phenomenon akin to ESP.  I
heard another explanation, however, although I can't remember where; I
hope someone else out there may have some facts.

Someone once explained to me that deja vu, rather than a "sixth-sense"
event, is really a neurological tick involving crossed nerve paths
between the brain's centers of eyesight and awareness.

This person, I can't remember who, said certain neuron channels in the
brain occasionally become mixed so that one becomes aware of seeing
something before one actually sees it, giving the false impression of
being in a place at some earlier time.  It's like an echo effect:
light hits the retina, but the person becomes aware of seeing it
before the message goes to the brain's sight center.

But finally the message does go to the sight center, and the person
becomes aware of seeing the light again, so the person is already
aware of what he or she is now seeing.

Since I know little of neuro-physiology, psychology or parapsychology,
this explanation seems plausible to me.  Has anyone else heard of
this?  Does anyone know more about it?

Jim Wagner/jwagner@office

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 1982 0701-PST
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
Subject: ESP (?) Example

I perceive this discussion as an opening for everyone to contribute
"My favorite ESP experience", even if it isn't so intended...

Here's mine: Though this happened about 15 years ago, it sticks in my
mind...  I was in my dorm room, late at night, listening to some
distant radio station (AM clear channel) prior to falling asleep.  It
was one of those shows where they played soft music and interspersed
it with mood-setting comments and readings from the announcer (like
Venus's show on WKRP, to give a modern analogy for those of you who
grew up in the television age...).  A piece of music was played and
suddenly the thought came into my mind that the announcer would now
read a poem I knew ("High Flight", by John Gillespie Magee, Jr -- "I
have slipped the surly bounds of earth, and danced the skies on
laughter-silvered wings..."  or something like that).  Sure enough,
that's what he read.

I would appreciate a categorization of this in the ESP terminology;
was it "Precognition", in that I mentally knew something would happen
prior to it happening, or was it "Clairvoyance", in that I picked the
poem title out of the announcer's mind as he prepared to read it?  [Of
course, I have no idea if the program was live, though they tended to
be, I believe.  It could have been all on tape and I think it is
difficult to mind-read magnetic tape...]

There are non-ESP explanations for it, too, of course -- the simplest
is that I was thinking just the same as the announcer, and, knowing
that poem, just felt that it should now be read in line with the
mood-setting music and comment which had preceded that point in time.
Somehow, though, I find my thinking weird enough that it is harder to
accept someone else thinking exactly the same as I than it is to look
for an exotic explanation like ESP.

This is marginal at best to SFL, but the digests have been sparse
lately anyway...

Here's thinking at you,

Will Martin

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 30-Mar                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #36
*** EOOH ***
Date: Tuesday, March 30, 1982 8:15AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #36
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Tuesday, 30 Mar 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 36

Today's Topics:
           SF Movies - Here's the Plot...What's the Title &
     Raiders of the Lost Ark & Star Trek II,  SF Fandom - MITSFS,
           SF Books - Here's the Plot...What's the Title &
     Robots Have No Tails & The Lucifer Key & Roderick & Forward,
  SF Topics - Extraterrestrial Intelligence,  Spoiler - Star Trek II
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 1982 10:52 EST
From: Denber.WBST at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Here's the (movie) plot...

I saw a short movie in a high school science class and wish I could
remember the name/origin.  It was basically a demonstration of the
scale of the universe.  It starts with a shot of some guy lying on the
ground.  The camera pulls straight *up* to show he's on a golf course,
and there's a DC-8 next to him.  We start to accelerate until the
plane is just a dot.  The whole earth comes into view.  Two clocks are
running at the bottom of the screen, one showing earth time, the other
our time.  There's also an odometer.  Still accelerating, the moon
goes flashing by, and the earth gets smaller.  All the planets pass at
ever increasing rates and the sun gradually disappears.  The clocks
are going nuts; the units on the odometer switch to light years.  The
whole thing takes five or ten minutes and eventually ends somewhere in
intergalactic space at warp 8 or some such.

Then the entire process is reversed and compressed into about 15
seconds .  The effect was quite startling (but maybe it wouldn't be
now, like a lot of these things).  Anyway, we end up at the beginning,
but now the camera zooms in on the guy's hand (he's still there) and
we do the same thing (a la Fantastic Voyage) only getting smaller and
smaller.  The animation in that part wasn't as satisfying, but as a
whole it was very well done.  National Film Board of Canada perhaps?

[  I believe this movie was called "Powers of Ten"  --  Jim  ]

Anyway, *that* reminds me of a story where this guy discovers one day
that he's shrinking.  He gets smaller until he drops right through
subatomic particles of wherever he was standing and discovers he's in
another universe (all contained in some atom of universe #1).  Anyway,
there's this infinite recursion, but I don't remember how it ends.

[  This story appeared in Isaac Asimov's anthology of science fiction
   from the 1930's, "Before the Golden Age."  Unfortunately, the title
   escapes me as well.  --  Jim  ]

                        - Michel
------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 82 8:49-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Re: Here's the (movie) plot...

I believe that was narrated/conceived by the famous MIT scientist
Phillip Morrison.  I'm sure that Lauren@Ucla-Security has more
information about title/year/etc.

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, March 30 1982 2:29AM
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Oscars for Raiders of the Lost Ark


SPECIAL ACHIEVEMENT  SOUND EFFECTS
EDITING              Michael Kahn.
VISUAL EFFECTS       Richard Edlund, Kit West,
                     Bruce Nicholson, Joe Johnston.
SOUND                Bill Varney, Steve Maslow,
                     Gregg Landaker, Roy Charman.
ART DIRECTION        Art Direction: Norman Reynolds, Leslie Dilley.
                     Set Decoration: Michael Ford.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 1982 14:49:59-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: MITSFS

   = M.I.T. Science Fiction Society. (So far as I know, LASFS is the
only group to espouse "Science Fantasy".)

------------------------------

Date: 24-Mar-1982
From: JOHN FRANCIS AT EIFFEL
Reply-to: "JOHN FRANCIS AT EIFFEL c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: Joe, the Proud Robot

Further information on Henry Kuttners stories about Joe the robot.
The collection of all the Gallagher (the inventor) and Joe stories is
called 'Robots Have No Tails', and contains the following stories :-

    The Proud Robot
    Gallagher Plus
    The World is Mine
    Ex Machina
    Time Locker

The first of these stories (The Proud Robot) can also be found in the
collection 'The Best of Henry Kuttner' (or 'The Best of Kuttner 1' in
the English two-volume edition), and in the 'Great SF Stories' series
Volume 5 (1943) credited to Kuttner's pseudonym of Lewis Padgett.  I
do not know if any of the other stories appear anywhere else - they
are not in any of the other collections or anthologies in my library.

------------------------------

Date: 29-MAR-1982 22:00
From: REX::MINOW
Reply-to: "REX::MINOW c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: The Lucifer Key, a novel by Malcolm MacPherson

This thriller, published in 1981 by E. P. Dutton, probably qualifies
for the sci-fi label.  After all, it's set in 1987.  It is the story
of Stark Rousseau, a "brilliant but naive" computer scientist who
devises a formula that lets him break in to any computer system,
including the top secret Pentagon crisis evaluation computer.

The bad guys steal the formula, putting the fate of the world in the
balance .

The young handsome hero falls in love with the beautiful Merril
Thornton Fox, granddaughter of the inventor of the computer, who
subsequently had a change of heart and is now campaigning for more
control over these dangerous instruments.

A few paragraphs should give you some feel for the extraordinary
quality of writing in this book:

  "Merril prided herself on her independence; she had graduated cum
  laude from Vassar and slipped easily into the modeling business.
  She had another ten years before the wrinkles set in ... but even
  now the job left her feeling empty.  Though it paid well for her
  body, it paid nothing for her mind.... She knew somewhere deep
  inside that she, too, could have made a contribution to science.  If
  only she had not been sidetracked by the glamor and easy money of
  modeling.  ... With her grandfather's influence, perhaps it was not
  too late for her to start anew on her abandoned path:  Merrill had
  studied computer science and had sufficient training in the subject
  to try for a master's degree.

Later, our hero is demonstrating how easy it is to break into a
Pentagon system.  I won't ruin your digestion by reproducing the
computer program he types in, but, as he inserts a "BREAKER" and
"STEALER" program into the IBM 3081,

  "General Colombo drew in a breath.  What Rousseau was doing also was
  beyond his ken, but he had to acknowledge the power of the genius.
  Rousseau was inventing an exceedingly complex program.  Colombo
  doubted if there was another person anywhere who could do the same.
  Fascinated, Colombo felt a chill of apprehension.

  Working steadily, Stark was now entranced, focusing at the peak of
  his concentration on the parameters of the problem.  He was
  transforming himself into pure mind:  His breathing slowed, his
  blood pressure and body temperature lowered.  "The BREAKER will
  change the entry point of the REP [Re-entrant processor]," he said.
  "It moves to a jump at the end of the REP.  And because of the IBM
  3081's memory management, a number of unused words at the end of the
  last block allocated to our REP should remain....

  ... [General] Church guessed that Rousseau, within a space of
  forty-five minutes, had demolished the finest computer defense in
  America.

Enough already; the people are cardboard, the writing wooden, but
there is more than a germ of truth in the author's suggestion that
computers are vulnerable to penetration and a criminal could cause an
innocent person to be jailed or given incorrect medical treatment .

Sure wish he could write, though.

Martin Minow

------------------------------

Date: 29-Mar-1982
From: STEVE LIONEL AT STAR
Reply-to: "STEVE LIONEL AT STAR c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: John Sladek's "Roderick"

It's not everyday that someone who is not a professional book reviewer
gets to read a book before it is printed, but right here in black and
white it says "First printing, April 1982" and it's still March.
Well, I'm glad to have had the advance peek.

My first introduction to John Sladek was when I picked up his
"Mechasm" (also published as "The Reproductive System") some years
ago.  I remember that reading it put me into sort of a daze, since
Sladek's dialogue rarely focuses on what one person is saying but
instead timeslices a crowd.  On top of this, his characters frequently
daydream on a completely irrelevant topic, which makes following
things a bit tough.  It's worth the effort, though.  Sladek really
brings across the essence of wierdness that is all around us, and has
a good time doing it.

"Roderick" (subtitled "The Education of a Young Machine") is billed as
"Volume 1 of the Roderick the Robot Trilogy".  It has been previously
(1980) been published in Great Britain, but I don't know if the rest
of the series has also appeared.  Roderick is a robot (natch) who was
the result of a project at the backwater University of Minnetonka.  It
seems some NASA bureaucrat needed a way to finance his hobby, which
was collecting WWII aircraft (and an airport to hold them).  He told
the U of M that NASA wanted a robot dog for their Venus probe, and to
order all of the parts from certain suppliers.  These firms were
fronts for the bureaucrat, who skimmed off the overcharges on the
parts to supply his habit.  Actually, the dog was just to fool "them"
(you know, the Army), and what he really wanted was a real robot
person.  Eventually, the swindle was discovered, but not before the U
of M succeeded in building a robot boy, Roderick.

The remainder of the book tells how Roderick is sent off to various
"foster homes", and adopted as a real boy by a nice family.  He's sent
off to school where everybody think's he's just a handicapped human
(his metal body is regarded as sort of an iron lung).  Nobody believes
him when he says he's a robot.  This is where the going gets good, as
Sladek ribs both public and parochial education.  Along the way,
Roderick gets into a serious discussion of Asimov's Laws of Robotics,
and comes up with some twists that the Good Doctor hadn't thought of.
An extra treat comes in the form of a murder mystery (in a book which
Roderick is reading) which you (the reader) are asked to solve.  The
answer's in the back.  There's some discussion of computer science,
and the evils it entails.  For example, this excerpt (which is
otherwise irrelevant to the plot):

    "This a.m. I picked up a coupla their magazines, got a list
    here somewhere of some of the kinky words they use, strong
    sex angle running right through it, listen to this, "bit",
    "byte", "RAM", how about those?  "Gang punch", "flip-flop",
    "input", what do you think that really means, huh?  "Stand-
    alone software", how about that?  "Debugger", you can't
    make it plainer, and even the company names, how about
    Polymorphic Systems, how about The Digital Group?  Or
    Texas Instruments, ever wonder what a Texas instrument is?
    Or a Honeywell?  IBM, says a lot there..."

I enjoyed "Roderick" much more than "Mechasm", mainly because in the
latter half of the book it wasn't so much effort to follow the
dialogue!  There are also some awful puns (which I am fond of).  For
example, while Roderick is in parochial school, he is eager to learn
more about the "metallic conception", since he thinks it might relate
to him.  I eagerly await more of the trilogy.


                                        Steve

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 1982 09:28 PST
From: RNewman.es at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #34


Dr. Robert Forward has written one short story which appeared in Omni.
In addition there will be a book published by Del Ray Publishing
probably in early 1983.

                        Rob

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 1982 08:54 EST
From: kooy.Henr at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Extraterrestrial Intelligence

In the March issue of Physics Today there is an interesting discussion
on the possibility of finding extraterrestrial intelligence, that I
think would be interesting for SF-LOVERS to read. Specifically the
article by Leonard Ornstein, a professor of pathology at Mount Sinai
hospital, is very enlightening. He concludes that investing in a
search for extraterrestrial intelligence looks like placing a bet on a
dead horse, as opposed to people like Sagan, who claim that finding
life somewhere has a "fair chance" of success.
Hanne Kooy
Xerox Corp.

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, March 30 1982 2:29AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following message is the last in the digest.  It provides some
information/speculation about the upcoming movie sequel to Star Trek:
the Motion Picture.  Some readers may not wish to read on.

------------------------------

Date: 26 March 1982 11:52-EST
From: Daniel F. Chernikoff <DFC at MIT-MC>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING -- Star Trek II

Concerning the comment that "somehow Checkov jumped over Sulu and
Ohuru" to captain his own starship:  In Star Trek I, wasn't Checkov
some sort of "Captain in training"?  I know they made some sort of
comment about that during the first scene he was in, on the Bridge.
Anyone remember?
        -Dan

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  2-Apr                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #37
*** EOOH ***
Date: Friday, April 2, 1982 2:52AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #37
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest          Friday, 2 Apr 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 37

Today's Topics:
            SF Movies - Extra-Terrestrial & Powers of Ten,
            SF Books - "He Who Shrank",  SF Topics - ESP,
                      Spoiler - "He Who Shrank"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 1982 0009-PST
From: Daul at OFFICE
Subject: NEW FILM (INFO WANTED)

Does anyone out there know anything about a film called
EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL?  I believe it is to be released this year.  Any
info would be appreciated.
--Bill

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 1982 14:06 EST
From: Sewhuk.HENR at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #36

Jim is right it is called "Powers of Ten" is currently playing as a
permanent exhibit at the Ontario Science Centre in Toronto, Canada.
The time scale corresponds to time dilation by increasing your
velocity one order of magnitude each 10 sec.  As you approach/exceed
the speed of light you see the relativistic effect on time with respect
to the earth.  Most of the footage is actual pictures until you leave
the local group galaxies.  The compression is the whole thing played
backwards at 1 per order of mag velocity change per second.

The trip starts from a man laying on the beach in Miami out then back
through his skin to the nucleus of a carbon atom.  All in all, it is
worth seeing...

Dave

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 1982 1646-EST
From: Bob Krovetz <KROVETZ at NLM-MCS>
Subject: movie query

The movie is indeed "Powers of Ten".  It is shown continuously in the
Powers of Ten Theatre at the National Air and Space Museum in
Washington.

------------------------------
Date: 31 March 1982 08:01-EST
From: James M. Turner <JMTURN at MIT-AI>
Subject: Powers of Ten

Ah yes, "Powers of Ten". I first saw that film at the Ontario Science
Center about 7 years ago. Left quite an impression on me. It did a
fantastic job of demonstrating the contrast between the very large and
the impossibly small. This film pops up everywhere, and has even been
shown (in a abbreviated form) on 20/20.

The best part of the film wasn't so much the pictures themselves as
the "odometer". The basic premise is that starting 10 meters off the
ground, with a 10x10 field of vision, we move back so that every 10
seconds, we are an order of magnitude farther away.  The odometer has
the following measurements: Distance, Speed, Ship Time, Real Time,
Distance expressed as 10^n.

This film therefore manages to teach cosmology, relativity,
exponential notation, biology, atomic structure, and classical physics
(at least partially) in ten minutes. The narration is great, and the
concepts are explained simply, but without being patronizing.

I would recommend anyone who has not seen this film make an effort at
some point, since the prints are getting a little scratchier every
day. It shows how to teach technical subjects without boring the
students (gee, this crosstalks with a current HUMAN-NETS
discussion...must be ESP).

                                        James

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 1982 1450-EST
From: SWG at MIT-XX
Subject: Powers of Ten

It was indeed narrated by Phil Morrison, who probably supplied
technical advice as well.  It was produced by Charles & Ray Eames, a
husband/wife team of designers (e.g. "Eames chair"), film makers, etc.
Great stuff!

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 1982 0751-PST
From: Tom Davis <JHC.DAVIS at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Powers of Ten

The movie was indeed called "Powers of Ten", but the book it was based
upon is much better.  The book is called "Cosmic View", and was
written by Kees Boeke (I think I got the spelling right).  The book is
just made up of a series of pictures, each one showing the same scene
with the linear dimension increased (and decreased in the second part
of the book) by a factor of ten.  The major advantage of the book is
that you can go back and forth through the pages looking at how
individual features change.  I read the book first, and found the
movie disappointing afterwards.  On the other hand, given that one is
making it into a movie, it is hard to see how to improve too much on
what was done.  Anyway, I highly recommend the book -- I still find it
enjoyable (even after 10 years or so) to page through it.

  -- Tom Davis

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 1982 15:43 PST
From: RobertsA.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #36

Date: 26 Mar 1982 10:52 EST
From: Denber.WBST at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Here's the (movie) plot...

This doesn't sound like the same movie but...

I have a book entitled "The Universe in Forty Jumps" which was also
made into a movie. The scenario is about the same except it starts
with a little girl sitting in a rocking chair and "pulls back" from
there and then returns to the starting position and goes "downward"
into the world of the small.

Allen

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 1982 2226-PST
From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich)
Subject: V5 #36: shrinking to less than atom size

By a coincidence, I just happen to have the 3 Asimov "Before the
Golden Age" volumes here on TDY with me.  There is a story in the
first volume, "Submicroscopic", by Capt. S.P. Meek, that might be the
one in question (which has a sequel, "Awlo of Ulm" in the same
volume), but I suspect you are both really thinking of a story by
Henry Hasse in the third volume called "He Who Shrank".  This is the
one that immediately came to mind when I read Michel's short
description, and it is an amazing coincidence that it also happens to
be in one of these 3 books I brought along on this trip.

Cheers,
Rich

------------------------------

Date: 30-Mar-1982
From: JOHN REDFORD AT WAFER
Reply-to: "JOHN REDFORD AT WAFER c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: normal everyday ESP

A fairly common experience that might be called paranormal is that of
deja vu.  I have it fairly often.  You're walking down an unfamiliar
street or talking to someone when suddenly you get the feeling that
you've been here before or done this before, perhaps in a dream.
Sometime you can be sure that you have never been there before,
sometimes not.  But it's just coincidence, right?  Enough random
images can be thrown up in dreams that some of them are bound to
connect.  But it's still an eerie and powerful feeling, and very
disconcerting.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 1982 1401-PST
From: Yeager at SUMEX-AIM
Subject: ESP...

I would not usually comment on ESP in SF-lovers, but since it has been
approached, and the digest has been a tad lean lately, here goes:

        *The Dream*
        I'm walking along the street in front of my house with my
        wife, Joan, and we come upon dollar bills being wisked about
        by the wind.

        *The event*
        The next morning we are walking in front of our house.  I tell
        Joan about the dream, and, guess what? About 10 steps later
        Joan finds a dollar bill - it is windy but they are not
        blowing around - and if that isn't enough, we take a few more
        steps, and she finds another dollar!

        I had the dream this Sunday morning... Precognition? Not
        likely.  As extreme as this example might seem to some, to me
        it was just another one of those delightful coincidences! We
        just seem to forget all of the *misses* and emphasize the
        *hits*, and also, seem to jump at the most bizarre
        explanations rather than consider the many rational
        explanations.

-Bill

------------------------------

Date: 31 March 1982 0454-EST
From: Mitchell Schwartz at CMU-10A
Subject: esping

It seems to me that we have a general point of unsettlable clash:

       ESP, in its many forms, may exist. It may just be a statistical
       anomaly: the population base is large enough. ESP-type
       occurrences do not seem to be provable by standard
       experimentation.  It does occur often enough to remain in the
       public eye or fancy.

Everyone has an ESP-type tale. I have a few I will spare you.  Why
can't you sciencefolk just admit that ESP will hang about as a
mystery, however romantic a viewpoint you may find that?


                                        mitch

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 1982 11:53:52-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: esp terminology

   Depending on your guess of the mechanism, your experience could be
either precognition (advance knowledge), telepathy (reading
announcer's mind) or clairvoyance (reading the book the announcer was
holding)--- assuming it was ESP at all, which is highly unlikely.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 1982 1316-PST
From: William "Chops" Westfield <BillW@SRI-KL>
Subject: ESP and such...

Ill make this all very simple and concrete.  I am perfectly willing to
believe in any para-psychological talents that can be taught TO ME.

WW

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 1982 10:57 CST
From: Johnston.DLOS at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #35, Uri Geller

I read in one of Sagan's books that Uri Geller loves to perform in
front of scientists, but refuses to be examined in performance by a
group of magicians, etc.  I think this says much about his
credibility.

Rick

------------------------------

Date: Friday, April  2 1982 2:29AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following message is the last in the digest.  It answer the Plot
query addresses earlier in the digest on the story "He Who Shrank."
Some plot details are revealed of this story.  Some readers may not
wish to read on.

------------------------------

Date: 30-Mar-82 15:25:27 PST (Tuesday)
From: Weissman at PARC-MAXC
Subject: He Who Shrank w/spoiler

The story alluded to by Michel in V5 #36 appears in an ancient (1957)
anthology called "Famous Science Fiction Stories", and is called "He
Who Shrank" by Henry Hasse.  "Henry Hasse" sounds like a pseudonym to
me; anybody have any info?

Anyway, the plot is that the shrinker is an unwilling participant in
an experiment; he's a lab assistant who gets involuntarily injected
with magic shrinkum juice.  He passes through several progressively
smaller universes until. . . . .

*** SPOILER WARNING! *** SPOILER WARNING! ***


 . . . he arrives on Earth, where he tells his story to a science
fiction writer.  The idea is that our planet is an electron in an atom
in a blade of grass in an atom in a mosquito's hair in ... in a block
of metal in the experimenter's office.  The shrinker passes through
our sphere, and the while the story ends, there is no end in sight for
our hero.

-- Bob

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  6-Apr                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #38
*** EOOH ***
Date: Tuesday, April 6, 1982 2:46AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #38
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Tuesday, 6 Apr 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 38

Today's Topics:
  SF Books - Second Nature & Helliconia Spring & The Red Magician &
        Hecate's Cauldron & The Pride of Chanur & Cosmic View,
       SF Movies - Powers of Ten & Cosmic Zoom & Star Trek II,
                        Spoiler - Star Trek II
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 82 16:11-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: sf reviews

                              04 Apr 82
                           SCIENCE FICTION
                          By Roland J. Green
           (c) 1982 Chicago Sun-Times (Field News Service)

    If you can be completely original, well and good. But if you can
do as well with a comparatively venerable science fiction theme as
Cherry Wilder does in ''Second Nature'' (TimescapePocket Books, $2.75
paperback), you have nothing to be ashamed of, either.
    The theme is simple: A human colony on a far world, founded by the
survivors of a long-ago spaceship crash, awaits the next visit of the
now-legendary Earthmen. At last there are rumors that the Earthmen
have come again. Government historian Maxim Bro sets out to learn what
has really happened. In the course of his journey we get a complete
and vivid picture of the planet Rhomary.
    What could be simpler? And what could be duller, without Wilder's
gifts? There is a fine command of language and a sense of the relevant
detail. There are also enough well-drawn characters and fully
developed subplots for a novel twice as long. As the relationships
become more complex and the viewpoints change, we ultimately get
full-dimensional views of anything the author wants to emphasize.
    Finally, there is almost heroic common sense about the development
of the society of Rhomary. The ruling class is the doctors. Why not,
when in the early days after the crash it was their skills that could
make the difference between life and death? Men and women are equal -
and again, why not, on a sparsely populated planet where every warm
body has to be available for whatever work needs to be done?
    Brian Aldiss' ''Helliconia Spring'' (Atheneum, $15.95) is a more
ambitious book. It is also the first of a trilogy, and Aldiss appears
to have decided to load into the first book most of the background
information needed for appreciating the whole work. This is
understandable, considering that Helliconia follows an eccentric orbit
around multiple suns and in consequence enjoys a weird and wonderfully
complex ecology. Nonetheless, the first half of the book moves slowly
under its burden of raw data.
    As the inhabitants of Helliconia come alive in the second half of
the book, the story begins to move and becomes fascinating, without
ceasing to be complex. In the end, the book promises quite well for
the rest of the Helliconia saga.
    Lisa Goldstein's ''The Red Magician'' (TimescapePocket Books,
$2.50 paperback) promises well for a whole career. In a small
Hungarian Jewish village, a wonder-working rabbi battles a traveling
magician who warns the villagers of the coming Holocaust. Goldstein
draws effectively on Jewish folklore to set a tale of fantasy against
the nightmarish background of the Holocaust. She also tells the whole
story from the viewpoint of the adolescent girl Kicsi, from village
through Auschwitz to refugee camp, without any major errors in choice
of language, leaving out any vital information or weakening the
emotional impact. This is Goldstein's first novel; one hopes it will
not be her only one.
    A fantasy anthology worth noting is ''Hecate's Cauldron'' (DAWNew
American Library, $2.95 paperback), edited by Susan W. Shwartz. The 13
stories all draw one way or another on the folklore and mythology of
Western European, African and Japanese witchcraft. The quality ranges
from good to excellent - hardly surprising, considering that the list
of authors runs from such distinguished fantasists as Andre Norton
and Tanith Lee to solid newcomers such as Jean Lorrah and Galad
Elflandsson. Teachers should take a particularly close look at the
bibliography, a respectable introduction to witchcraft in particular
and modern fantasy in general.
    Finally, the latest book by C.J. Cherryh, ''The Pride of Chanur''
(DAWNew American Library, $2.95 paperback), is a better introduction
to this prolific and gifted writer than some of her other recent
works. It features one of Cherryh's superlatively well-drawn alien
races, a well-drawn background, and a briskly paced plot - in short,
the author well toward the top of her form.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 1982 10:50 PST
From: Fusco.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #37


Powers of Ten is also on permanent exhibit at the Air and Space Museum
of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C.  I agree, its
interesting and entertaining.

Joe

------------------------------

Date: 02-Apr-1982
From: PAUL DICKSON AT QUILL
Reply-to: "PAUL DICKSON AT QUILL c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: Powers of Ten

The short movie "Powers of Ten" was made by Charles and Rae Eames.
They also did the multi-screen movie for the IBM pavilion at the 1964
World's fair in New York.  Charles Eames, who I believe died not too
long ago, is the designer of the famous Eames Chair, which you can see
in expensive furniture stores and also art galleries.

He and his wife made several short movies.  All this information is
from a program called "An Eames Celebration" which appeared on PBS a
few years ago.  Morrisson appears in this movie, and he had something
to do with the production of Powers of Ten, but I can't remember if he
did the voice-over.  aEC contains the PoT movie, and several others.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 1982 15:44 PST
From: Kaehler at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #37

The movie "Powers of Ten" by Charles Ames (sp?) and his brother was
remade in the early seventies.  The second version added one power of
ten to the size of the universe and two powers of ten in the direction
of quarks.  I find it quite astounding that we expanded our vision by
a factor of 1000 in the 20 years between the two films.  I don't
suppose we will be able to keep maintain that rate of expansion.
        Ted Kaehler

------------------------------

Date: 2 April 1982 2145-PST (Friday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Powers of Ten, Cosmic Zoom, Cosmic View

Actually, I have two DIFFERENT versions of "Powers of Ten" in my
collection.  The earlier version has the "odometer" stuff on the left
and has a British female narrator.  The overall quality of the art is
good but not great.  A version that came out a few years later (the
one narrated by Phil) drops the odometer, but has much better overall
quality.  There are a number of interesting minor differences between
the two when run back to back.

Both of these were inspired by another film, called "Cosmic Zoom",
which was released through the Canadian film board.  This one starts
with a boy in a rowboat and zooms out from there, then zooms in on a
mosquito sucking blood on his hand!  There is no narration, and the
bulk of the images are clearly hand-drawn art, not photos.  It is very
arty and quite enjoyable.  The credits directly mention the book
"Cosmic View", from which all these films were really derived.  As I
recall, the main character in Cosmic View had a large whale laying
next to him at the starting point (for size reference of course.)

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, April 6, 1982 2:46AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following messages are the last in the digest.  They discuss some
plot details in the upcoming movie Star Trek II.  Some readers may not
wish to read on.

------------------------------
Date: 02-Apr-1982
From: PAUL DICKSON AT QUILL
Reply-to: "PAUL DICKSON AT QUILL c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: Checkov


In the TV series, Checkov was definitely an ensign, and was outranked
by just about everyone else in the series except the yeoman.  I didn't
see the ST1 movie (gasp), so I can't say whether he was promoted
there.  All officers are sort of "captains in training", but obviously
all of them do not become captains.  (I think "Captain" is a post, not
a rank.)

So Checkov could become a captain after sufficient time.  After a time
long enough for him to advance that far (he never seemed like Captain
material to me), you would not expect the others to still be in their
old posts, much less their old ranks.  In the movie they had been
promoted too, but I don't know by how much.  Admirals sometimes
command ships, but only in unusual cases, like when the regular
captain has been killed in battle, and even then the executive officer
would take over.

The Federation must have been pretty top-heavy organizationally if
they had a lieutenant operating the radio on the bridge.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 1982 16:14 PST
From: STOGRYN.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SPOILER WARNING -- Star Trek II

After watching Star Trek I again last night, I could find no mention
of Checkov being a "Captain in Training. . . during the first scene he
was in, on the Bridge", nor any reference to his rank during the whole
movie, other than and his uniform and Captain Kirk calling him
"Mister".

I have not reread the book, however.

Steve

------------------------------

Date: 5-Apr-82 1040-EST
From: David Miller <Miller at YALE>
Subject: sf-lovers: Chekov's command


In the novel STTMP by Gene Roddenberry, Kirk notes, and is pleased
that Chekov has been promoted to Lt in charge of Security.  Assuming
no one else was promoted during that time period Uhura and Sulu would
be equal in rank, Scotty and McCoy a grade above, and Spock a grade
above that.

Assuming that Spock and McCoy have turned down any commands offered
them (likely from what we know of them) there is still Scott, who is
much more deserving. Also, Uhura and Sulu both have taken temporary
command at one time or another, and have seniority, not to mention
intelligence and skills, far in excess of Chekov's.

At the last August Party (Washington D.C. Aug '81) Roddenberry
indicated that they still had not settled on a final script for the
movie. Since it is supposed to open in June, I will be very surprised
if this is the only glaring inconsistency in the film.

                                        -Dave Miller @yale

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  8-Apr                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #39
*** EOOH ***
Date: Thursday, April 8, 1982 10:31PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #39
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest          Friday, 9 Apr 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 39

Today's Topics:
             SF Books - Hugo Winners & Epitaph for Dick,
     SF Movies - Extra-Terrestrial & Cat People & Powers of Ten &
         Star Trek II,  SF TV - Star Trek,  SF Topics - ESP,
                  Spoiler - Star Trek & Star Trek II
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24-Mar-1982
From: QUASAR::SILER
Reply-to: "QUASAR::SILER c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: Request for info

Can someone out there list the Hugo-winning novels for the last ten
years or so?

I used to read a lot of SF, then stopped, and am now getting back into
it, and would like to backtrack and fill in the gap.  Thanks.

                                        Lee Siler

------------------------------

Date: 5-Apr-82 1040-EST
From: David Miller <Miller at YALE>
Subject: sf-lovers: ET the movie


I recently saw a trailer for the film "Extra Terrestrial: and His
Adventures on Earth."  The trailer said almost nothing except:  It is
a new film coming out of the Lucasfilm Ranch, Steven Spielberg is the
director, and the ET has three long bony fingers.  The general mood of
it looks light, and all in all pretty good. It premiers this June.

                                        -Dave Miller @yale

------------------------------

Date: 2 April 1982 2154-PST (Friday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: "Cat People"

                              01 Apr 82
                        Review of "Cat People"
                         By RICHARD FREEDMAN
                        Newhouse News Service

    (UNDATED) Writer-director Paul Schrader is best known for such
films of gritty urban violence as ''Taxi Driver'' and ''Hardcore.'' In
''Cat People'' he turns from the jungle of our cities to the beasts
lurking in the jungles of our subconscious minds.
    The result is not only a refreshing change of pace for Schrader,
but a stunningly beautiful movie that works on just about every level,
from gory horror through depth psychology, to a state of higher
innocence in nature that is hauntingly poetic.
    Vaguely based on the classic Val Lewton-Jacques Tourneur ''B''
picture of 40 years ago, which starred Simone Simon as the predatory
feline of man's deepest fears and desires, ''Cat People'' is a
sumptuous erotic treat.
    It is the first Schrader film to use a script by someone else -
Alan Ormsby, who also wrote the lovely ''My Bodyguard'' - and the
first film to give a sense that Nastassia Kinski is emerging as a real
actress, as opposed to the vamp of the python posters.
    Here she is Irena Gallier, who arrives at the New Orleans airport
from seemingly nowhere to be greeted by her long-lost brother Paul
(Malcolm McDowell). Although Paul is a preacher in a strange church,
he shows a more than fraternal or religious interest in Irena. In
fact, he becomes maniacally jealous when she takes up with zoo curator
Oliver Yates (John Heard).
    At 34, Oliver's ideas about women seem shaped by the idealized
Beatrice of Dante's ''La Vita Nuova,'' although he has been carrying
on a desultory affair with his attractive blonde assistant Alice
(Annette O'Toole). Basically this shy scholarly man prefers animals to
people.
    When he meets Irena and gives her a job in the zoo's gift shop,
though, he becomes obsessed with her feline beauty - clearly, she's
the prettiest panther he ever encountered.
    Meanwhile, a real panther - a black leopard, to be precise - has
been stalking the picturesque streets of New Orleans, attacking a
hooker in a porn parlor and wrenching the arm off a zookeeper. Is it a
''super cat'' just doing its thing, as Oliver insists, or ''a
menace,'' as normal society judges? Or is it Paul, transformed by lust
for his virginal sister into a predatory monster? Is Irena in fact his
sister?
    These are some of the puzzles ''Cat People'' raises that it would
be grossly unfair to solve here.
    They're irrelevant, too, because ''Cat People'' works on so many
levels of myth and magic that the mere manslaughter in it is the least
of its concerns. As Paul's odd, voodooish housekeeper Female
(pronounced to rhyme with ''tamale'' and eerily played by Ruby Dee)
tells Irena, in order to survive one must ''pretend the world is what
men think it is.''
    For ''Cat People'' is ultimately about the daylight, rational
world we impose for survival on the dream world - often a nightmare
world - of our inner beings. The normal, daylight romance of Oliver
and Alice is shattered by the nocturnal fascinations Irena offers him.
    For both these doomed lovers, sex is a plunge into the darkest
mysteries of the subconscious, and what they find there is both
rapturous and appalling.
    This is a moody, brooding - but frequently very witty -
exploration of the capacity for Romantic Love-Death lurking in the
animal natures of all of us. Anyone going to see ''Cat People'' just
for its sex and violence (of which there is plenty) will assuredly get
more than he bargained for.

    FILM CLIP: ''CAT PEOPLE.'' Haunting remake of the 1942 poetic
horror film about our feline cousins, with Nastassia Kinski and
Malcolm McDowell as dangerously beautiful brother and sister, and John
Heard as a New Orleans zookeeper who falls into their clutches. A
sumptuous, sensual masterpiece of unleashed romanticism. Rated R.
Four stars.



--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: 8 April 1982 0005-EST (Thursday)
From: Lee.Moore at CMU-10A
Subject: Powers of Ten

Of the two versions of PoT I enjoyed the first more if only for the
female's voice-over.  She had an emotionally flat British accent that
contrasted magnificently with the mind blowing graphics.  Some how the
remake never gave me the chill & thrill of the original.

BTW, the Eames also did a time-line of mathematics for IBM.  It was a
long poster that I have seen in every high school I've been to.  It
had pictures of various famous people with descriptions of what they
are known for.

        Lee

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 1982  8:09:36 EST (Tuesday)
From: Ralph Muha <muha at BBN-UNIX>
Subject: Epitaph

Or, Why Phillip K. Dick will always be my favorite writer:

        To the cab he said suddenly, "If your wife were sick-"

        "I have no wife, sir," the cab said.  "Automatic Mechanisms
        never marry; everyone knows that."

        "All right," Eric agreed.  "If you were me, and your wife
        were sick, desperately so, with no hope of recovery, would
        you leave her?  Or would you stay with her, even if you
        had traveled ten years into the future and knew for an
        absolute certainty that the damage to her brain could never
        be reversed?  And staying with her would mean-"

        "I can see what you mean, sir," the cab broke in.  "It would
        mean no other life for you beyond caring for her."

        "That's right," Eric said.

        "I'd stay with her," the cab decided.

        "Why?"
        "Because," the cab said, "life is composed of reality
        configurations so constituted.  To abandon her would be to
        say, I can't endure reality as such.  I have to have uniquely
        special easier conditions."

        "I think I agree," Eric said after a time.  "I think I will
        stay with her."

        "God bless you, sir," the cab said.  "I can see that you're
        a good man."

From "Now Wait For Last Year" (c) 1966 by Phillip K. Dick

------------------------------

Date: 04/03/82 11:43:21
From: RP@MIT-MC
Subject: ESP

Several people have recently commented on "ESP" experiences but I
would like to ask for a response to my query which prompted these
discussions in the first place. Namely, how do Burgess and Kreskin do
their telepathy trick? I shall briefly describe it again:

B&K may, for example, ask the audience "do the initials RMG mean
anything to someone"? A response occur frequently and B&K proceed to
give some very substantial information about the person.  This can be
the full name, birthdate, social security and telephone number, etc.

Assuming, as B&K state, they do not have confederates in the audience
then how do they accomplish their trick? Any theories?

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 82 9:15-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX

They do research on selected members of the audience beforehand.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 1982 1559-PST
From: Dolata at SUMEX-AIM
Subject: In response to WW willing to believe 'if it can be taught TO
Subject: ME'.


Your criterion for beliveing in ESP iff it can be taught 'TO ME' seems
weak.  Do you believe in pregnancy?  Can you be taught the art of
getting pregnant?

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, April 8, 1982 10:31PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!
The following messages are the last in the digest.  They provide some
information/speculation about the upcoming movie sequel to Star Trek:
the Motion Picture and a query about the original Star Trek TV series
which has grown out of this discussion about the movie.  Some readers
may not wish to read on.

------------------------------

Date: 6 April 1982 12:05-EST
From: Daniel F. Chernikoff <DFC at MIT-MC>
Subject: sf-lovers: Chekov's command

When did Uhura take temporary command?  Don't tell me there is a Star
Trek TV episode that I haven't seen (let it be so!)?!

        -Dan

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 1982 0957-PST
From: Mike Leavitt <LEAVITT at USC-ISI>
Subject: Sttmp ii - spoiler -Checkov

I think it's pretty clear why the Russian got bumped over the
Japanese, the African, and the European: politics.  I consider it a
given that in the world of Star Trek, appointments to command would be
at least 50% political.  Since the Russians and the Americans probably
jointly run that world, they would probably have to alternate Russian
and American captains on all of their starships.

        Mike <Leavitt at USC-ISI>

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 12-Apr                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #40
*** EOOH ***
Date: Monday, April 12, 1982 1:49AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #40
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Monday, 12 Apr 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 40

Today's Topics:
                       SF TV - Star Trek Query,
   SF Movies - Star Trek II & Revenge of the Jedi & Powers of Ten,
                  Spoiler - Star Trek & Star Trek II
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 1982 2339-MST
From: Dudley Irish <IRISH at UTAH-20>
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #39

I have a query that I believe should be a piece of cake for many of
you out there.  Recently I was talking to a friend who said that she
believed that in a episode of Star Trek Mr. Spock's first name was
said.  I recall the episode in which we are told that his first name
can not be pronounced by a human.  This led me to believe that we had
never heard his name.  Am I mistaken?

                                                Dudley Irish
                                                Irish at Utah-20

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 1982 11:17:00 EST (Sunday)
From: Winston Edmond <edmond at BBN-UNIX>
Subject: Star Trek 2

    Item from the Sunday newspaper: Official word is that the release
title for this picture will now be "Star Trek 2: The Vengeance of
Khan."
 -WBE

------------------------------

Date: 9 April 1982 2026-PST (Friday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Star Trek movie retitled...

Due to complaints from Lucasfilm (which no doubt considers the term
"revenge" and all synonyms to be their trademarks), the upcoming Star
Trek film has been retitled from:

Star Trek II: The Vengeance of Khan

to

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 1982 13:14:11 EST (Monday)
From: Winston Edmond <edmond at BBN-UNIX>
Subject: Star Wars

   I quote from my Sunday paper: "

    Although the latest in the "Star Wars" series - titled "Revenge of
the Jedi" - won't be released until May 1983, word has leaked out that
the character played by Guinness, Ben Kenobi, will reappear in the
flesh along with cast regulars Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill and Harrison
Ford.  How the Guiness part will be revived is still a mystery.  But
science fiction allows for plenty of plot license in dealing with its
mythical characters.

"
 -WBE

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 1982  8:06:55 EST (Friday)
From: Drew M. Powles <dpowles at BBN-UNIX>
Subject: powers of ten

NOVA did an episode awhile ago on Time (starred Dudley Moore).  In it
they had a "powers of ten"ish time segment, only it started out with a
couple snoozing in the park, and did not go down to the microscopic
level.  In fact, I believe it may have been more along the lines of a
"powers of two"; the distance was doubled every second.

dmp

------------------------------

Date: Monday, April 12, 1982 1:49AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following messages are the last in the digest.  They provide some
information/speculation about the upcoming movie sequel to Star Trek:
the Motion Picture and an answer to a query about the original Star
Trek TV series which has grown out of this discussion about the movie.
Some readers may not wish to read on.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 1982 11:34:23-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Re: sttmp ii-spoiler-chekov

   My, aren't you the cynic! Remember that Chekov didn't even show up
until the second season---and the few hints about Terran govt. in that
period seem to assume that the bipolar power conflict has been
resolved. On the other hand, ST has been changed so radically in
appearance from the TV show that you could make a rationale for almost
anything.

------------------------------

Date: Friday,  9 Apr 1982 10:43-PST
From: chris at RAND-UNIX
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #39


In regards to the ST query, "When did Uhura take temporary
command"--in the live-action TV show, she never did.  But in the
Saturday morning cartoons, first aired in 1973-74 with the voices of
the original actors, there was one episode where every male authority
figure aboard the Enterprise was captured by the Sirens of the planet
under investigation.  Uhura entered the bridge with Nurse Chapel, and
announced "I'm taking command of the ship".  (I was living in the
Graduate Women's Dorm at Louisiana State U.  at the time, and the
resounding cheers from the TV room could be heard in the street.)  She
then proceeded to stay aboard the ship, instead of risking the only
command-post trained officer left; she sent down to the planet search
teams of two or more security officers with orders never to split up,
and required reports from all teams every ten minutes or so.  Kirk was
never that foresighted.  She managed to rescue the entire landing
party intact, and then spoiled it all by weeping all over Kirk and
muttering "Captain, you're so handsome" or something equally awful.
Despite the ending, which makes even my unliberated soul cringe, it
remains one of my favorite episodes of the cartoon series.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 15-Apr                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #41
*** EOOH ***
Date: Thursday, April 15, 1982 10:25PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #41
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Friday, 16 Apr 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 41

Today's Topics:
                     SF Fandom - WesterCon Bids,
                  SF Books - Friday & The One Tree,
             SF TV - Star Trek & Night Gallery Portraits,
                       Random Topics - Hackers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 April 1982 0522-est
From: Paul Schauble              <Schauble at MIT-MULTICS>
Subject: What happens at a Con - WesterCon bids

Does anyone know what exact dates Portland plans for their WesterCon
if they win the bid? I have seen several different flyers from them,
none of which contain dates.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 1982 2240-PST
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ at USC-ISIF>
Subject: New Heinlein book is out!!!!

I guess I scooped everyone on this.  "Friday", by Robert Heinlein is
now out in hardback.  From the jacket:

        "Friday is her name...She is as thoroughly resourceful as she
         is strikingly beautiful.  She is one of the best
         interplanetary agents in the business.  And she is an
         Artificial Person...  the ultimate glory of genetic
         engineering."

A brief glance through indicates this may be another great book (not
like Number of the Beast).  Its 368 pages, published by Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.

                                Alan

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 1982 2300-PST
From: Mark Crispin
Reply-to: Admin.MRC at SU-SCORE
Subject: THE ONE TREE

 ...is out in hardcopy!  I picked up my copy 2 hours after it arrived
at the bookstore.  I'm reading it eagerly now...I will say this much;
I found out where the other Raver was.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 1982 0852-PST
From: Tim Mann
Reply-to:CSD.MANN at SU-SCORE
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #40

[  The following message refers to some material that has appeared in
   recent issues of the digest under the Spoiler section.  However,
   it itself is not a spoiler.  -- Jim ]

Here are a couple of Star Trek tidbits I recall from "The Making of
Star Trek" and "The World of Star Trek."  Right now these books are in
my parents' attic, so I can't recheck details.

     (1) The original concept behind Chekov's character was that he
was to be portrayed as a sort of "captain in training."  I think this
was in the information that was handed out to prospective
scriptwriters, but I don't believe it was ever mentioned in the show.
As has been pointed out here, it doesn't make a great deal of
sense--other officers aboard the Enterprise who outranked Chekov would
likely have achieved their own commands before him.

     (2) There was supposed to have been an episode of the original
show in which Uhura took temporary command; in fact, I believe she was
supposed to have been fourth in command--the most senior lieutenant.
But the network didn't like this, and Sulu got the nod instead, or
perhaps it was that things were rearranged so that she was captured by
the bad guys along with the other senior officers.

     (3) I don't ever recall hearing Spock's first name.  I do recall
the episode where he was asked his name, and replied "You wouldn't be
able to pronounce it."  Notice that he did NOT say "No human can
pronounce it."  One would hope his mother could pronounce it!

        --Tim

------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 1982 (Thursday) 1235-EDT
From: SHARER at Wharton-10 (William Sharer)
Subject: Night Gallery Portraits


        Can anybody forget some of the paintings that showcased each
episode of Rod Serling's Night Gallery?  So what happened to them
after Rod took off for the Twilight Zone permanently?  Does anybody
know their whereabouts (ie. art museum?)  Actually I was wondering if
anybody distributed copies for fun and profit.  They'd look a lot
better in the living room than some of trash that's on the market now.
Makes for good conversation.

mr bill

------------------------------

Date: 6 April 1982 11:21 est
From: Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: Hackers in Fiction [?]

The latest issue of Rolling Stone has an article in which some clown
tries and fails to do for hackers what Tom Wolfe did for surfers.  It
covers such heady topics as hackers' sallow complexion and
characteristic plumpness -- and here I had thought all along I was
just a fat old man.

Earl

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 21-Apr                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #42
*** EOOH ***
Date: Wednesday, April 21, 1982 4:19AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #42
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest        Wednesday, 21 Apr 1982     Volume 5 : Issue 42

Today's Topics:
     SF Fandom - What is CREATION?,  SF Books - Shockwave Rider,
           SF Movies - Here's the Plot...What's the Title,
             SF TV - Night Gallery Portraits & Star Trek
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 April 1982 22:02-EST
From: Charles F. Von Rospach <CHUQUI at MIT-MC>
Subject: creation SF con.

After the last convention list was passed around, someone asked what
Creation was all about, since they seem to have a series of cons
nation wide.  [ Please see Volume 5, Issue 35 -- Jim ]  Today I
received their pamphlet on their con in san francisco, and I thought I
would pass on some of the details.

It is officially called the Creation Comic Book and Science Fiction
convention.  It will run June 26 and 27 at the San Francisco Hilton,
11AM to 7PM.  Cost: At the door, $7 for Saturday, $6.50 for Sunday,
$12 for both.  In advance, $5.50 a day or $10.50. I have a list of SF
local places to buy tickets if you are interested, along with Dealer
table rates and hotel reservations. An information hot line is set up
at (415) 845-4091.

Guests: Roy Thomas, writer from Marvel comics
        Harlan Ellison, Speculative fiction author.
        Walter Koenig, Checkov
        Frank Miller, writer and artist for Marvel Comics.
        John Stanley, 'San Franciscos man of the monsters'
                    (I don't know him)
        Frank Brunner, Fantasy/comic illustrator, with a slide show.
Other guests to be announced, all guest tentative.

Hucksters: over 100 booths, heavy on comics for buy/sell/trade; also
artwork, fanzines, and the normal stuff.

On stage events, interviews with guests, daily auctions (no minimum
bids), 'the worlds most disgusting slide show, part 3' film previews,
art and costume contests, a film program (no details), and a slideshow
tour of Marvel comics.

All in all, it looks like a decent con. Depending on the Film
selection, it could be a real good con, and considering the price of
most cons, its real cheap. Although there is no direct connection
mentioned, it looks as though Creation is pretty heavily tied with
Marvel comics. Personally, I think I will be there...

chuck

------------------------------

Date: 16 April 1982 09:42 cst
From: Bibbero.PMSDMKT at HI-Multics
Subject: Brunner's Shockwave Rider

More or less at the instance of this list I got a copy of SR and find
it tendentious and repetitious despite its superhacker theme.
Particularly boring is constant use of terms "shivevr" and "poker."
Could the latter possibly derive from BASIC function POKE?  Is Brunner
a computer professional?  Am I missing something?  Welcome
enlightenment and flaming from Brunner fans on this list.

------------------------------

Date: 13-Apr-1982
From: NINA EPPES AT METOO
Reply-to: "NINA EPPES AT METOO c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: Here's the movie, what's the story?

Several years ago I saw a movie at UMass/Amherst called "The Marvelous
Visit" (English translation; the movie was French -- unfortunately I
can't remember the French title, and I don't remember what the French
for "visit" is so I can't even try to translate it myself).  It was
supposedly based on a story by H.G. Wells.  I've tried (not very
diligently, I admit -- only when I think of it) to locate the story,
to no avail.  The plot of the movie (what I can draw from my rather
hazy recollection) was something like this:  A man mysteriously
appears in a French village.  He is young and beautiful, and behaves
as though the world is entirely new to him.  As indeed it was -- I
seem to remember that he was an angel, or some such being.  Anyway,
the movie revolves around the odd things that occur when he's around
-- the scene I remember most clearly is one in which he is strolling
down the street and comes across a can of gray paint next to a wall
(apparently whoever was painting had taken a break or something).  He
dips the brush into the paint, sweeps it across the wall, and lo and
behold!  The wall is painted in rainbow colors, coming from the gray
paint-laden brush.

I believe that somewhere along the line a girl falls in love with him
(of course).  At the end he is being chased by the villagers, who
don't understand and therefore are afraid of him.  He comes to a
cliff, falls off (perhaps he was wounded), and turns into a bird
(seagull or dove or something).

I really liked this movie, and would love to find the story on which
it was based, if the story in fact exists.  Has anyone else seen/heard
of this movie or the story?

                                                        --Nina Eppes

------------------------------

Date: 16 April 1982 21:45-EST
From: Charles F. Von Rospach <CHUQUI at MIT-MC>
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #41 (night gallery portraits)

There is(was?) a gallery in Hollywood, called, appropriately enough,
'Night Gallery'. It specialized in macabre paintings of the Night
Gallery type, and actually did sell some of the originals from the
show. Some of the paintings went back to the artists, and found their
way to market elsewhere. In some cases, the author of the story got or
bought the painting (I believe Harlan has a couple in Ellison
Wonderland), and the Studio kept some more. There are some of the best
on permanent display in the museum that is part of the Universal
Studio Tour in LA. I am sure I missed some, but they do show up once
in a while at art auctions at cons, and if you really want one, you
can try to track down the gallery...


chuck

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 1982 23:42:31-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Re: Chekov's career

   The thing that seems to have been entirely ignored in this
discussion is career tracking. In the heyday of the British Navy
(i.e., before steam became a significant factor) it was reasonable to
track each officer's career according to the date of his commission,
and to rank them on shipboard accordingly; I think courts martial
still have the power to move people down N notches on the seniority
list. The "science officer" was an unranked civilian such as Darwin on
the BEAGLE, while the "engineer", "helmsman", and "communications
officer" were NCO's (e.g., sailmasters, crew bosses).
   A starship should probably be more like a modern orchestra: there
are many people with rank in their specialties but only a few who
expect to have a major command (e.g. the concertmaster is both the
principle-violinist/default-soloist and the conductor in the absence
of the full-time leader, while other first seats will be responsible
for their sections and possibly have outside work as leaders of
smaller or amateur groups). It is entirely reasonable that Star Fleet
Command would decide that certain people have major leadership
potential and assign them accordingly to learn as broadly as possible,
while the majority of people would be tracked into specialties which
could entail some lesser degree of command if they make it to the
upper ranks.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  1-May                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #43
*** EOOH ***
Date: Saturday, May 1, 1982 9:59PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #43
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Friday, 30 Apr 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 43

Today's Topics:
                      SF Fandom - Westercon 35,
       SF Books - Starfishers & John Brunner & Shockwave Rider,
SF Movies - Bladerunner & Brainstorm & Query Answered & Star Trek II,
              SF Radio - HHGttG,  Spoiler - Star Trek II
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 April 1982 03:00 est
From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: Westercon 35

A couple of quick notes on the convention:

     Membership is now $25 for a full attending membership. This goes
     up to $35 on June 1. Mail memberships postmarked later than June
     15 will not be accepted.

     Supporting memberships are $8, with no increases.

     You must be at least a supporting member of WesterCon 35 to vote
     in the site selection for WesterCon 37. We are accepting mail
     ballots that are received by June 30.


             Paul

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 1982 0005-PDT
From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich)
Subject: Book Review: STARFISHERS

Just read the second in Glen Cook's new Starfishers trilogy,
STARFISHERS (the first was titled SHADOWLINE).  I think it's as good
as SHADOWLINE was - go ye all, and buy it!  It's in a completely
different setting than the first volume but, of course, carries on the
story line with at least some of the same characters.  (It's
paperback, $2.95, from Warner Books)

Enjoy,
Rich

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 1982 0724-PST
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
Subject: Brunner
Is there really a "John Brunner"?  Note that all the books are
copyright "Brunner Fact & Fiction Ltd.".  I envision a sweatshop in
some dingy London basement where a crew of chained literary hacks
churn out page after page...

Of course, it's just a tax dodge to be incorporated, but has anyone
ever seen Brunner?

By the way, since this is a British writer we are discussing, does
anyone else find it a bit strange to read British SF which assumes
that Britain will even exist in the future, and especially that
British science and technology will be advanced or have some value?
It certainly seems at odds with the decaying and degenerate image
Britain projects now.  I would be much more comfortable with an image
of, say, Brazilian science in the year 2150 than British, given what
things look like today.

Anglophiles may now rise up in wrath...

Will

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 82 7:36-PST
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Re: Brunner

Brunner was at Westercon in Sacramento last year. I admit having seen
him.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 1982 1842-PST
From: William "Chops" Westfield <BillW@SRI-KL>
Subject: Brunner's words...

You asked for it...  One of my favorite things about John Brunner is
the way his worlds have an evolved sociology, especially language.
After all, you can read Asimov classics and have people walking around
in three piece suits smoking cigars (Foundation).  This just doesn't
cut it now that we have some experience with just how fast technology
can change a way of life. If you think about it, slang terms for "men"
and "women" and "people" are exceeded in number only by terms for sex.
(guys + dolls + dames + boys + girls + studs + chicks + hunks +
wenches + damsels -- I seem to be able to think of more for women than
for men, probably the result of being male...)

"Poker" probably comes from one of those later slang words, as in "to
poke a bitch".  I'm not so sure where "shiver" comes from, and would
love to know where "Shiggy" (from 'Stand on Zanzibar') comes from.
Maybe they are all from foreign languages, as Brunner claims a knack
for languages...

As for Brunner being a hacker himself:

  "When I transferred at 13 to Cheltenham College, I was told
  politely but firmly by the senior science master that owing to my
  extraordinary ineptitude in mathematics he would prefer me to stay
  on the languages side.  This is how it came about that I, a
  so-called science fiction writer, have never had a science lesson in
  my life."

(from 'The Book of John Brunner'; DAW books, 1976)

W'C'W
 / \

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 1982 14:54 EST
From: Birnbaum.HENR at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #42

In response to Bibbero.PMSDMKT's message from v5#42

Shivver seems to be derived from "shiv" a slang term for a knife.

Poker is pretty obviously sexual.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 1982 1138-EST
From: MWT at MIT-DMS (Mark W. Terpin)
Subject: next harrison ford movie?

A friend in California said that it to be called "Bladerunner."  Has
anyone ever heard of this?

------------------------------

Date: 21-Apr-82 11:02:47 PST (Wednesday)
From: Newman.es at PARC-MAXC
Subject: You may never get to see "Brainstorm"

According to this morning's LA Times, MGM and director Doug Trumbull
have come to blows over the future of Trumbull's science-fiction film
"Brainstorm", starring the late Natalie Wood.

A rough cut of the film was to be shown to MGM executives last Friday
morning. However, the Times reports,

    Before the lights went down, Trumbull presented MGM-UA executives
  with a list of 62 scenes that were yet to be filmed, including
  special effects, second-unit photography and insert shots, such
  as one involving a hand picking up an object.  The list caused
  an outcry from the MGM brass and started an argument between
  [MGM-UA Chairman Frank] Rothman and Trumbull.  The result was
  the mass exodus from the screening room by both parties.

Trumbull and MGM are now accusing each other of bad faith.  Trumbull
says he doesn't want to deal with MGM any more, and MGM execs say they
won't let any other studio see the rough cut, "just in case MGM
executives find they like what they eventually might see."
The result:  "Brainstorm", which has already cost $25 million, may
never be completed.

/Ron

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 1982 0954-PST
From: Barry Eynon <EYNON at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Re: Query on "The Marvelous Visit"

 The movie Nina Eppes refers to sounds more like a movie version of
Mark Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger" than anything of H.G.Wells'
that I know of. The visitor is indeed an angel of a sort. (Any more
would be spoiling things). Just remember, he who brought fire to man
is not always called Prometheus! I highly recommend this story to
anyone whose only acquaintance with Twain is "Jumping Frog" or "Tom
Sawyer". I have the story in "Great Short Works of Mark Twain", Harper
& Row (1962), but it's probably in several collections. Anyone care to
comment on whether this story is SF or not? (I think it certainly
could be considered such).
-Barry Eynon

------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 1982 2032-PDT
From: Lynn Gold <G.FIGMO at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy broadcasts

For those of you in the SF Bay area, KFJC (89.7 FM) is now running the
program.  I believe the first episode went by last Wednesday, and the
program will be on Friday nights.

For exact dates and times, you can call KFJC at (415) 941-2500.

Enjoy!

--Lynn

------------------------------

Date: 22 April 1982 20:53 est
From: SSteinberg.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: Darwin as a science officer

[  The following message refers to some material that has appeared in
   recent issues of the digest under the Spoiler section.  However,
   it itself is not a spoiler.  -- Jim ]

Darwin was not an "officer"; he had no official standing on the Beagle
other than Captain's companion.  The ship's naturalist was a guy named
MacGregor or something.  Inter-rank fraternizing was forbidden by the
Admiralty and rather than go bonkers for five years the captain took
aboard a guy he met at his club.

------------------------------
Date: Saturday, May 1, 1982 9:59PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following message is the last in the digest.  It discuss some plot
details in the upcoming movie Star Trek II.  Some readers may not wish
to read on.

------------------------------

Date: 21-Apr-82 1509-EST
From: David Miller <Miller at YALE>
Subject: CHEKOVS COMMAND


       *************************SPOILER*************************

One thing about Chekov's sudden command status that I've noticed
nobody has mentioned, is its possible connection with the current
world political situation.  Stories are seldom written in a vacuum,
and the hacks at Paramount are less subtle than most.

From what we know of the plot:  that Chekov's ship is taken over by
Kahn, and eventually threatens the Universe, why is it surprising that
it is Chekov?  If Spock had made such a foul-up it would be considered
impossible, and the same for Scott; they are simply too cautious.  If
McCoy made such a mistake it would be un-American, and if it was Sulu
or Uhura it would be portraying their character in a racist or sexist
light.

Of all the regulars in TREK only Chekov is cute, stupid, always
forgiven, and RUSSIAN.  Therefore, if you are going to have to blame
the possible destruction of the Universe on one of Star Fleets finest,
might as well make it the lousy commie.
                                       --Dave
Date: Wednesday, May 5, 1982 4:48AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #44
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest          Monday, 3 May 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 44

Today's Topics:
              SF Topics - Female SF Authors & SF-TEXANA,
                       Random Topics - Hackers,
   SF Books - Brunner & Demon & The Gate & The Silver Metal Lover &
       The One Tree & Majipoor Chronicles & The Complete Robot,
           SF Movies - TESB & Star Trek III & Swamp Thing,
                        Spoiler - Swamp Thing
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 May 1982 11:19 edt
From: Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: Women SF Writers/Hackers in nonfiction

A profile of women SF writers appears in the 2 May New York Times Book
Review.  A profile of ace Apple hacker Paul Lutus appears in the 3 May
Wall Street Journal.  The Lutus article reinforces the image of
programmers as loner wierdos.  It also says that the "computer elite"
dislike his code because it is written "so densely that programmers
can't get inside to make changes."  I tried to modify one of his
programs once, and density wasn't the problem; it was just bad code.
Two hundred bit fiddles in search of a design, and patches everywhere.

Earl

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 1982 at 2248-CST
From: hjjh at UTEXAS-11
Subject: SF-TEXANA

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ SF-TEXANA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I have a "mundane" friend, a book-collector who focuses on Texana.
Rather surprisingly, there is a neat little handful of such in the SF
genre.  His very rough rule-of-thumb is that at least 1/3 of a book is
set in Texas or, in our case, a planet settled by Texans.
(Gilliland's REVOLUTION FROM ROSINANTE is a borderline case.  Its
sequel, LONG SHOT FOR ROSINANTE, like Bradley's BRASS DRAGON with just
a few scenes set in Texas, didn't qualify.)

Does anybody know of any in addition to --

1954 SHADOWS IN THE SUN by Chad Oliver

1955 THE GIRLS FROM PLANET 5 by Richard Wilson

1958 A PLANET FOR TEXANS (aka LONE STAR PLANET) by H. Beam Piper
1962 SEVEN FROM THE STARS by Marian Zimmer Bradley

1966 IF ALL THE REBELS DIE by Samuel B. Southwell

1968 A SPECTER IS HAUNTING TEXAS by Fritz Leiber

1974 THE TEXAS-ISRAELI WAR: 1999 by Waldrop & Saunders

1976 FOR TEXAS AND ZED by Zach Hughes

      LONE STAR UNIVERSE, ed. by Proctor & Utley

1981 THE REVOLUTION FROM ROSINANTE by Alexis Gilliland


There does seem to be a special little Texas niche in SF -- something
close to a new book about every 3 years or so.  I can't think of any
other state which appears in SF to this extent in the same way.
California with its motley of weird subcultures crops up as
background, but the Texas ones have the story woven around the Lone
Star State.

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 1982  21:35-EDT (Monday)
From: Mijjil (Matthew J. Lecin) <LECIN at GREEN>
Reply-to: Lecin at RUTGERS
Subject: has anyone seen Brunner?


Well McLure has.  Has anyone seen McLure?

[Mijjil]

(Sorry Stu...)

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 82 6:30-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX

There's been so little from this list lately, I've begun to wonder if
everyone has gone on vacation or if the list is dying a silent death.

Varley's next book DEMON is supposed to be out in Spring of 83.  He is
also working on a novel-length treatment called THE GATE, of his short
story "Air Raid".  I've noticed a disturbing trend over the last few
years.  More and more, authors are rehashing old material endlessly
and pouring out more sequels, prequels, coquels, etc., ad nauseum.
Varley, who is known for his originality, has succumbed to this
sequelism that invades the industry.  It seems that many authors are
taking the easy road out by coasting on their built-up universes, even
after the universe has lost its interest or even if it never had
interest to begin with: example, Varley's disappointing TITAN series
of which the above DEMON is supposedly the finale.  This series pales
in comparison to his Eight Worlds story series.  I'm almost at the
stage where I just don't buy anything in a series because I've been so
disheartened by many of the later works in series I have read:
examples, Amber, Dune, some of Le Guin's stuff, Busby's stuff, etc.
Or if I do buy, I only buy the first work or selected works.

Has anyone read any good self-contained SF novels lately?

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 1982 1310-PDT
From: Stuart McLure Cracraft <McLure at SRI-KL>
Subject: book reviews

    By Roland J. Green
    (c) 1982 Chicago Sun-Times (Field News Service)

    Tanith Lee's record of at least 14 novels in the last seven years
is impressive. Still more impressive is her versatility. She has
handled fantasy, straight SF, horror, and black comedies of far-future
decadence with equal aplomb. When one goes on to consider that every
one of the 14 novels is at least good and some far more than that,
''impressive'' ceases to be an adequate word. ''Phenomenon'' comes to
mind, as a more accurate description for this young Englishwoman.
    Her latest book, ''The Silver Metal Lover'' (DAWNAL, $2.75
paperback), is an excellent introduction to Lee's many gifts. It is
the deceptively simple story of Jane, a classic poor little rich girl
on a future Earth who falls in love with a fully functional humanoid
robot, the musician Silver. The situation quickly complicates itself
when Silver is recalled by his manufacturers for being too good an
imitation of humanity. Then he discovers that he is in love with Jane.
Pursuit and betrayal follow, and the novel ends, not happily perhaps,
but on a curiously satisfying note with overtones of fantasy.
    As is the case more often than not, Lee has done, and done well,
just about everything that goes into making a good SF novel. A
believable and well-drawn world, well-developed characterization,
technological extrapolation, an exceptional command of the English
language - all are here. Every reader is likely to find something
particularly appealing in this book. Personal favorites include Jason
and Medea, psychopathic twins who are so memorably unpleasant one is
heartily glad to see the last of them, and a deceptively simple scene
where Jane and Silver decorate their slum apartment with the
equivalent of Salvation Army rejects. In two pages, Lee has written a
small masterpiece of characterization, world-building, and
mood-setting.
    In contrast to Tanith Lee's versatility, Stephen Donaldson has so
far devoted himself resolutely to chronicling the otherworldly
adventures of the leper Thomas Covenant. His fourth book, ''The One
Tree'' (Del ReyBallantine, $14.50) is the second volume of his second
trilogy. Covenant and his companion Dr. Linden Avery travel [garbled
in transmission - Jim] by giants, in search of the One Tree.  From the
One Tree Covenant must make a new Staff of Law to free the Land from
the Sunbane, a disease unleashed by his enemy from the first trilogy,
Lord Foul.
    This is the most readable of Donaldson's books, although the sheer
richness of his language is still occasionally overpowering. The story
flows smoothly and the characters are both comprehensible and
sympathetic, particularly Dr. Avery. At the same time Donaldson has
lost none of his rare gift for firmly pushing high fantasy back to its
mythic origins. There is, for example, nothing cute or romantic about
his elf-like Elohim. They are terrifying self-willed and massively
indifferent to Covenant's desperate quest, his physical sufferings,
and his struggle to control his growing magical powers.
    Finally, two of science fiction's old masters have returned
agreeably to previously explored territory. Robert Silverberg's
''Majipoor Chronicles'' (Arbor House, $12.95; $5.95 paperback) takes
us back to the huge and complex planet of Majipoor he created for his
bestselling ''Lord Valentine's Castle.'' Lord Valentine's heir is
exploring the telepathically recorded archives of the planet; the
episodes he discovers make up the stories in the book. Majipoor was so
vividly brought to life in the novel that the possibility of exploring
it further was obvious. Conducted by a writer of Silverberg's gifts,
the result of this exploration is fine entertainment.
    Isaac Asimov's ''The Complete Robot'' (Doubleday, $19.95) presents
the author's handling of the idea of the robot through 31 of his
favorite stories, dating from 1939 through 1977. Many have not been
readily available for years, some have never been collected in a book,
and some (such as the Susan Calvin stories) can hardly be reprinted
too often. All display in varying combinations Asimov's spare prose,
wit, and deeply concerned rationalism. This book is not only full of
good reading, it is topical as well - particularly at a time when
robots have become a technological and economic reality.

------------------------------

Date: 3-May-82 11:42AM-EDT (Mon)
From: Bill Gropp <Gropp at YALE>
Subject: TESB rerelease?

Does anyone know if Lucas intends to re-release TESB sometime before
Revenge of the Jedi come out?  Using the only available data, that
would suggest that TESB will come out this month (a year ahead of
tRotJ).  Anyone know anything?

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 1982 1952-PDT
From: Bill <YEAGER at SUMEX-AIM>
Subject: Spock

I read an interview with Leonard Nimoy today in the Sunday paper. Two
interesting comments were made. The first is that he is negotiating a
very lucrative contract for a contract for a THIRD STAR TREK MOVIE,
and the second is that something very weird happens to Spock in the up
and coming Star Trek film, and we have to see the film to really
understand it.

So, Star Trek Fans, Spock isn't dead yet! And I for one am glad.

Bill

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 1982 1047-PDT
From: Robert Amsler <AMSLER at SRI-AI>
Subject: Swamp Thing

The main impression I got from this B movie is that it somehow was
made for television and escaped into a movie theater by mistake. It
was a trifle too racy for TV, but apart from that looked very much
like a pilot for a new show. Having a brief exposure to the real comic
hero, I think it was quite faithful, except for adding some
Recombinant DNA explanations. The major conclusion I reached was that
even as a TV pilot it would have flopped because it was too similar to
existing shows such as the Incredible Hulk and even elements of the
Phoenix.

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, May 5, 1982 4:48AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following message is the last in the digest.  It discusses some
plot details in the movie The Swamp Thing.  Some readers may not wish
to read on.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 1982 1047-PDT
From: Robert Amsler <AMSLER at SRI-AI>
Subject: Swamp Thing


The story is based upon an unlikely secret govt. research project site
in the swamps (of South Carolina, I believe).  The heroine is coming
in via sea-plane and boat to replace someone who has been killed
(eaten by a gator). She utters one of the humorous lines in the movie
while riding the boat through the swamp... "I don't know where we are
Toto, but this isn't Kansas" a joke which none of the others in the
boat understood. When she arrives she proceeds to find a sensor out of
order out in the swamp, is assisted in finding it by the young
brilliant scientist of the project who takes a liking to her. Upon
their return the brilliant scientist's sister has just made the
breakthrough discovery, a new glop that does marvelous things to the
wooden floor boards, making them sprout as trees in about 10 minutes.
A further test on a swamp plant is made but interrupted by a commando
raid on the site by the arch villain who is there to seize the formula
(whatever formula there happens to be). He manages to kill off all
except the heroine and the brilliant scientist, but then the scientist
gets splashed with the glop, ignites (it causes explosions and
apparently burns well too). He dashes out of the lab and dives in the
swamp.  Anyway... Having secured the lab books (all except one) he
proceeds to then order the disposal of the bodies (and the heroine) in
the swamp. While trying to push her under from a boat we get our first
encounter with the Swamp Thing. It rises from the waters, overturns
the boat, roars, saves the girl etc. In general the swamp thing's
appearances were well done. It always explodes on the scene and wrecks
things faster and with more violence than other monsters or
superhero/heroines tend to. There has been too too much slow motion
superstrength on TV and in the theater. This approach is refreshing.

We learn the swamp thing is in fact the good brilliant scientist, and
that he has retained his human mind (just acquired a tough plant
body). From there on things are muddled. People escape, are captured,
escape again, are captured again. The swamp thing appears, is shot at,
disappears, rescues the girl, is shot at, disappears, etc.  In one
scene it has an arm chopped off (NO, not a rip off from TESB), but it
grows back in a dungeon when a ray of sunlight makes contact. Anyway.
The arch villian tries out the glop formula on one of his henchmen and
we learn that it "simply makes you more of whatever you already are"
because it turns the henchman into a midget. The arch villian, having
a suitable ego, decides that becoming more of what he truly is would
make him a god, and gulps down the glop himself. He becomes a beast, a
la the beauty and the beast I believe, and grabs a sword to hack up
the brilliant scientist (now the Swamp Thing) for having done this to
him.  Everybody escapes to the swamp. The arch villain himself gets
hacked up. The end.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  6-May                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #45
*** EOOH ***
Date: Thursday, May 6, 1982 12:37PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #45
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Thursday, 6 May 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 45

Today's Topics:
           SF Books - Here's the Plot...What's the Title &
                        Rider Factoring Query,
        SF Movies - Bladerunner & Tron & Revenge of the Jedi,
                    Spoiler - Revenge of the Jedi
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 April 1982 22:15 edt
From: SSteinberg.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: Juvenile (?) SF Query

What book involves an archeological expedition to a planet named Higby
IV?  (I noticed I had data for this planet in a 15 year old Fortran
program to calculate orbits.)  I remember an elephant like character
who got drunk on pollen and a sister who was a telepath.  I think they
found a lost civilization (possibly in a Dyson sphere) but that might
have been another book.

------------------------------

Date: 3-May-82 1808-EDT
From: David Schweizer <Schweizer at YALE>
Subject: Rider Factoring, Ltd query

Does anybody know where the Chap Fuey Rider stories came out?  Have
they been anthologized?  (I think they were in Analog, but I'm not
sure.)

                           Thanks,
                           David Schweizer

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 1982 14:13 PDT
From: Fusco.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #43

Bladerunner stars Harrison Ford as a detective in the not-too-distant
future.  The movie has played at some sneak previews and is due to
premiere sometime this summer.

Joe

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 1982 1128-EDT
From: Lori Z. Thomas <ZOE at MIT-EECS>
Subject: "Bladerunner"

The new Harrison Ford movie is intend titled "Bladerunner", written by
Philip K. Dick.  Believe it or not, I found this information by
casually picking up a copy of Rod Serling's Twilight Zone magazine, a
publication I have not seen in years (and would never be caught buying
in the Harvard Bookstore; subscription, yes.)  Anyway, there was a big
interview with Philip K. Dick, as well as a lavish, two-page color
pictorial.  I believe it's scheduled for a summer release....

------------------------------

Date: 03 May 1982 1552-PDT
From: Phil Gerring <PEG at SU-AI>
Subject: Bladerunner inquiry (SFL 5/43)

"Bladerunner" is a moderately good book by (I believe) Alan E. Nourse.
The basic idea is that in some future time in the U.S., population
pressure has become so great and health care so correspondingly scarce
that only people above a certain level in this by-now class-divided
society can legally obtain it .  A bladerunner is someone who smuggles
medical supplies to the sites of a doctor's (illegal) house calls.
Since the doctors are required to be associated with a hospital/clinic
and may not carry supplies outside of it, bladerunners are a vital,
although low-level and expendable, link in the underworld (almost
literally, since the lower city levels are where the lower classes
live) health care business.

Although a good yarn, I tend to think that the basic premises are a
little ill-founded.  I think John Varley's view of future medicine
(Ophiuchi Hotline, etc.) is the more accurate one; i.e., as medical
science progresses, health care will become more and more simple and
widely-available.

                                        Phil Gerring

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 1982 0307-EDT
From: WHOLEY at CMU-20C
Subject: Of interest to fans of both Disney and DEC...

The first thing that struck me about Disney's summer SF film, TRON, a
movie about how computers evolve to not need humans anymore, was that
its name is a PDP-10 instruction (Test Right halfword setting masked
bits to One, skip if Not all masked bits equaled zero).  What amazed
me was that the op-code for TRON is 666, the number of the beast!

I've since heard that some of the whizzy graphics in the movie were
done with the assistance of some sort of DEC-10 or 20.  One might
believe that the name is a pun on the TRON instruction invented by the
hackers associated with the film.  Could anyone out there verify or
disprove this?

--Skef

------------------------------
Date: 28 Apr 1982 at 1838-CDT
From: hjjh at UTEXAS-11
Subject: STAR WARS NEWS TRIVIA

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ STAR WARS NEWS TRIVIA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

My friend The Ultimate Star Wars Fan recently returned from what has
become an annual trek to Britain related to SW, DR WHO, THE PRISONER
(and heaven only knows what else!)

Most of her time was spent "Whovering"-- tea with John Pertwee, her
favorite DR; pub dates with the Brigadier; meeting Peter somebody-
or-other, the latest DR, at BBC; and so on.

One highlight of the trip, related to SW, was visiting Dave Prowse
(Vader) at the gym he runs, while a TV crew was there making a feature
on Dave's training methods for making Christopher Reeves look
Superman-ish.

Unfortunately, shooting on REVENGE OF THE JEDI was over, so she didn't
get to visit the set, and she was regrettably (tho understandably)
close-mouthed about anything she had gleaned about JEDI.

I pried out only one clue to anything in the movie, and even that may
well be just a red herring.  But if when ...JEDI comes, you see Vader
actually pick up something fairly heavy and throw it (rather than
moving it by means of the Force), remember you heard of it on
SF-LOVERS, but don't say a word or she'll have my guts for garters!

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, May 6, 1982 12:37PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following message is the last in the digest.  It discusses some
plot details in the movie Revenge of the Jedi.  Some readers may not
wish to read on.

------------------------------

Date: Monday,  3 May 1982 15:13-PDT
From: chris at RAND-UNIX
Subject: Revenge of the Jedi at Yuma (SPOILER)

A few friends of mine went down to Yuma, Arizona off and on during the
last month to watch Lucasfilms work on "Blue Horizon", billed in the
Yuma papers as a horror-mystery starring complete unknowns.  With Mark
Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Anthony Daniels, Kenny Baker, Harrison Ford and
George Lucas all in town, it seemed only natural to suspect that Lucas
was putting out a smoke-screen (he shot sequences for American
Graffiti II under the title of "Purple Haze").  The set, in the dunes
off of Highway 8, seems to be a sand sailer--an enormous metal
transport with two or three red triangular curved canopies--facing a
gigantic pit.  Filming done in the pit was invisible to onlookers, but
included most of the cast--it may be the rescue scene for Han from
Tatooine or "the spice mines of Kessel".  During some of the
sequences, Mark Hamill was dressed in BLACK (disguise?  Has he gone
over to the dark side?).  Scenes shot on the top of the transport/
building were visible, and included Boba Fett jetting into the sky
despite the attempts of some aliens we have never seen before trying
to stop him.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  7-May                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #46
*** EOOH ***
Date: Friday, May 7, 1982 4:46AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #46
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Saturday, 8 May 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 46

Today's Topics:
      SF Books - Here's the Plot...What's the Title & The Gate &
        Riddley Walker,  SF Movies - Bladerunner & The Gate &
    Revenge of the Jedi & TRON & The World,The Flesh and The Devil
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 May 1982 2359-PDT
From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich)
Subject: Mixup (again) on BLADERUNNER

BLADERUNNER, the movie, is based on the Philip K. Dick novel, "Do
Androids Dream of Electric Sheep".  BLADERUNNER, the novel, is by
Nourse (and I believe he was paid for the movie rights to use the
title).

This was previously covered in SFl, by the way.

-Cheers,
 Rich

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 1982 18:04 edt
From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: Here's the plot...

When last I was back East, I caught the tail end of a very interesting
film on the late late night TV. This was an old Gene Autrey episode in
which Gene and the Singing Cowboys encounter aliens living in an
underground city beneath their ranch. The city and aliens both
resemble the Flash Gordon serials of the same era.

Anyone know anything more about this episode??

                Paul

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 1982 21:33:58-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Varley

   The novel-length treatment of "Air Raid" probably is being done
specifically at the request of the company making a movie derived from
the story (which doesn't have enough by itself to be a reasonable
film).  I don't think that this is something to squawk about,
especially since Varley, last year at Balticon, had some confidence in
the expected quality of the resulting film.

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 1982 2359-EDT
From: Thomas Galloway <Galloway at YALE>
Subject: Varley's rehashing


From what i understand, the reason Varley is writing the novel version
of Air Raid (The Gate) is that it is being made into a movie in an
expanded version (presumably resulting in megabucks for Varley).
Since there was to be a novelization of the movie, he preferred to
write it.

Actually, i was a bit surprised by the choice of story, since i never
thought Air Raid was one of his better stories, but ...  Anyway, as i
recall, last year on the digest it was said that the movie would be
titled Millennium, which was the same title as a Bova book and
suggestions were being sought be Varley for a new title.  Did anyone
on the net have something to do with this new title?

tom galloway
GALLOWAY@YALE
decvax!yale-comix!galloway

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 1982 01:04-EDT
From: Allan C. Wechsler <ACW at MIT-AI>
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #44


Stu McLure was wondering if anybody had read anything good lately.

I just finished Russel Hoban's "Riddley Walker".  It wasn't fantastic,
folks, and maybe it wan't even excellent.  It was just good.

The novel describes about three days in the life of twelve-year-old
Riddley Walker.  Riddley lives in post-holocaust England, among the
ruined towns in the vicinity of Canterbury.  It's been thousands of
years since a global disaster (presumably nuclear war) knocked
humanity back to savagery.

Riddley tells his own story in time-mangled English.  The language is
the best part of the book.  Riddley says at one point that the written
language was lost and rediscovered.  At first the twisted spelling and
grammar just seem like illiteracy, but as the pages turn, Riddley's
language reveals its own internal consistency.  Riddley is literate,
and highly so, for his time.  His lexicon is the prize of the book.
In Riddley's language, people don't get "excited"; they get "as
cited".  When you're doing something important, you don't want any
"inner fearents".  Many of the vocabulary changes hint at underlying
semantic and cognitive changes as well.  (To be really picky, I should
add that Riddley's English hasn't changed enough to be linguistically
believable.  It's about as readable as Shakespeare, and I couldn't
find any major pronunciation changes.)
"Riddley Walker" has no bad guys.  Antagonisms are all temporary: they
last until Riddley starts to understand the antagonist.  Riddley's
real enemy is ignorance.  He's woefully aware that humanity has lost
something vital.  Everything he knows about the past is encoded in
stories and doggerel.  The most important story is the "Eusa Story",
an allegory about the holocaust and its aftermath.  Eusa is a folk
hero, sharply reminiscent of Job.  His name is corrupted from St.
Eustace, whose life is depicted in paintings in Canterbury Cathedral.
By Riddley's time, the Cathedral is millennia gone, but a flyer
describing the paintings forms the core of the Eusa Story.

The plot is a lot less interesting than the mood.  Riddley's dad, a
"connexion man" or visionary preacher, is killed in a sort of mining
accident.  (The "mine" is more like an archaeological dig -- they are
reclaiming iron from antediluvian contraptions.)  Riddley is the new
connexion man for his crowd.  But he feels alienated from them, and he
runs away with a pack of feral dogs.  The dogs lead him to the hiding
place of the Ardship of Cambry (Archbishop of Canterbury), who is
hiding out from the Pry Mincer.  The Mincer thinks the Ardship knows
the Secret of the One Big One, the knowledge that will enable England
to climb back to technological civilization.  The climax of the novel
is the resurrection of the Punch'n'Judy puppet show, a silly-sounding
event that Hoban transforms into a religious reawakening and a symbol
that humanity has started to look forward again.

Mood: ****
Motif: *
Plot: **
Characterization: ***
Writing: ****

   ---Allan

P.S.  Cf.  Crowley's "Engine Summer".

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 1982 0200-PDT (Friday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Lucas filming


[ This message follows up on something mentioned in the spoiler
section of the previous issue, but is not a spoiler itself.  -- Jim ]

As has been suggested, the filming in Arizona was indeed for Jedi.
The large metal "transport" is an "antigravity platform/raft".

That's all I'll say.  You didn't hear it from me.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 1982 1356-EDT
From: WHOLEY at CMU-20C
Subject: TRON, Disney, and DEC

The name of Disney's new movie, TRON, is a PDP-10 instruction (Test
Right halfword setting masked bits to One and skip if Not all masked).
This by itself is no great coincidence.  But TRON is about some kind
of evilness about computers, and TRON's opcode is 666...  It has been
rumored that some of TRON's graphics were done on DEC-10's or 20's.
Could it be that the name of the movie was suggested by hackers
involved with the production of this movie?  Can anyone out there
support or refute this possibility?

--Skef


------------------------------

Date: 6 May 1982 21:56-EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: The World, The Flesh and The Devil

was a 1959 movie that played recently on Boston TV.  Has anyone else
seen this?  It takes place in the aftermath of a nuclear war,
apparently (I missed the beginning) in a New York City undamaged but
uninhabited except for a black man (Harry Belafonte) and a white woman
(Inger Stevens).  There is growing tension between the natural love
that develops between the (apparent) last man and woman on earth, and
the still-extant social taboo against interracial relationships.  The
tension climaxes upon the entrance of a white man (Mel Ferrer), and we
see the emergence in microcosm of the very emotions that earlier led
to the nuclear war.  Borderline SF, perhaps, but extremely
interesting, I thought.  I wish I'd seen the beginning.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  9-May                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #47
*** EOOH ***
Date: Sunday, May 9, 1982 2:23AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #47
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest          Sunday, 9 May 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 47

Today's Topics:
           SF Books - Here's the Plot...What's the Title &
                  Bladerunner & Snow Queen & Series,
          SF Movies - Bladerunner & E.T. & Forbidden World &
  The World,The Flesh and The Devil & Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan,
                Spoiler - Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 05/06/82 1655-EDT
From: J. Baldassini <GNC @ LL>
Subject: Here's the plot, what's the title ?

   A very long time ago I read a short story about a Dixeyland jazz
combo that was going to compete in this galaxy-wide arts competition.
The tuba(?) player for the group gets hurt somehow, the group finds a
substitute that plays even better, and goes on to win (or at least
places highly in) the competition. As I recall, the story was told
from the POV of the trumpet player. Can anyone give me the title
and/or author of this story ?  I'd enjoy reading it again.

------------------------------

Date: 07 May 1982 1102-PDT
From: Phil Gerring <PEG at SU-AI>
Subject: Bladerunner the book vs. Bladerunner the movie

        Date: 7 May 1982 09:57 PDT
        From: Shipper.ES at PARC-MAXC
        Subject: bladerunner

        the book "bladerunner" is not the same as the movie.  the
        movie is based on phil dick's "do androids dream of electric
        sheep."  i believe that nourse was paid to use the name
        "bladerunner" for the movie.

        /steve .

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 1982 2304-MDT
From: William Galway <Galway at UTAH-20>
Subject: Bladerunner

I just noticed a copy of "Bladerunner" at the local bookstore.  In
reality it's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" by Philip K. Dick.
Apparently the movie is based on the book (I would guess about as
closely as movies based on books usually are)--so someone figured it
would be good marketing to retitle the book to correspond to the
movie.  (This is all very aboveboard, I'm basically just spouting what
I read on the inside cover of the book.)

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 1982 10:36 PDT
From: Coleman.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: re: "Has anyone read any good self-contained SF novels
Subject: lately?"

Mr. McLure,
        If you haven't read last years hugo winner "Snow Queen" by
Joan Vinge, you really should.  She manages to build an entire complex
society for the readers without having to resort to describing it in
boring detail in the first part of the book and then getting around to
telling her story.  I won't even try to tell you the plot because it
was somewhat complicated and it's been awhile since I read it (it's
been loaned out).  Also you might try "Wave" and "Wave Without A
Shore".  One of these is by C J Cherryh and I've forgotten the name of
the other author, I'm sure that someone on the list will give you his
name.  These were both good books, one is based on a society with the
philosophy is "I think it is, therefore it is".  Our hero is involved
in a power struggle with another man to determine which of their
pictures of the universe will win out.  It is a nice philosophical
work with some nice BEM-type aliens and a dash of "Space War" action.
The other book is a story about an investigator who has come to a
planet to investigate a strange accident/disappearance.  The story
itself ebbs and flows like the tides in a large ocean.  I really
enjoyed this one.

Any comments??

                        Michele

P.S.  I have enjoyed the Titan series so far.

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 1982 0951-PDT (Friday)
From: heath at UCLA-Security (Frank Heath)
Subject: Rehashes and New Films

I would like to second Mclure's comment on sequels et al.  Short of
rave reviews I will not buy anything titled "The first in the ???
Trilogy".  It seems to be an excuse for a weak plot which is only
partially resolved with the remainder left as a cliffhanger.  I was a
little disappointed in Zelanzy's "Madwand" which will apparently be
followed by others.  Has anyone heard of a new Steven Spielberg film
"E.T. The Extra Terrestrial (in his adventure on earth)" or "Forbidden
World (a Science Fiction horror in Deep Space)".  The former is due
out June 11 according to a promo distributed at UCLA. The later has
just come out.  I haven't seen anything about them and find this
surprising in Spielbergs case.

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 1982 1359-MDT
From: Dudley Irish <IRISH at UTAH-20>
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #46

Re: The World, The Flesh and The Devil:

Its a good thing you knew the title because I never would have
remembered.  The holocost that takes place is biological in nature.
If I remember correctly the black man was in a mine cave in when the
cloud passed over, the woman was with a group of scientists in a
decompression chamber (the others in the decompression chamber killed
themselves I believe), and I think that the white man was at sea when
it all happened and managed to escape that way.  It is, in fact, a
very good movie in my opinion, well worth the watching if you get a
chance.  The ways in which the characters handle being the last people
alive are very interesting and the way in which they start the whole
mess over again, although predictable, is good.

                                                Dudley Irish
                                                IRISH@UTAH-20

------------------------------

Date: 7-May-82 11:39:16 PDT (Friday)
From: Klose.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: ST:TWOK The plot

Last night, I attended a pre-release screening of "Star Trek: The
Wrath of Khan" at Paramount Studios in Hollywood.  The film is
scheduled to be released on June 4th, but Nicholas Meyer (the
director) indicated that they are hard at work to meet that deadline.
The print we saw was partially completed.  The last third of the film
used raw footage and had a rough soundtrack.

nano-review: ST:TWOK is definitely worth seeing.

pico-review: This film recaptures the spirit of the TV series and
(unlike ST:TMP) is a successful adaption of the series to the big
screen.

micro-review: The plot is standard TV series fare and is probably less
interesting than that of ST:TMP.  However, ST:TWOK succeeds because
there is more emphasis placed on the characters, than on the special
effects (which are never spectacular, but are always excellent) and
because it never loses touch with its roots in the TV series.

-- Paul

------------------------------

Date: Sunday, May 9, 1982 2:23AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following messages are the last in the digest.  They are
progressively stronger spoilers for the movie Star Trek: The Wrath of
Khan.  Many plot details are discussed.  Some readers may not wish to
read on.

------------------------------

Date: Sunday, May 9, 1982 2:23AM
From: Klose.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: ST:TWOK The plot (MILD SPOILER)

** MILD SPOILER:
   Impressions of the film without giving away any of the plot **

When the film began with the familiar star-filled void and the Star
Trek theme, it gave me a good feeling.  Then, a female's voice:
"Captain's Log, Stardate...".  All right!

I got the feeling that Meyer was well aware of what was wrong with
ST:TMP and successfully avoided problems that were inherent in the
original.  There are a few scenes which were almost like "reshots" of
scenes from ST:TMP.  It was as if Meyer had seen ST:TMP and said to
himself, "I would have done it this way".  In fact, I believe that the
first action in the film is an intentional parody of ST:TMP.

The script is not as melodramatic as ST:TMP and there is a lot of
off-the-wall humor ala SW and TESB.  The relationships between all of
the crew members are played off of each other.  Ricardo Montoblan does
a good job as Khan.  The main new character is Saavik, an attractive
and highly logical female Vulcan.  She will probably become a regular
in future movies.

All of the regulars return.  Spock currently captains the Enterprise
and Kirk is still an Admiral.  McCoy, Uhura, Scotty, Sulu, et al. are
all still aboard the Enterprise.  The only exception is Chekov, who
commands another vessel, the Reliant.  The new kid, Saavik, is the
first mate on the Enterprise and is training to be Captain.

The special effects are as good as anything made post-SW.
Particularly impressive was a very well-designed alien.  Kirk's
shuttle hovering around the Enterprise in ST:TMP was "refilmed" in
ST:TWOK, with a much better degree of success.  The space shots seem
to be more realistic, looking less like models.  Computer graphics is
used a lot (mostly of the lined type).  However, there is some
extremely nice graphics using textured surfaces.

All in all, I think Star Trek fans will not be disappointed.  I guess
it must be possible for studios to learn from their mistakes.

-- Paul

------------------------------

Date: 7-May-82 11:39:16 PDT (Friday)
From: Klose.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: ST:TWOK The plot (MODERATE SPOILER)

** MODERATE SPOILER:
   Basic plot synopsis without giving away any plot twists **

The Enterprise is now being used primarily as a training vessel for
new recruits.  Kirk is aboard to assist in training exercises and for
nostalgia.  The Reliant's mission is to find a suitable lifeless
planet to be used in the Genesis project, a "bomb" which can instantly
and violently convert matter into a planet with an Earth-like
environment.  The Genesis project is being run from a space station by
an old flame of Kirk's.

Chekov unknowingly beams down to the planet which is inhabited by Khan
and his renegades.  Khan implants an alien into Chekov's ear which
gives Khan control over his mind.  Khan then uses Chekov and the
Reliant to capture the Genesis project and to lure Kirk and the
Enterprise.  The movie deals with the cat and mouse struggle between
Khan/Reliant and Kirk/Enterprise.

-- Paul

------------------------------

Date: 7-May-82 11:39:16 PDT (Friday)
From: Klose.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: ST:TWOK The plot (SUPER SPOILER)

** SUPER SPOILER:
   Gives away major plot resolutions (read at own risk!!) **

It turns out that Kirk's old flame is actually his ex and that her
young blond assistant is actually Kirk's son.  Khan is killed when he
tries to destroy the disabled Enterprise by blowing up the Reliant
using the Genesis "bomb".  Spock enters the radioactive engine room to
make vital repairs, facing certain death.

And has been expected, Spock dies saving the Enterprise from
destruction.  His funeral is very emotional, with everybody crying and
Scotty playing "Amazing Grace" on the bagpipes.  The coffin is
jetisoned to the surface of the Genesis planet and the film sort of
leaves it open for the possibility of his future ressurection by
showing the coffin amongst the ferns on the planet surface.

-- Paul

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 10-May                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #48
*** EOOH ***
Date: Monday, May 10, 1982 1:17AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #48
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Monday, 10 May 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 48

Today's Topics:
            SF Books - Harlan Ellison Query & Dream Park &
                "Glossolalia" & The Dark Bright Water,
            SF Music - TRON & Bladerunner & Wendy Carlos,
                  SF Movies - Secret of Nihn & TRON
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 May 82 20:51-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Harlan Ellison question

In the paperback version of his ALONE AGAINST TOMORROW on the 'books
by Harlan Ellison' page, at the bottom he lists forthcoming books
(printed in 1971), one of which is DEMON WITH A GLASS HAND, presumably
having something to do with the Outer Limits episode.  Does anyone
know if this ever came to fruition? or whether it, like THE LAST
DANGEROUS VISIONS still sits on the backburner.

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 1982 19:34-EDT
From: Charles F. Von Rospach <CHUQUI at MIT-AI>
Subject: Read anything good lately?

McClure asked if we had read anything good recently. Well, I have, and
I found it in a very unusual place.

The book I am talking about is 'Dream Park', by Larry Niven and Steve
Barnes. I am nominating it for my suprise of the year because I had
sworn off of Niven books forever after getting tired of reading my
favorite author decline into a series of claptrap commercialized
pieces of dodo, with the Topper being the (to me, at least) totally
losing 'Ringworld Engineers'. With very few exceptions, I found his
collaborations boring and senseless, and I finally got tired of being
disappointed. I pretty much cut my teeth on Vintage Niven, and
watching an author of his talent churn out high paying contractual
slush on the level of a Stephen Goldin made me sick.

The only reason I even attempted Dream Park was because I got it for
about 50 cents as part of joining the SF Book Club (after a couple
years of not being a member). I opened very slowly, like a masochist
expecting another failure.  And I couldn't put it down. I found it to
be one of the most enjoyable books I have read in the last year. The
merging of technology and D&D was up to some of Nivens finest hard
science books. The characters lived and breathed like I haven't seen
them before. Without drooling too heavily, I would be more than happy
to recommend this book to anyone who is looking for a good time...
chuck

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 1982 2026-PDT
From: Telecon at OFFICE-8 (ALMSA TeleconferenceCOL J Leszczynski)
Subject: GLOSSOLALIA

For a quick laugh, hackers and computer language phreaks may want to
check out a story by Arlan Keith Andrews, Sr. ("Glossolalia") in the
July 82 issue of ANALOG magazine.

It's the story of the documenting of the building of the Babylonian
Ziggurat, constructed by the Babylonia-Assyria Building Erectors, Ltd
(BABEL) under contract to the Royal Department of Development (DoD).
Their main method of storing data is digital encoding (thin-fingered
scribes) on hard disks (mud tablets baked in the sun).  They employ
several sub-contractors, among them Tarsus Instruments, the Dravidian
Engineering Consultants and Isis/Nile/Tutankhamen Enterprises, Ltd.
Eventually the hard disks are stacked higher than the tower they are
building, threatening a crash...  ...and on and on (well, for 6 1/2
pages, anyway).

Enjoy,
Rich

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 1982 20:14:42 EDT (Sunday)
From: David Mankins <dm at BBN-RSM>
Subject: good books

Some months back I sent in a review of Patricia Wrightson's "The Ice
is Coming", a fantasy novel based in modern-day Australia, dealing
with Australian aboriginal mythology of Earth-spirits and one's place.

It was a good book.

Last week, I found a copy of the sequel "The Dark Bright Water."  This
novel is similar in tone, and follows the adventures of Wirrun, as he
learns what it means to be a Hero of the People.  A storm, has washed
a water-sprite out to sea.  Being a fresh-water creature, she cannot
stand the sea (the salt burns her skin) and, when she encounters a
current of fresh-water, she follows it underground, where she is
trapped, far from her own land.

Meanwhile, Wirrun goes to the mountain, where Ko-in, an ancient Hero
of the People, gave him a Power, wrapped in a cord made from
possum-skin.  Wirrun has gone to put the Power back where he found it.
While there, he hears a haunting song (in a woman's voice) that
subsequently haunts him for the next year.

Meanwhile, the central-Australian aborigines find their springs drying
up, and land once desert flowering with the subterranean flow of
water.  Weird stuff; even weirder, the Land is over-run with spirits
out of their country.  This is a matter to be brought to a Hero's
attention, so they send for Wirrun, the Ice-Fighter.

Knowing nothing about the legends of the Australian Aborigines, I
found both these books (The Ice is Coming, and The Dark, Bright,
Water) to be fascinating reading.  Even if its bad anthropology, it
sure is good story-telling.

****

Philip K. Dick's recent death prompted me to read more of his novels.

Though I was weirded-out by "Valis", and not really taken by "Ubik",
(the latter was good, but not riveting), the excerpt from "Now wait
for Last Year" printed here in noting his death prompted me to go on
and read some of his other works.  I find his earlier work to be Good
Stuff.  Not as drugged-out and the endings work better.

"The Man in the High Castle"

    Ever wonder what life in the United States would be like if Japan
    and Germany had won World War II?  Read this book and you'll know.

"Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"

    Gosh, if the book is half as good as the title...It is, at least
    that much.  The book is about a bounty-hunter in a entropic world
    (where everything is falling apart, and humanity fleeing to
    colonies on other planets, hunting down androids masquerading as
    humans.  Why should being an android trying to lead an ordinary
    life be a capital offense?  It's a good book, anyway.  It's been
    re-released under the title "Bladerunner", with a painting of
    Harrison Ford on the cover, because of the movie (discussed
    recently here).

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 1982  19:28-EDT (Friday)
From: Mijjil (Matthew J. Lecin) <LECIN at GREEN>
Reply-to: Lecin at RUTGERS
Subject: TRON, Blade Runner - scores, no spoilers...


TRON:

Music by Wendy Carlos - I believe the FIRST score she has done since
BECOMING Wendy Carlos, no?  We all remember his work as Walter Carlos,
particularly "A Clockwork Orange" and "Switched-On Bach"...

BLADE RUNNER:  (Opens June 25th.)

Effects are by Douglas Trumbull (I didn't know that!) and the music is
by (you guessed it) Academy Award Winner VANGELIS...

[Mijjil]

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 1982 04:46-EDT
From: Stuart M. Cracraft <MCLURE at MIT-AI>
Subject: Wendy Carlos

Tron may be her first score since A Clockwork Orange, however she has
done some excellent work since her sex-change operation. On her
earlier albums she had done half of the Bach Brandenburg Concertos.
Recently she released the other three with the earlier three in a two
album set called Switched-On Brandenburgs. Being a follower of Bach, I
found her interpretations of his 6 concertos preferable to any of the
chamber music versions I have heard! Bach demands a precision which
she is capable of doing with her N-track working technique. I find her
serious work vastly preferable to Tomita.

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 1982 19:55-EDT
From: Charles F. Von Rospach <CHUQUI at MIT-AI>
Subject: Tron and Secret of Nihn

I just returned from the movies, and I saw the cuts for two films that
I thought I would pass on...


Tron has been mentioned a couple of times. The preview they showed of
it has some of the simply best computer animations (of things going on
inside a computer, no less) that I have seen, bar none. If the rest of
the movie is anywhere near up to that quality, we have a new classic
here, folks. This looks like a must see.

The Secret of Nihn is a new animated flick due out from Don Bluth
Studios and United Artists. For those that don't know, Bluth is a long
time Animator who cut his teeth with Walt Disney on Snow White. He,
and most of the disney Animation crew cut out and started on their own
a few years back halfway through production on Fox and the Hound due
to major differences of vision between them (Most of the people who
worked with Walt) and the management of Disney (mostly bottom line
middle managers and others of high vision like those responsible for
Black Hole). The cut I saw was the level and quality of animations I
expect from a disney film, and the story line looks real interesting,
based on a fantasy/sword and sorcery style story. Bluth is one of the
few people left who worked with Walt himself, and it finally looks as
if there is a place where the visions that Walt fostered will
continue. I am as sorry as anyone that it couldn't have been with
Disney studios, but having worked with Disney for four years, I can
attest that since Walt's death, the management have become caretakers
of the past, rather than seers of the future.  Schlock such as Black
Hole just reiterated that for me. I am Glad to see that there is
someone out there continuing on in the old ways.

(Note: For those that didn't realize it, if you saw Xanadu, you saw
one of Bluth Studio's first products. The Goldfish animation scene was
done by Bluth and Co., and was designed to look VERY much like a
similar scene in Fantasia.

chuck

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 1982 04:38-EDT
From: Stuart M. Cracraft <MCLURE at MIT-AI>
Subject: tron

I saw some extensive previews of this recently. Yes, the animation is
excellent, but from what I heard of the story, the movie looked like
garbage. Sort of like a spaced-out version of that Oblivia Newton-John
disaster Xanadu. All effects, no (reasonable) story. Count on it to
die a quick death in the theaters.

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 1982 (Friday) 0923-EDT
From: OSTER at Wharton-10 (David Oster)
Subject: Disney's TRON and Burroughs computers

Reply to:  WHOLEY at CMU-20C --Skef

  TRON, judging by the Disney syndicated comic strip, chronicles the
adventures of a group of processes.  They are trying to defeat the
power grab of the evil M.C.P.  (Master Control Program) which wants to
prevent them from communicating with their users.  Anyone who has
worked with the Burroughs operating system knows that this is not
fiction.

   The M.C.P. wasn't always evil.  Old hands at Burroughs have told me
that back in the old days the Master Control Program was a novel --
the extensive comments and the choice of procedure, variable, and data
type names made the thing the romance of Fred, the process manager,
and Sylvia, the storage manager.  For example, the disk pages were
called "sheets" and there is supposed to be an interesting sequence
where Fred trys to fork Sylvia between the sheets.

   Unfortunately, this was years ago.  Managerial types claimed the
thing was sexist and made the programmers change all the names to
boring ones.  That change marked the beginning of the corruption that
turned the M.C.P.  into the evil thing it is today (at least according
to the film TRON).

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 1982 1108-PDT
From: Daul at OFFICE
Subject: TRON's graphics

I believe that one of the systems they use is a Foonely F-2 or F-3.
It is a Dec-10 look alike made in california.  --Bill

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 1982 1727-PDT
From: Craig W. Reynolds  from III via Rand  <REYNOLDS at RAND-AI>
Subject: Origin of TRON

The idea that the name TRON came from the PDP-10 instruction of the
same name (octal opcode 666) sounds like one of those things that MUST
be true, its just too much of a coincidence, right?

Wrong. The original writer and now director, Steven Lisberger (who is
a video game addict, but not a hacker) chose many names of characters
from video game and computer jargon, but usually for the way the name
sounded. He took the last syllable of "elecTRON" for the main
character's name.

Of the computer graphics groups working on the film; MAGI/
Synthavision uses Perkin-Elmer CPUs, Robert Able & Associates have
11's and VAXen, triple-I (Information International Inc, us, the good
guys) use a Foonly F1 (posing as a fast KA10), I don't know what
Digital Effects Inc. uses.

TRON is getting close to completion. Two or three reels are completely
finished, perhaps 85% of the effects scenes have been completed. Lots
of fevered action is happening on the sound track (by Wendy Carlos),
even as we speak. The release is still slated for July 9 - coming soon
to a system near you!

One of the corniest lines associated with TRON is in one of the
"trailers" (coming attractions) that I've seen. It invites you to a
world "...where love and escape do not compute...".

(Note: the 2nd sentence above, containing only one word is for the
benefit of Jerry Pournelle)

-c

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 11-May                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #49
*** EOOH ***
Date: Tuesday, May 11, 1982 3:55AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #49
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Tuesday, 11 May 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 49

Today's Topics:
      SF Books - The Universal Pantograph & LOCUS Reading List &
           Chap Foey Rider & The Red Magician & Dream Park,
              SF Movies - Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan &
               Sword and Sorcerer & The Phantom Empire,
        SF TV - The Phoenix & QED,  SF Lovers - Time Magazine
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 May 1982 1513-PDT
From: KDO at SRI-KL
Subject: Book query

A friend of mine wants to know if a book called \The Universal
Pantograph/ exist (supposedly by Alexei Panshin).

------------------------------

Date: Monday, 3 May 1982  13:11-EDT
From: SWERNOFSKY at BBNA
Subject: LOCUS reading list

Does anyone have the LOCUS reading lists for 1981 and 1982 ??

Thank you.

-- Steve

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 1982 17:35:56-PDT
From: jef at LBL-UNIX (Jef Poskanzer [rtsg])
Subject: Chap Foey Rider query.

The Chap Foey Rider stories, by Hayford Peirce, did indeed appear in
Analog.  The three that I know of are:

    "Mail Supremacy", March 1975,
    "Doing Well While Doing Good", August 1975, and
    "Rebounder", April 1976.

One other story by Peirce might be of interest to the serious student:
"Side Effect" in the June 1976 Analog.  While the story itself has
nothing to do with the venerable Mr. Rider, the accompanying
illustration by Kelly Freas makes reference to someone named "C. F.
Ryder".

--- Jef
------------------------------

Date: 9 May 1982 2327-PDT
From: Dolata at SUMEX-AIM
Subject: The Red Magician


Nano review:  A good read, somewhat thought provoking, minor flaws

The Red Magician by Lisa Goldstein is a good read with several
interesting ideas.  It is about a young girl in Eastern Europe just
before the holocaust, and her experiances with a Jewish magician
before, during and after the war.  Interestingly enough, although she
is put into a concentration camp, the book is not overwhelmed by her
experiences in the camp.  While they are integral with the plot, the
plot is broader than the Jewish experience of persecution and
genocide.  There is a conflict between two strong forces, but these
forces are not Judaism/Nazism, but between the magician and a
mis-guided rabbi!

This is a first work by the author, and it is well done.  I personally
felt that there were a few flaws, but they did not detract from the
enjoyability of the read, just kept the book on the shy side of Great.
As a agnostic raised as a catholic (goy), I enjoy reading about
Judaism and the insights into the Judaic mythology (golems, rabbinic
magicians,etc) given by this kind of book.  This is pure fantasy, no
science fiction involved.

One of the major flaws was that the author depended on the reader
knowing Jewish mythology and history.  While much was pretty common
knowledge, some of what was most central to the book was obscure to me
and several other goy friends.  An appendix explaining about these
myths would have been helpful.  As it is, I would like to hear from a
SF-LOVER who knows about Jewish myths so that I can ask a few
questions.  However, you should read the book first so that my
questions don't give away the ending prematurely.

Dan Dolata ( dolata@sumex-aim )

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 1982 21:59-EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Read anything good lately?

Let me second CHUQUI's endorsement for \Dream Park/, although unlike
him, I have liked about everything Niven has done, especially his
collaborations with Pournelle (with the major, major exception of
\Lucifer's Hammer/, which I couldn't even finish).  I have never been
a D&D fanatic, but I too found the mixture of high tech and
fantasy-D&D fascinating.  Read it!

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 1982 14:21:39 EDT (Sunday)
From: Winston Edmond <edmond at BBN-UNIX>
Subject: Star Trek

   The following news item from UPI appeared in the paper today:

                Preview could settle Mr. Spock's fate

   Overland Park, Kan. (UPI) -- The fate of Mr. Spock is in the hands
of those who attend the one and only sneak preview of the latest Star
Trek film, Paramount Pictures executives announced yesterday.

   A work print of the film with an undisclosed ending was to be shown
at 8 p.m. yesterday in a Kansas City suburban theater.  The studio was
to decide on the basis of viewer reaction whether to use another
ending when the film is released June 4, said publicist Eddie Egan.

   Kansas City was chosen for the preview of the print just finished
last week because it is in the middle of the country and because a
science fiction convention was in town, Egan said.

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 1982 1305-PDT
From: Cabral at SUMEX-AIM
Subject: Sword & Sorcerer / TV

  I enjoyed the Sword & the Sorcerer immensely, and although I didn't
feel it matched Lucasfilm in quality, I felt it had much the same fun
approach and recommend people see it.  They announce a sequel (I like
movies and books with sequels!) and would like to know if anyone has
heard how soon they plan to come out with it.
  In addition, I would like to know if "The Phoenix" and "QED" were
one shot TV shows or if we can expect to see them again.  I felt both
were very good, the latter especially.
                                   Art

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 1982 10:47 edt
From: Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: Here's the plot...

The Gene Autry serial is "The Phantom Empire," and it ran on the
Matinee at the Bijou series on PBS (a show worth looking for if you
love old movies, as they run shorts and cartoons that are seldom
seen).  I wrote a review of it that is in some back issue of SFL; the
thing is a real hoot.  (Caption in one prolog: "Gene Autry, who is
being held prisoner by a vicious band of research scientists...")

Earl

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 1982 1044-PDT (Monday)
From: heath at UCLA-Security (Frank Heath)
Subject: Time Magazine and SF LOVERS

SF LOVERS has made Time Magazine. On page 54 of the May 3 issue in a
side bar to the story titled "Here Come the Microkids" we are told how
a "bespectacled 16-year-old" Marc "calls up" files "humor", "sci-fi
lovers", and "info micro." So much for keeping a low profile.  As
usual the author in making thing simple got them screwed up.  The
whole article is pretty light weight.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 13-May                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #50
*** EOOH ***
Date: Thursday, May 13, 1982 4:47AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #50
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest        Thursday, 13 May 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 50

Today's Topics:
              SF Books - Friday & Dream Park & Brunner,
             SF Topics - British Science & Socialist SF,
            SF Movies - Conan the Barbarian & Bladerunner,
           Random Topics - Foonlys,  Spoiler - Bladerunner
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 05/11/82 23:32:08
From: LEOR@MIT-MC
Subject: Friday, by RAH

Heinlein's new book, "Friday", has been out in hardcover for at least
a week now. I'm almost done with it, and am happy to say it is damn
GOOD Heinlein. I never did read The # of the Beast, because a) the
Omni excerpt gave me a head- ache, and b) the reviews were mostly
thumbs down. But Jerry P. told me Friday was great, and I agree fully.
If anything at all about the main idea were disclosed in a review,
much of the impact of the first few chapters would be significantly
dulled. I kinda liked getting butterflies in my stomach upon hitting
one particular line...  I sure hope some kind of sequel comes along...
I haven't finished "Friday" yet, and I don't think I want it to end.
        -leor

------------------------------

Date: 12-May-82  9:39:07 PDT
From: WC.pa @ PARC-MAXC
Reply-to: "PAUL DOHERTY AT OAKLAND UNIV c/o" <WC.pa at PARC-MAXC>
Subject: Read Anything Good Lately

A dissenting view on "Dream Park".  I rate it as Niven's worst novel.
Yes it does have a few good scenes, and a few surprises , but even
Niven cannot carry the large number of characters (aka Cannon Fodder)
each one of which has two names!  You will never want to see the words
: hologram, or zombie , again.

This book proves that even a good D+D game makes terrible literature.

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 1982 1051-EDT
From: DD-B <DYER-BENNET at KL2137>
Reply-to: "DYER-BENNET at KL2137 c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: SF-Lovers submission

(WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)) I've met, at several different
conventions, someone claiming to be John Brunner.  It appeared to be
the same person in each case.  This is not, of course, particularly
conclusive.

As to your other remarks about Brit SF in general, that doesn't bother
me particularly much more than all the American SF which assumes that
we will be the leading nation in space.  Do you think it should?

------------------------------

Date: 12-May-1982
From: JOHN FRANCIS AT EIFFEL
Reply-to: "FRANCIS AT EIFFEL c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: Anglophiles Rise Up

First of all, the original query.  John Brunner does indeed exist, at
least enough to autograph a copy of 'The Squares of the City', and to
give a talk to a University society.

As for the strange idea that English technology is dead - let's look a
bit closer.

1) Transport.  Who gave you the VTOL attack aircraft, the supersonic
   passenger transport, the aircraft engines used in (some) L-1011's,
   and what is STILL the best car in the world ?

2) Medicine.  First ever heart-lung combined transplant, test-tube
   babies, the EMI full-body scanner, and the best transplant success
   rate of any hospital in the world.

3) Etc.  AGCR (gas-cooled nuclear reactors) that work quietly and
   efficiently, and which don't leak into the atmosphere).
   [For those who don't believe technology is any use unless it kills
   people - the Chieftain tank with the light-weight armour, and a
   whole bunch of nasty little portable anti-tank missiles, etc.]
   Sinclair's portable TV's (even exported to Japan!).

4) Computer-related technology.  Ceefax/Prestel/Oracle -- data-base
   access using your TV, or TV and phone. 30ns cycle-time plated wire
   memory (actually in use).
   [Whatever DEC may think] The concept of controlling devices using
   normal memory reference instructions was not born with the PDP-11.
   The Atlas had this in 1967, and the latest machine (MU-5) designed
   at Manchester University stands comparison with anything designed
   in America.
   And look at firms like CAP selling their computer expertise to the
   Americans!

Of course most of this will be entirely new to the majority of
readers.  What this shows, however, is not that good old GB does not
have any ideas, but that nobody knows how to sell or develop an idea!
America still leads the world in making a profit from other people's
inventions, although the Japanese are catching up fast.  And, of
course, it's not illegal to earn enough to live on in America.  (yet -
although I don't like the look of the latest Budget ideas...)

Sorry about the length of this.  I realize it's not really science
fiction, but I claim it's justifiable as an answer to an earlier slur
for 2 reasons:

          (1) Equal time, and
          (2) the earlier piece WAS science fiction.

                Ho Hum.  Back to watching the Twilight Zone..

                                        John.

------------------------------

Date: 11-May-82 14:04:03 PDT (Tuesday)
From: Newman.es at PARC-MAXC
Subject: A specter is haunting Venus

from IN THESE TIMES of May 5-11, 1982:

According to the San Francisco-based publication SPACE FOR ALL PEOPLE,
a new group of science fiction writers called Red Shift intends to
produce sci-fi with "redeeming socialist value."  "Sadly," writes Red
Shift spokesman Peter J. Krala, "Too much of what has been said by
Heinlein, Asimov, Pournelle, and others about our destiny in space has
been conservative and reactionary, advancing the petty bourgeois
thesis that all is fixed in human nature and [that] we will continue
to fight, have wars, exploit and deal though corporations."  Krala
adds:  "We look forward to aiding in the struggle to free space from
the clutches of the Starship Troopers for the benefit of all people."

------------------------------


Date: 12 May 82 15:39-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Review: Conan

            12 May 82 - Movie Review - Conan the Barbarian
                         By RICHARD FREEDMAN
                        Newhouse News Service

    (UNDATED) It was a stroke of some sort of genius to cast Arnold
Schwarzenegger and James Earl Jones as the hero and villain,
respectively, of ''Conan the Barbarian.''
    Schwarzenegger has biceps like the trunk of a gnarled old apple
tree, and Jones can act.
    But in the ongoing Sword-and-Sorcery Sweepstakes, while ''Conan''
is marginally less offensive - because it is less pretentious - than
''Excalibur,'' it's nowhere near as good as ''Dragonslayer.''
    We are in the so-called Hyborian Age of 12,000 years ago, when men
were men and table manners had not yet evolved. A marauding band of
tribesmen led by Thulsa Doom (James Earl Jones), head of the
unpleasant snake cult of Set, kills young Conan's parents and casts
him into slavery.
    Some 15 years later, the orphan grows up to be Arnold
Schwarzenegger, the Austrian Mr. Universe and Mr. Olympia. When he
says ''Is this your robe?'' it comes out sounding like ''Is this
Europe?'' Conan may need a travel agent even more than a diction
coach.
    Anyhow, after fighting in some fearsome gladiatorial combats, he
escapes from captivity and goes on the road to wreak vengeance on
Thulsa Doom and his mangy minions.
    Conan's companions in this worthy enterprise are Subotai the
Mongol (surfer Gerry Lopez); Valeria, Queen of Thieves (Sandahl
Bergman, who brings a distinct touch of Malibu Beach to the
proceedings); and a wise Oriental hermit (Mako), who narrates Conan's
adventures to us in a gravelly voice.
    They are commissioned to rescue the erring daughter of King Osric
(Max von Sydow, looking more like Good King Wenceslas) from the
clutches of Thulsa Doom. It seems he's now running a sort of Jonestown
death cult, which has seduced the proto-hippie Princess (Valerie
Quennessen).
    There, surrounded by priests out of a road-company ''Aida,'' Doom
holds forth in barbaric splendor. He wields snakes the way Alice in
Wonderland uses flamingos for croquet mallets, serves up cauldrons of
soup composed of human hands and heads, and orders Conan crucified on
the Tree of Woe.
    Only by having mystic runes painted all over his inexpressive mug
does Conan survive this ordeal to interrupt a Cecil B. DeMille orgy of
Doom's disciples and set fire to his palace.
    All this silly savagery takes place against a ponderously
insistent score by Basil Poledouris, who helps himself generously to
the choruses Prokofiev wrote for ''Alexander Nevsky.'' But the music
more often sounds like Carl Orff on an orff day.
    Based on the half-century-old comic strip that got a new lease on
life during the depths of the '60s, ''Conan the Barbarian'' is
directed by John Milius (''Big Wednesday'') with an aggressive
brutality that beggars description.
    He can't elicit professional performances from either
Schwarzenegger or Bergman, but neither can he spoil the evil majesty
Jones brings to the idiotic lines he must speak. And at least Milius
has the good sense to give Schwarzenegger a minimum of dialogue and
maximum of muscle-flexing.
    ''Conan the Barbarian'' even boasts an epigraph from Nietzsche, no
less: ''That which does not kill us makes us stronger.'' It's a more
accurate description of most ''health'' foods than of the leaden film
that follows it.

    FILM CLIP:
    ''CONAN THE BARBARIAN.'' Arnold Schwarzenegger as the musclebound
comic-strip hero doing dire battle with evil James Earl Jones as the
leader of a primitive snake cult. Brutal baloney. Rated R. One star.

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 1982 1013-PDT
From: Phil Gerring <PEG at SU-AI>
Subject: Foonlys and DEC-10s: a bit of history

Rather than calling a Foonly a "DEC-10 lookalike" or "a fast version
of a KA-10" (which are both accurate as far as they go), it should be
noted that the prototype Foonly was also the prototype KL-10 and
serves as SAIL's primary processor (on which I write this even now).
The Stanford AI lab hardware hackers who developed it later went off
to sell them as Foonlys.
                                        Phil Gerring
------------------------------

Date: Thursday, May 13, 1982 4:47AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following message is the last in the digest.  It contains some
plot details of the movie Bladerunner.  Some readers may not wish to
read on.

------------------------------

Date: 05/11/82 21:11:48
From: DMM@MIT-ML
Reply-to: JBARRE@MIT-AI
Subject: Re: "Bladerunner"

(CAUTION!!! SPOILER ENCLOSED!!!)

   I'm getting my mail for the first time in quite a while, so I hope
I'm not repeating someone else. I have not read the novel that the
movie was based on, but I did attend a sneak a couple of months ago in
Dallas.
    In the intro to the film, it mentions the locale as LA, not N.Y.
as the critics say. Of course, this may have changed since the sneak -
This was definitely a working print of the film - there were no titles
whatsoever (except for a logo at the start) and several sloppy edits.
    For those of you unfamiliar with the plot, the film concerns a
Bladerunner, a cop/bounty hunter,(Harrison Ford) who comes out of
retirement with the LAPD (or whatever they call it in 2019) to hunt
down and destroy some "replicants." Replicants, are not really
androids, but "genetic" copies, if you will. They are sent out about
the solar system to do the dirty work of mining the asteroids,
fighting the wars, and giving pleasure to the human colonists. Under
no circumstances are they allowed on Earth.
    So, Harrison Ford goes galavanting all over LA, trying to find
these replicants, who come back demanding that their "creator" give
them longer life spans. You see, they are engineered to die after a
certain number of years, before they have a chance to ask realize just
what they are, or develop too many emotions.
    Of course, he meets up with an "experimental" replicant, who just
happens to be a beautiful female and they end up running away together
at the end of the movie.
    "Bladerunner" gives us a wonderful look at what LA (the US?)
might look like in the year 2019. The sides of buildings are covered
with giant advertisements for Coca-Cola, Fuji Film, and some wonderful
pill that an oriental woman keeps popping. The streets are filthy and
it seems that it is always raining. One thing that bothers me, though,
is how a sidewalk chinese restaurant just happens to have an electron
microscope sitting behind the counter. I know this is supposed to be
2019, but c'mon....
    Overall, I was somewhat disappointed in "Bladerunner." I really
loved the street life, but unfortunately the blood and gore action
seemed rather gratuitous in places. I might add that I saw an early
sneak of "Alien" and was rather turned off too...  (of course, I was
sitting in the front row.....)
---julie barrett

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************Date: Saturday, May 15, 1982 2:26AM

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 27-Apr                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #51
*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 88 08:23:27 EST
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #51
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest        Saturday, 15 May 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 51

Today's Topics:
                Administrivia - Duplicate Digests,
            SF Books - Friday & Series (Riddle of Stars),
     SF Movies - Summer Releases & Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan &
     The Revenge of the Jedi & The World,The Flesh,and The Devil,
              SF TV - Star trek & Battlestar Galactica,
         SF Topics - Socialist SF,  Random Topics - Foonlys,
                Spoiler - Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Saturday, May 15, 1982 2:26AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS-REQUEST at MIT-AI
Subject: Duplicate Digests

We experienced some transmission difficulties with issue #50 that
resulted in some duplicate digests.  The weak link in our
decentralized mail forwarding system seems to be isolated.  We have
not yet determined why the problem occurred, but we will be manually
monitoring transmissions until it is fixed.  Hopefully this will
prevent any repetition of the problem while maintaining a normal level
of service.

Jim

------------------------------

Date: 26-Apr-1982
From: STEVE LIONEL AT STAR
Reply-to: "STEVE LIONEL AT STAR c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: "Friday"

Before Heinlein's "Number of the Beast..." came out, I was warned (if
that's the right phrase) of its coming by Spider Robinson's review in
Analog.  Well, Spider is no longer doing Analog reviews, so it came as
quite a surprise to see a new Heinlein novel on the bookstore shelves.

"Friday" is billed as a return to the RAH of "The Puppet Masters",
complete with at least one of the characters, "Kettle Belly" Baldwin.
(It's been so long since I've read "Puppet Masters" that I'm not
certain Baldwin was in it, though I think he was in "Gulf".)  Indeed
it is much more reminiscent of his 1950s vintage work than, say,
"Number of the Beast...".  However, it is far from a complete
regression.

What do you say about a book that starts off with a gang rape of its
heroine?  Yep, that's one of the first things that happens to Friday,
a genetically-engineered "enhanced Artificial Person", who, of course,
is also stunningly beautiful.  (It's not stated whether or not she has
red hair.)  Friday works as a courier for the "Boss", who runs some
sort of secret organization, devoted to who-knows-what.  The United
States are now disunited, having been broken up into many separate
nations, like California Free State and the Chicago Imperium.  The
book follows Friday as she wanders around, with no specific mission,
being inconvenienced by a world-wide revolution that erupts while
she's on vacation.

Thankfully missing from "Friday" are the protracted philosophical
discussions that, for me, tainted "Number of the Beast..." and "Time
Enough for Love".  Present are the extended families of "Time
Enough.." and "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", the sexual attitudes of
"I Will Fear No Evil" and the business ethics of "The Man Who Sold The
Moon".  I enjoyed reading "Friday", but felt cheated by the fact that
the book just doesn't go anywhere.  There's no real plot except to
follow Friday around from bed to bed and see what trouble she can get
into.  There is some interesting discussion of racism in the form of
"real humans" against "Artificial Persons".  Friday has "passed" as a
normal human for quite a while, but she gets into trouble by
forgetting just how bigoted some people can be.

The ending of "Friday" is reminiscent of "Number of the Beast...";
just what it is I won't reveal since that would spoil just about the
only thing you might call a "surprise" in the book.  I'm certainly not
going to say "read it" or "don't bother", since most any SF-lover
would read anything by Heinlein, and I think Heinlein and his
publisher know that.

                                        Steve Lionel

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 1982 1032-MDT
From: Evelyn Mathey <MATHEY at SANDIA>
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #49

Hi, I'm Evelyn Mathey, a newcomer to the mail list via Sandia National
Labs.  In response to the 'has anybody read anything good' question, I
would like to recommend Patricia MacKillip's Riddle of Stars.  This is
a trilogy (The Riddle Master of Hed, Heir of Sea and Fire and Harpist
in the Wind) in one hard cover put out by the SF book club.  I felt
the the books were well written and the ideas intriguing.  I was
particularly interested in the idea of land law, in which the ruler is
a part of his land.  He 'groks' it to use the Heinleinian term.  The
heir knows of the ruler's death by his own opened awareness of the land
law.  This land law is different for each of the kingdoms, as each of
them has a different national character.  In addition to this the
books are full of vital, living characters, and lots of magic and
action.  I highly recommend it.

I have also read The Forgotten Beasts of Eld by MacKillip, but know of
nothing else she has written.  If any one does have some more titles
hidden away, I'd like to hear about them.

------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 11 May 1982 16:19-PDT
From: hollywood!mike
Subject: Summer Fantasy Films BLITZ

Now, at last, the terror can begin again!

This summer will have a record number of fantasy films opening (first
time and in reissue).  (A critic, complaining about my selection of
films below, forces me to point out that the only thing these films
have in common are the special effects).

May 14 Gonad the Barbarian

June 4 Poltergeist coproduced by spielberg
        StarTrek: The Wrath of Kahn

June 18 E.T. (The Extraterrestrial) Spielberg
        Firefox Clint Eastwood

June 25 Blade Runner Ridley Scott, Trumbull
        Megaforce A real loser
        The Thing A remake

July 2 The Secret of NIMH Animated feature, Don Bluth

July 9 Tron Disney: The Wrath of Tron

July 30 The Dark Crystal Muppets?

July 31 Raiders of the Lost Ark reissue

Aug 13 Friday the 13th, Part III in --> 3D <-- !!!
        Star Wars -- A New Hope reissue

Aug 20 Superman II reissue

???  Bambi Disney, reissue date not set

Of these, certainly Gonad the Barbarian, Star Trek, BladeRunner,
Firefox, The Secret of NIMH, Tron and The Dark Crystal, Poltergeist
and E.T. are worth seeing at least once.

Michael

------------------------------

Date: 12-MAY-1982 13:52
From: TSC::COORS::VICKREY
Reply-to: "TSC::COORS::VICKREY c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: In Response To Recent SF-Lovers

The E. Net just got SFL after a month of involuntary cold turkey
caused by assorted problems.  Seven issues at once!  So, if I am
replying to some things which may already be considered dead issues on
this list, bear with me.

To:  Chris at RAND-UNIX, RE:  Uhura in Command, V5 I40

Originally Uhura was supposed to command the Enterprise in "Catspaw",
when Scott and Sulu (and the dead Jackson, who prompted McCoy to utter
the immortal "He's dead, Jim" for the first time) were trapped/zombied
(zombized?) and Kirk, Spock, and McCoy went off to rescue them.
(Delegation of duty?  Wazzat?)  But NBC and/or Paramount got chicken
and gave command to the second engineer, DeSalle.  Uhura finally TOOK
command in the animated "The Lorelei Signal" (is there anyone who
hasn't heard about the vocal blooper in this episode, where Nichols
said "Mr. Scott, I'm taking command of this ship AT LAST!"?), but she
didn't stay on the ship - she and Chapel WERE part of the search and
rescue party and didn't hesitate a second in using force to get the
native women to help find the landing party.  I don't think Uhura was
actually weepy in the "handsome as ever" line - just pandering to a
masculine ego.

To:  All, RE: Chekov in Command, V5 many recent issues

The character of Chekov was created in response to two major factors:
NBC wanted a youthful, boyish character the young females in the
audience could sigh over (like Davy Jones of the Monkees; no kidding,
that's how they put it); and Pravda published a rather pointed article
about how this was supposed to be the 23rd (or whatever) century and
nationalism doesn't exist so why is there no Russian on the
Enterprise?  Pravda wanted a Russian on the Enterprise?  Okay, but he
would be a RUSSIAN Russian, hence lines like "The Garden of Eden?  It
was just outside of Moscow.  Adam and Eve must have been very sad to
leave it." and "Scotch?  It was invented by a little old lady from
Leningrad." and etc.  But he was also supposed to be a Wonder Kid,
Captain-in-training, destined for command, and so on.  This potential
was never fully realized in the series, but it was supposed to be.
And it is not that unusual for a young kid to come in, be better than
the oldtimers, and rise above them quickly; it happens here-and-now,
and it happened in Star Trek, or have we all forgotten about that
former Wonder Kid James T. Kirk, the youngest man to ever command a
starship? (Not that I like Chekov.  He is my least favorite ST
character, but Wonder Kid is what he was intended to be.)

To:  Bill Gropp <Gropp at Yale>, RE: TESB & RotJ, V5 I44

I heard a rumor that the release date of The Revenge of the Jedi has
been moved back to this December.  (A fellow here commented recently
that waiting for the next Star Wars movie is a lot like waiting for
the next release of VMS.)

To:  James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>, RE: The World, The Flesh, and
        The Devil, V5 I46

The beginning of the movie had Belafonte as a gas worker or sewer
worker or something trapped underground for n days.  Initially, he was
comforted by the sounds of people digging him out (and a handy stock
of emergency food rations), but the sounds of digging stopped and he
had to dig himself out.  He found an empty world (not even any bodies
- imagine!).  Anymore and I'd probably qualify for a spoiler, but it
struck me that most of the enforcement of pre-disaster racial tensions
came from Belafonte's character, who was morbidly determined to keep
reminding Stevens of it.

Regards,
Susan

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 1982 11:59 PDT
From: STOGRYN.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Battlestar Galactica

In the novel by Glen A. Larson and Robert Thurston, Battlestar
Galactica, distance and time were measured in miles and hours. In the
ABC-TV version, these relative concepts had different units. Anyone
remember what they were, and what their relationships to their
legendary ancestral Earth units were?

Steve

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 1982 21:00-EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: A specter is haunting Venus

Politics generally makes bad literature.  Nobody ever reads fiction
writers "with a cause."  I look forward to a long lifetime of ignoring
Red Shift writers.

By the way, do you have any information on who the Red Shift writers
are?  Any well-known ones?

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 1982 12:07:38-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: "a specter is haunting venus"

   I saw that item quoted in IN THESE TIMES earlier this week, and
managed to keep forgetting to bring it in and enter it (probably under
the title "We still don't get no respect.") Krala sounds like a
flaming idiot---has he never heard of Brunner, Haldeman, Le Guin,
Tiptree, etc. etc.? I don't want to get back into the mess of
"significance" versus "entertainment" (I have been known to read and
enjoy much that would fit each of these categories) but it's my
observation that anything that sets out to be "relevant" winds up
being crap. There are a few exceptions to this; much as I hate to
admit it, there's a tolerable story under the mess of libertarian
nonsense in THE PROBABILITY BROACH (but its successor, THE VENUS BELT,
is pretty clumsy), but I'd say that THE FEMALE MAN is a reasonable
representative of the left-wing "message" story and it's one of the
worst pieces of SF not written by a name author but published under
major house.
   Oh well---we survived Roger Elwood, I suppose we can survive Krala.
I expect I'll get political flack from both sides for this but I'd
suggest you look in the archives and see if you have something new to
say.
   Speaking specifically of STARSHIP TROOPERS, can anyone with a more
encyclopedic knowledge of the field say whether there is any author
with combat experience who does glorify war? Kornbluth's malignant
hypertension (which ultimately killed him) is credited to his infantry
service in World War II, and Haldeman nearly lost a leg to a land mine
in Vietnam, while Heinlein was invalided out of the Navy shortly after
graduating from Annapolis (1929?) and "Doc" Smith's Ph.D. was in
something like food technology.

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 1982 1729-PDT
From: Craig W. Reynolds  from III via Rand  <REYNOLDS at RAND-AI>
Subject: F1s as KA10s

Phil Gerring's comments on the nature and origin of the Foonly F1 are
all correct. I did not intend to dump on the F1 as being only a fast
KA10. What I meant was that AS WE USE IT HERE (at triple-I) it is
simply a very fast KA10. Certain advanced features of the processor
are not being used, the paging hardware is getting rusty.

No, far be it from me to say anything bad about our F1 - not while
there are still scenes for TRON to be completed. It can get very hard
to deal with when its feelings are hurt. ("Call ME a KA-10 will you?
You bit brain! I may just take a few days off and you can finish your
movie with a calculator and a paint-by-numbers set!")

-c

------------------------------

Date: Saturday, May 15, 1982 2:26AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following message is the last in the digest.  It discusses some
plot details in coming movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.  Some
readers may not wish to read on.

------------------------------

Date: 10-May-1982
From: PAUL KARGER AT RDVAX
Reply-to: "PAUL KARGER AT RDVAX c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: Star Trek II rumors - Spoiler Warning

SPOILER WARNING:

From the Boston Globe, 10 May 1982

Mr. Spock will meet his demise in the "Star Trek" epic, the film's
producer, Robert Sallin, said.  "Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan" was
shown for the first time in Kansas City Saturday.  Sallin said the
audience applauded the end of the movie in which Spock - the
green-blooded alien played by Leonard Nimoy - dies.

------------------------------
End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 18-May                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #52
*** EOOH ***
Date: Tuesday, May 18, 1982 5:28AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #52
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Monday, 17 May 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 52

Today's Topics:
              SF Fandom - Nebula Winners & Hugo Ballot,
        SF Movies - Conan The Barbarian & The Secret of NIMH &
         Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan & Revenge of the Jedi,
        SF TV - Battelstar Galactica,  Random Topics - Foonlys
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 05/17/82 1144-EDT
From: THOKAR at LL
Subject: Nebula Winners and Hugo Ballot

Having had my copy of Locus for almost a week now and not having seen
it in the digest yet, I feel obliged to send in both the Nebula
winners and the Hugo ballot.  So, here goes.

Nebula Winners:

Best Novel -- The Claw of the Conciliator (Gene Wolfe)
Best Novella -- "The Saturn Game" (Poul Anderson)
Best Novelette -- "The Quickening" (Michael Bishop)
Best Short Story -- "The Bone Flute" (Lisa Tuttle)

A Nebula citation (subject unknown) went to Ed Ferman of F&SF, also a
Nebula citation (again subject unknown) went to Stanley Schmidt of
Analog.  A third Nebula citation (and again subject unknown) went to
David G. Hartwell of Timescape Books.


1982 Hugo Nomination Ballot

Best Novel
__ Downbelow Station -- C.J. Cherryh (DAW)
__ Little, Big -- John Crowley (Bantam)
__ The Many-Colored Land -- Julian Man (Houghton Mifflin)
__ Project Pope -- Clifford D. Simak (Del Rey)
__ The Claw of the Conciliator -- Gene Wolfe (Simon & Schuster)
__ No Award

Best Novella
__ "The Saturn Game" -- Poul Anderson (Analog, Feb 2)
__ "In the Western Tradition" -- Phyllis Eisenstein (F&SF, Mar)
__ "Emergence" -- David R. Palmar (Analog, Jan)
__ "Blue Champagne" -- John Varley (New Voices 4)
__ "True Names" -- Vernor Vinge (Binary Star 5)  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__ "With Thimbles, With Forks and Hope" -- Kate Wilhelm
    (Asimov's, Nov 23)
__  No Award
Best Novelette
__ "The Quickening" -- Michael Bishop (Universe 11)
__ "The Thermals of August" -- Ed Bryant (F&SF, May)
__ "The Fire When It Comes" -- Parke Godwin (F&SF, May)
__ "Guardians" -- George R. R. Martin (Analog, Oct 12)
__ "Unicorn Variation" -- Roger Zelazny (Asimov's, Apr 13)
__  No Award

Best Short Story
__ "The Quiet" -- George Florance-Guthridge (F&SF, July)
__ "Absent Thee from Felicity Awhile" -- Somtow Sucharitkul
    (Analog, Sept 14)
__ "The Pusher" -- John Varley (F&SF, Oct)
__ "The Woman the Unicorn Loved" -- Gene Wolfe (Asimov's, June 8)
__  No Award

Best Nonfiction Book
__ Anatomy of Wonder -- ed. Neil Barron (Bowker)
__ After Man  -- Dougal Dixon (Macmillan)
__ Danse Macabre -- Stephen King (Everest)
__ The Grand Tour -- Ron Miller and William K. Hartman (Workman)
__ The Art of Leo & Diane Dillon -- ed. Byron Preiss (Ballantine)
__ No Award

Best Professional Editor
__ Terry Carr
__ Edward L. Ferman
__ David G. Hartwell
__ Stanley Schmidt
__ George Scithers
__ No Award

Best Professional Artist
__ Vincent DiFate
__ Carl Lundgren
__ Don Maitz
__ Rowena Morrill
__ Michael Whelan
__ No Award

Best Dramatic Presentation
__ Dragonslayer
__ Excalibur
__ Outland
__ Raiders of the Lost Ark
__ Time Bandits
__ No Award

Best Fanzine
__ File 770 -- Michael Glyer
__ Locus -- Charles N. Brown
__ SF Chronicle -- Andrew Porter
__ SF Review -- Richard E. Geis
__ SF-LOVERS Digest -- Jim McGrath (Just kidding gang) [ Drat! - Jim ]
__ No Award

Best Fan Writer
__ Richard E. Geis
__ Michael Glyer
__ Arthur Hlavaty
__ Dave Langford
__ No Award

Best Fan Artist
__ Alexis Gilliland
__ Joan Hanke-Woods
__ Victoria Poyser
__ William Rotsler
__ Stu Shiffman
__ No Award

John W. Campbell Award
__ David Brin
__*Alexis Gilliland
__ Robert Stallman (deceased)
__ Michael Swanwick
__*Paul O. Williams
__ No Award

 * eligible again next year


If enough interest is expressed, I will collect and tally your votes
for the hugo winners.  (Maybe the digest can take out a membership in
the Worldcon and vote like NESFA (New England Science Fiction Society)
does each year.)  Votes will be kept confidential.  The FINAL deadline
will be JULY 15, which gives you almost two months.

Voting in done on an Australian Ballot system, i.e. rank by number
(1st choice, 2nd choice, etc) up to and including No Award.  Winners
will be announced sometime in August.

                                           Greg

[ Thanks Greg for typing this all in!  If anyone is interested in
  having a straw Hugo poll of the readership, please send mail to
  Greg.  If we have enough interested parties, we'll do something
  about it.  --  Jim ]

-----------------------------

Date: 16 May 1982 1133-PDT
From: Phil Gerring <PEG at SU-AI>
Subject: Movie review: Conan The Barbarian


Pico-review: Made in Japan

Nano-review: Any resemblance to characters, living or dead, created by
Robert E. Howard (et al.) is purely coincidental.

Micro-review: If you're a Conan fan and expect to see him on the
screen, expect some disappointment.  Otherwise, it's an OK (barely)
swords and sorcery/samaurai movie without much in the way of sorcery.
Worth going to see, but the word is that The Sword and the Sorcerer
(which I've not seen yet) has upstaged it considerably and is a better
movie.

Macro-review:  We kept expecting the dialogue to be in Japanese with
subtitles; some of the scenes appear to be loosely based on Conan
stories (e.g., The Thing in the Crypt, The Tower of the Elephant), but
many of the weapons, armor, fighting techniques, symbols, and overall
impressions had a strongly Japanese flavor.  The antagonist, Thulsa
Doom, was indeed a Howard character, but in the King Kull stories...
The general flavor of the movie is Conan et al. vs.  mostly human
antagonists, while that of the books is more Conan vs.  mostly
supernatural monsters.
     Many of the scenes were rather inexplicable--I kept wondering
what the heck was going on.  The first part of the movie was mostly
disconnected scenes with Conan being the only common point (which is
to say, the plot is very weak).  After we manage to meet all of the
good guys and bad guys, we finally have a quest to save a beautiful
princess from the evil sorcerer, which starts to tie things together.
     The special effects were straightforward and well-done, with the
best part being a fight with some kind of air elementals or demons or
some such (it wasn't entirely clear just what was going on).  The
first part managed to avoid being unnecessarily bloody, but this was
rectified later (I DON'T recommend this for kids...).  One point
worthy of mention is that this is the first movie of the genre to have
a female who handles weaponry with more than adequate skill.

Summary: Pretend the title is The Three Samaurai, ignore some of the
disconnectedness, and it's definitely worth seeing once.

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 1982  16:49-EDT (Saturday)
From: Mijjil (Matthew J. Lecin) <LECIN at GREEN>
Reply-to: Lecin at RU-GREEN
Subject: The Secret of NIMH

Am I to assume that this "animated feature", "The Secret of NIMH" is
that wonderful old book "Mrs. Frisbee and the Rats of the NIMH?"

(It would be FANTASTIC if it was...) (TAKE THE KIDS.)

{Mijjil}

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 1982 1849-EDT
From: Thomas Galloway <Galloway at YALE>
Subject: ST-TWOK ending (not a spoiler, but refers to one tangently)

There are always two ways to interpret the comment, "the audience
applauded the end of the movie"...
tom

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 1982 07:21-EDT
From: James M. Turner <JMTURN at MIT-AI>
Subject: ROTJ is to VMS as...

Just to put it in perspective:

Waiting for ROTJ is-
     72 times worse than waiting for the next analog
     (36 times the time and twice the cliffhangers)

     150 times worse than waiting for the next Instant Message.
     (75 times the wait, and twice the cliffhangers)

     6 times worse than waiting for the next Elfquest
     (12 times the wait, but only 1/2 the cliffhangers)

     Equal with the Hugo winners
     (3 times the wait, but 1/3 the cliffhangers)

     1/2 as bad as waiting for a new VMS release
     (Twice the wait, but 1/4 the cliffhangers [remember,
      it's your JOB!])

     oo times as bad as waiting for a new Heinlein book
     (twice the wait, and who cares anyway)

     1/oo times as bad as waiting to see if Regan goes away (equal
     wait, but it's only a movie, we got Vadar in the White House!)

     And 1/oo^2 times as bad as waiting for the con that's next week,
     and your boss just dumped a ton of make-work on your desk, and
     the tape drive's dead and...


                                James

Note: Any political statements made are those of the author's evil
persona that creeps out a 6 am on out-of-phase days and causes
trouble. If you don't like it, fill in your favorite liberal and
elected office.

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 1982 0017-PDT (Sunday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Battlestar Dyslexia

I don't remember all of those time/space units they used in that
loser... but I do remember something that popped up in the first few
minutes that definitely set the mood of the series for me.

The "good guys" were being chased by the Du Pont Crylons.  The baddies
were getting close.  One of our heroes ejaculated a line like: "We'd
better do something, they're only 4 microns behind us, and gaining!"

Yeah, I thought, they'd better do something REALLY fast.  Microns.
Cretins.
--Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: 17-May-82 12:12PM-EDT (Mon)
From: David Miller <Miller at YALE>
Subject: Battelstar Galactica Units

       In the TV series of Battelstar Galactica the following
       units were used to describe space and time:

                   BG       |      Terran equivalent:
                   ----------------------------------
                   micron   |      second
                   centon   |      minute
                   yarn     |      year

       No units for distance were ever used  except  for  one
       horrible reference  to  parsec,  where  they men A.U..
       Distances were handled in the manner  of  light  yarns
       and fighter  microns  (i.e.  the  distance  a  fighter
       travels in a micron) This is  the  reason  expressions
       like "Wait  just  one micron!"  and "Cylons are thirty
       microns away" This  last  line  always  caused  me  to
       envision a  Cylon  with  his blaster stuck firmly into
       the speakers back.

       The best reference to  Earth  units  is  in  the  late
       season   episodes  where  they  take  aboard  a  Space
       Shuttle.  After it escapes and  is  followed  back  to
       its home  planet  TERRA,  one  of  the occupants tells
       Starbuck to "hold on for a minute" whereupon  Starbuck
       looks around  for  something  to grab onto and replies
       "A what?"

       Personally the whole deal with  the  units  struck  me
       as a bunch of feldacarp.

                                    Dave
                                    (miller@yale)

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 1982 1402-PDT
From: Mark Crispin
Reply-to: Admin.MRC at SU-SCORE
Subject: Foonlys at Stanford

     There is only one Foonly at Stanford, an F2 at the CCRMA Lab (the
computer music folks).  The SU-AI processor is not, nor has it ever
been, a Foonly, prototype or otherwise.  In particular, it is not the
common prototype for a Foonly or DEC KL-10 that Phil Gerring
describes.  It is an early production model DEC KL-1080 model A CPU,
somewhere between revision level 8 and current KL's.  The differences
between it and modern KL's can be attributed to its older packaging,
not keeping it up to revision level, and modifications of dubious
value made to the hardware and microcode at Stanford.

     When the "super-Foonly" project folded at Stanford, some of the
people involved went to DEC; and portions of the design of the super-
Foonly became the base for the KL-10 design.  The DEC prints labelled
as being drawn by "S. Foonly" are not indicative of this; rather the
early KL prints were drawn without anything in the "drawn by" box.
Somebody lawyer or marketing person or something (I never got a
straight story on who) got all upset and said there had to be
SOMETHING there.  Nobody could remember who did what (remember they
were using SUDS, back in the days when CAD was a new idea) so as a
joke they put in "S. Foonly" in all the prints.

     Stanford's contribution to the KL-10 effort was recognized and
rewarded by DEC, which is why we got one of the early KL-10s.  Other
individuals in the super-Foonly group at Stanford got together after a
while and eventually did build Foonlys.  A KL-10 and a Foonly are two
entirely different processors; the old super-Foonly designs at
Stanford were just a small (but important) part of the KL-10.

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 1982 1134-PDT
From: Phil Gerring <PEG at SU-AI>
Subject: Duplicate digests, Foonlys

Hey, SFL #50 broke a record for number of copies received: I got no
less than eleven (previous record was six).  I like SFL, but do you
realize how much it costs me to store eleven copies for even just a
day??!

MRC's comments on Foonlys and 10s are undoubtedly more accurate than
mine, mine being based on oral tradition and his on (apparently)
research and/or personal experience.  So much for oral tradition in
the technological world...

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 19-May                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #53
*** EOOH ***
Date: Wednesday, May 19, 1982 2:26AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #53
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest        Wednesday, 19 May 1982     Volume 5 : Issue 53

Today's Topics:
                   SF Books - Friday & Dream Park,
    SF Movies - Conan the Barbarian & The Sword and the Sorcerer &
          The Secret of NIMH & Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan,
        SF TV - Battlestar Galactica,  Random Topics - Foonlys
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 May 1982 21:28-EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Heinlein's \Friday/

(Before I tell everyone what I thought of \Friday/, let me give a
warning.  I have not liked a Heinlein book since before \Stranger in a
Strange Land/.)

\Friday/ takes place in a not-too-distant future in which North
America has become "Balkanized" into dozens of independent states, and
multinational corporations form a political force equal to or greater
than that of states.  As everyone on this list probably knows, Friday,
the heroine of the book, is an Artificial Person (AP), whose genetic
makeup was designed by engineers.  Because of this, she has various
"enhanced" capabilities, which make her especially suited for her job
as courier of high-security items for "Boss," the head of an
ill-defined pseudo-intelligence agency with unknown allegiance.  The
book follows Friday's adventures as she travels about the world,
fulfilling Boss's orders and dealing with prejudice against AP's which
is widespread, and with her own problems that arise from her having
"passed" as an ordinary human.

The plot is rudimentary and rather far-fetched, serving chiefly as a
vehicle for Friday's exploits.  In fact, it is in some respects like a
picaresque.  To give an idea of the pace of the book, here is the
first paragraph:

        As I left the Kenya Beanstalk capsule he was right on my
        heels.  He followed me through the door leading to Customs,
        Health, and Immigration.  As the door contracted behind him I
        killed him.

That is on page one.  Page seven sees Friday kidnapped and gang-raped.
Friday's adventures \are/ interesting, if only because she is one of
Heinlein's "competent" characters, and it is always gratifying to see
someone doing a job well.

Some of the many problems in the book come from Heinlein's attempts to
deal with themes such as prejudice, which Heinlein tries to satirize.
But the people depicted as prejudiced are so stylized that, after I
finished a scene with them, I felt a sense of unreality; it was
unbelievable that Heinlein actually thought that readers would accept
them as real people.  His other attempts at satire fail as badly.  He
tries to make fun of the spaced-out democracy of California, but he
succeeds only in exaggerating their "mellow" way of life so much that
he divorces it completely from reality, something which a good
satirist never does.

Further problems arise from Heinlein's inability to get away from sex.
Ever since \Stranger in a Strange Land/ sex has figured very
prominently in his books (it was not absent in his previous books,
just less prominent).  I am not prudish, but by the time Friday
declares for the twenty-first time that she is feeling "rutty"
(naturally this declaration is usually followed shortly by the
gratification of her desire), I felt a bit embarrassed.  I was
certainly not stimulated, or even amused.  Heinlein should learn the
virtue of moderation.  (I know he claims "moderation is for monks,"
but he is wrong, at least when it comes to sex in his writing.)

The last straw for me in \Friday/ was Heinlein's attempt at
"non-sexist" writing.  Specifically, I object to his use of "her" as a
neuter pronoun throughout the book (e.g. "A courier should never let
her physical skills become rusty").  While this is tolerable in some
instances, for example when "her" could conceivably refer only to
females, but Heinlein does not restrict himself thusly.  Whether this
is sexist or not is beside the point.  Good writing invariably suffers
when subjected to the constraints of political fads of the moment.
Also, coming across such non-standard usage directs my attention away
from the story while I wince at its unwieldiness.  Language evolves;
it generally ignores attempts either to speed up change or to retard
it.  People who make such attempts usually accomplish nothing but harm
to their own writing.

To sum up, if you like fast-paced action and revolutionary sexual
mores you will like \Friday/.  If you don't, and if ridiculously
exaggerated satire and "non-sexist" writing turn you off, you won't.
I didn't.

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 82 4:25-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Dream Park

I don't recall if anyone has mentioned this but there's a reference to
MIT in Dream Park by Niven and Barnes. page 37

        "Oh, I was playing Zork when I was seven. My father
         had a computer and a Modem. You know Zork? You played
         a role-playing game against a program in the computer
         at Massachusetts Institute of Technology."

Whew that one came close, but no mention of the Arpanet yet, (thanks
Larry!).  It's not really playing "against" the computer though.  It's
as if the computer is your eyes/ears/hands/etc.

------------------------------
Date: 18 May 1982 0719-PDT
From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich)
Subject: Movies: CONAN vs. THE SWORD AND THE SORCERER

Well.....I've seen TS&TS, and I think Conan was much better done (even
if they did use plot elements from almost everything \except/ the
Howard Conan stories).  TS&TS appears to be a made-for-TV movie,
complete with an entire cast of TV actors.  I thought it was a lot of
fun, albeit somewhat slow in places, but it's pretty hard to swallow
for anyone who takes their sword-technology seriously (the Society for
Creative Anachronism people HATED it).  The costuming, setting, etc.,
are all essentially European (pre?) dark-ages, but the swords are
quite obviously 20th century machine made - including some
"switchblade" swords, etc.  The writers and special-effects people
have obviously been watching too many James Bond movies!

If you can find a Rush Hour Special, or some other discount, The Sword
& the Sorcerer is worth seeing (lotsa Doug Fairbanks stuff, etc.), but
it's probably not worth full price.  Conan, on the other hand, even
with all it's failings (WHY didn't they simply use the entire "Conan"
novel (first in Howard's series) for the plot instead of making up
their own!?) \is/ probably worth full price.  BTW, the end of TS&TS
explicitly names the sequel!  Don't know if they are just kidding and
poking fun at all the other series and sequels being made these days,
or if they're just over-confidently planning ahead...

Enjoy, Rich

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 1982 16:02:55-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Re: The Secret of NIMH

   I have seen some publicity on this which reads as if the movie
could have been adapted from something called "Mrs. Frisbee and the
Rats of the NIMH" (having never read it, I can't be sure).

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 1982 1800-EDT
From: DD-B <DYER-BENNET at KL2137>
Reply-to: "DYER-BENNET at KL2137 c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: SF Lovers submission

( Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest V5 #48 )

(Charles F. Von Rospach <CHUQUI at MIT-AI>) Not to say that you're
wrong, since this is quite clearly a matter of personal opinion, but
I'd like to warn other readers that there is quite a range of opinion
on Dream Park by Niven and Barnes.  My personal impression was that
this was a first novel by an unknown that Niven had blessed without
actually doing anything to.  This may be totally incorrect, but to me
the book read as if that is what had happenned.

( Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest V5 #49 )
(Cabral at SUMEX-AIM) This seems to be my day for negativity.  I saw
The Sword and the Sorcerer a couple of weeks ago, and found it one of
the most badly thought out movies I have ever seen.  The magic tomato
slicer (sword) is just too much.  The ethnic diversity of the country
(read: combination of cheap stock footage) where the "action" took
place was totally unbelievable .

Now, Conan, on the other hand, was enjoyable.  The production design
was consistent and very realistic.  My major complaint was that Conan
the Barbarian never demonstrated his mettle by winning an apparently
losing battle.  He was always either fully in control, winning, or he
was down and out.  Since this film summarized his early history, I'll
take his dullness and lack of strategic planning as appropriate; I
hope he becomes more wiley in future films (surely there will be
future films?).  Some people have also complained that Thulsa Doom was
not a sufficiently world-menacing threat; but I didn't see anything in
the movie implying that he was supposed to be, so that didn't bother
me.

( Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest V5 #50 )

(LEOR@MIT-MC) Many thanks for FRIDAY review.  Several others have
mentioned that it was good old Heinlein, but they tended to mention
bad juveniles when pressed for examples (The Star Beast, The Puppet
Masters).  I may still wait for paper....

I enjoyed Number of the Beast, but it is interesting to note that it
had no hardcover publication before its trade paper edition.  Although
I haven't heard it discussed in these terms anywhere, that would seem
to indicate something about the editors' opinions of the book.

( Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest V5 #50 )

(mclure at SRI-UNIX) The Newhouse News Service (never heard of it)
review of Conan includes a reference to the Hyborean age, and to a
specific date in the past.  As far as I can recall, that information
didn't come from the movie.  It's possible, I suppose, that a movie
reviewer somewhere is literate enough to read a Howard book, but that
goes against most of my prejudices.  Also, it claims that the movie is
based on the comic book series rather than the actual books.  If true,
this could explain some of the complaints that fans of the books have
made about the movie.

( Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest V5 #51 )

(STEVE LIONEL AT STAR) On Friday:  Apparently the reference to Puppet
Masters that put me off of the book earlier come from the book
directly.  On the other hand, Kettle Belly Baldwin sounds familiar (I
think from Gulf) and a good character.  Sigh.  As you say, the
question is not whether I will read it, but when.

( Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest V5 #51 )

(hollywood!mike) Actually, Gonad the Barbarian is a comedy skit
performed (at SF conventions and elsewhere) by the Duck's Breath
Mystery Theater (out of San Francisco?).
( Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest V5 #51 )

(PAUL KARGER AT RDVAX) If they are right about having shown the ST
preview at a place with an SF convention in town (a real SF
convention), the response they got, particularly applause for the
death of Spock, may not be at all representative of the general
reaction.  Heh, heh, heh.

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 82 17:04:50-EDT (Tue)
From: Michael Muuss <mike@BRL>
Subject: Battlestar Dyslexia

I could have sworn that in at least one show the term "MiliCentons"
was used to refer to BOTH distance, and time, alternately.  Unless
their drives only operate at one velocity so the two would be the
same...

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 1982 0848-PDT
From: William "Chops" Westfield <BillW@SRI-KL>
Subject: Foonlys

There are 5 different types of foonlys, as I understand things, they
go:

F1 - faster than a screaming demon.  KA instruction set
F2 - about a KAs worth
F3 - a little smaller than an F2
F4 - almost a KL maybe has Kl instruction set and extended addressing
        (these are very new)
F5 - about a 2020 - these are newer...

SRI has F2s (SRI-CSL, SRI-C3P0), F3s (SRI-NIC), an F4 (not on net
(yet))

They are all really nice machines, if you want a small DEC-10...

BillW

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 21-May                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #54
*** EOOH ***
Date: Friday, May 21, 1982 3:14AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #54
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Friday, 21 May 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 54

Today's Topics:
Reviews.
Dream Park
TESB, medical costs, Conan, authors in combat, new RAH
Duck's Breath Mystery Theater
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17-May-1982
From: JOHN FRANCIS AT EIFFEL
Reply-to: "JOHN FRANCIS AT EIFFEL c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: Reviews.

Reviews: Conan the Barbarian, and Friday.

Why review both of these together ? Well, what they have in common are
(1) shallow leading characters, and (2) lots & lots of tits.
Actually, I only found point 1 mildly offensive in Friday, and I
didn't expect (or want) Conan to be a philosophy major.  Point 2 (how
Freudian) didn't worry me much, either, but then I like tits too.
Heinlein seems to be more obsessed by them than I am, but the amount
of obsession we can see in Friday does not get in the way of the plot.
Not that there is very much of that either, but the story moves along
fast enough, and with enough interesting things happening on the way,
that you don't find out there isn't much of a plot until you stop and
consider what you have just read.

The book re-introduces lot's of old friends, even if they have changed
their names and appearances a little.  We have 'Kettle-Belly' Baldwin,
who has appeared somewhere before, as the target for the heroine's 'Oh
how I wish I could swarm into his lap but he never even notices I have
a body' attitude, and the same character (almost) appearing as
Georges, who DOES notice she has a body.  We also have the obligatory
brother-and-sister four-or-more-in-a-bed extended household, but these
ones seem to have other things to do as well as have a good time.  I
enjoyed the book a great deal, despite the fact that I didn't expect
to, but felt that it could have been just as good (or even better) if
it didn't contain a gang-bang of the heroine by way of introducing her
to us.

Conan could also have been improved, to my mind, by reducing the
amount of graphic sex scenes.  I presume most people who go to see
'R'-rated movies are aware of what goes where, but I don't regard sex
as a spectator sport. In a movie, though, you can't just flick on a
couple of pages - you have to wait until the grunt-and-groan is
finished.  Not that I objected to Conan having his women - the three
women I can think of off-hand were all important to the plot, and in
at least one case it was necessary for Conan to 'pay the price...'.
All I object to is having to watch him at it.

There are also vast numbers of bare-breasted women in this movie, even
when they are not in bed with Conan.  This may also be offensive to
some people, as a lot of them are not strictly necessary to the plot.
But I digress..... back to the actual main characters.

Arnold S. may not be the greatest declaimer of a line in modern
cinema, but he showed more acting talent in this movie than I
expected. Just the expression on his face after he was surprised by
the camel would make the film worth a second seeing! He also wields a
sword fairly well (not very surprising considering what happens to you
if you don't pay enough attention to your instructor at the school
where he was taught ?). The supporting cast is also good - not only
James Earl Jones as a villain in the school of 'Evil for Evil's sake',
but the little archer, and the extremely delectable thief who is
actually portrayed as having a fine brain as well as a great body. The
secondary baddies are not so great, although the hammer-wielder gets a
few good moments (for example, when he belts the pillar to pieces, and
then stands there with a bemused expression on his face).

The special effects are good at times - I really liked the fire
spirits trying to take Conan when he was recuperating.

Micro Reviews :

        Conan:  Definitely a must-see movie.  Good main
                casting, and enough action to gloss over the
        ***     occasional inadequate minor characterizations.

        Friday:  The best thing Heinlein has written lately.
                 (Not that that says much).  Again enough
        **       action to cover lack of a real plot, and the
                 little homilies on sex don't really get in the
                 way. Read it if you like any Heinlein - it's
                 reminiscent of the way he used to write.

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 82 16:19:48 EDT  (Thu)
From: Steve Bellovin <smb.unc@UDel-Relay>
Subject: Dream Park

The book is full of back-pointers.  My favorite was a discussion that
went something like this:

        "That dagger is made of obsidian.  Do you know what obsidian
        is?  It's a volcanic glass?"

        "But what use is a glass dagger?"

Overall, I thought the book was so-so.  Too often, the authors used
the word "technology" when "magic" would have been a fairer
description.  As was pointed out in this list a long time ago,
holograms just don't behave that way.  Now and then, they stop and
explain things -- but more often, they don't.

Other than that, it's really a layered story -- mystery grafted onto
fantasy role-playing onto slash-and-hack onto mythology.  Too often,
the seams between the layers show.

                --Steve

P.S.  My apologies if I'm repeating something said earlier; I haven't
seen SFL in several months.

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 1982 0327-EDT
From: Steven J. Zeve <ZEVE at RUTGERS>
Subject: TESB, medical costs, Conan, authors in combat, new RAH

I have just caught up on the last month's worth of SF-L so forgive my
raising some old issues.


Release date for Star Wars 6:Revenge of the Jedi: I have seen a piece
of four color promo for RotJ which says SW4:ANH will be re-released in
Aug '82, SW5:TESB will be re-released in Apr '83 and SW6:RotJ will be
released in May '83 (I believe the actual date is May 25, 1983).  I
will try to dig it up again to check on it.


In a reference to Nourse's BLADERUNNER, Phil Gerring said that he felt
the premises of the story were ill-founded.  I suggest that you take a
good look at the current trends in the cost of medical/health care,
they show a very distinct upward motion in the money areas.  So much
so that it is almost impossible to get medical attention without
insurance (and very thorough insurance at that).  Why do you think
that the politicians are proposing such losing things as National
Health Insurance?


In SF-L vol 5 issue 51 the question "can anyone ... say whether there
is any author with combat experience who does glorify war?" was asked.
Although I don't know of any authors that glorify war there are some
who seem to regard it as a necessary evil and might also have combat
experience.  Laumer and Dickson come immediately to mind as
possibilities to check into.


About RAH's new book, FRIDAY.  It isn't quite the great old Heinlein
that the dust jacket claims, but on the other hand it definitely isn't
NotB.  I enjoyed it a lot, despite some of the preaching that crept
in.  I read it in two sittings from (I fell over from exhaustion in
between the two).  I disagree almost entirely with James A. Cox <APPLE
at MIT-MC>.  Maybe I'm just totally lacking in intelligence and
sensitivity, but I thought Heinlein made his points on prejudice
fairly well.  He was, perhaps, a little heavy-handed in some of his
portrayals but not much more than a lot of satirists; I rather suspect
that it was deliberate anyway, it fits with his slightly preachy
style.  Speaking of stereotypes and prejudice, how about this: why do
so many have trouble dealing with female characterS that think in
terms of "her" or "hers"; why should a strong independent woman always
think in terms "him" or "his"?  While it might be proper to "...
object to his [Heinlein's] use of 'her' as a neuter pronoun ..." if it
were being done purely for effect, to be "non-sexist", or to bow to
"... the constraints of political fads of the moment." (indeed I might
be the first to object to such use), it is certainly ridiculous to
object to it in a story where the NARRATOR AND LEAD CHARACTER is
FEMALE; keep in mind that the entire story of this book (FRIDAY) is
told in first person.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with a woman
thinking in terms of female pronouns by default.  If you have trouble
with that situation, then the problem is in the reader, not the
writer; maybe old RAH is less sexist than his critics claim.  I'm
going to have to go back to the book and check if that's what he did,
'cause I never noticed it one way or the other!



With regards to the Conan movie, I agree with Phil Gerring.  The movie
just wasn't Conan.  All the little pieces were there, some of them
were even the right shape, but the director just didn't pull them
together.  I went with 5 other people to see the movie and we read the
Newhouse News Service review (see SF-L vol 5 issue 50 - by the way,
the Newhouse family is in the newspaper business - I believe that they
own several papers) on the way there.  We had a grand time shredding
the review because of the reviewer's total lack of knowledge and
understanding of the real-world details he mentions (like the
reference to the 50 year old comic, and - let's face it gang - just
600 years ago "... men were men and table manners had not yet evolved
 ..."  ).  On the way back from the movie, we discussed the fact that
while the reviewer was wrong in almost every detail and fact he
mentioned, he was still right about the movie (although I personally
thought that Excalibur was a better movie and found DragonSlayer to be
a nice piece of absolute fluff).  I must say in response to
DYER-BENNET, the movie absolutely did not follow the comic books at
all (I am a faithful follower of the Marvel Comics version of Conan
and that certainly was not what I saw on the movie screen).

I blame the movie's problems on the director and the producer, all the
problems I found in the movie were in things that the director and
producer have total control over (or should have that control over):
scenes too long, scenes not long enough, bad choice in music, etc.  I
don't think Milius had any idea what he was doing, he just didn't seem
to have an understanding of Conan.  If Milius "... can't elicit
professional performances from either Schwarzenegger or Bergman", I
think it is more because he didn't bother to figure out what he wanted
from the actors than it is due to unprofessional work by the actors.
On the other hand the director can't "... spoil the evil majesty Jones
brings to the idiotic lines he must speak." because even Jones'
massive talent (much greater than the director's it would seem) can't
bring "evil majesty" to the drek the Milius has saddled him with.  All
this is a little odd since obviously the director knew SOMETHING about
Conan (which the reviewer absolutely did not) because "... Milius has
the good sense to give Schwarzenegger a minimum of dialogue and
maximum of muscle-flexing."  which is exactly how Conan is supposed to
behave (this is what I mean about the pieces being there).  [ By the
way, what \does/ the Freedman have against Schwarzenegger?  The review
reads as if Schwarzenegger can do nothing right, which just isn't
true.  Just consider this bit " ...  When he says ''Is this your
robe?'' it comes out sounding like ''Is this Europe?'' Conan may need
a travel agent even more than a diction coach.", for some reason I
don't expect a \young/ Cimmerian barbarian to have a perfect knowledge
of Nemedian (or Stygian for that matter).  Also, I am under the
distinct impression that Schwarzenegger's accent is due to mostly to
English not being his native language.  Perhaps the reviewer needs
reality lessons even more than Conan needs that travel agent. ]

I think that the business with Conan's childhood gives a pretty clear
idea of the value of the movie; consider: "A marauding band of
tribesmen led by Thulsa Doom (James Earl Jones), head of the
unpleasant snake cult of Set, kills young Conan's parents and casts
him into slavery. [paragraph break] Some 15 years later, the orphan
grows up to ... [about one paragraph removed here] ...  wreak
vengeance on Thulsa Doom and his mangy minions.".  In other words the
director just decided to scrap all of Conan's childhood and re-write
it for some unknown reason(s).  This is typical throughout the movie,
the director and producer seem to have said, let's take this hot item
and completely destroy it by throwing away everything that its fans
like.  So, off went the sorcery, most of the sword fights, all of the
reason behind characters' actions, and all of Conan's struggles with
the superhuman/supernatural.  The only time you see the Conan we know
and love is in little bits and pieces; the first gladiator fight,
cursing out Crom, and in the brooding moments (which were much too
long for the film, if there had been more action between them they
would have been better).  What do we have left after the butchery?  A
good question, primarily a lot of scenery.

All, in all, you should see the movie ONLY if you can do so cheaply
(like a $2 matinee), or if you don't know anything about Conan and/or
don't expect to be entertained.

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 1982  21:18-EDT (Wednesday)
From: Mijjil (Matthew J. Lecin) <LECIN at GREEN>
Subject: Duck's Breath Mystery Theater

the "Duck's Breath" people are from Minnesota, I thought...

<Mijjil>

(Anyone out there know "The ferrets of England", by Duck's Breath?)

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 24-May                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #55
*** EOOH ***
Date: Monday, May 24, 1982 7:58AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #55
To: SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI


SF-LOVERS Digest         Monday, 24 May 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 55

Today's Topics:
                          SF Books - Friday,
      SF Movies - The Sword and the Sorcerer & Star Wars & TRON,
            SF TV - Computers Are People Too & Universe &
           Battlestar Galactica,  SF Topics - Military SF,
            Random Topics - Duck's Breath Mystery Theater
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 May 1982 06:42-EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: \Friday/

Oh come on!  Can you really think "Heinlein made his points on
prejudice fairly well"?  Everyone who Heinlein depicts as prejudiced
is so irrational, nay, so anti-rational, as to be unbelievable.
Friday's "arguments" with prejudiced people are terribly stereotyped.
Friday asks "what's the difference between an X (who is "OK") and a Y
(who is not, by racist standards)?"  She is answered with something
like "Well, they're just different!" (quotations are paraphrased).
Fine.  I'm sure there are people that stupid in today's world, but why
satirize them?  You've already got near-universal agreement that that
sort of prejudice is unreasonable and contemptible.  Satire is \not/
making fun of things that everyone already knows are wrong.  It's
making fun of things that everyone holds sacred.  There are plenty of
more insidious types of racism that would make much better targets for
a good satirist.  Heinlein's satire of the California way of life is
similarly flawed.  \Everybody/ now knows about that state's spacey
excesses.  Somewhere back about a year ago, making fun of California
became unoriginal--and unfunny.

Two people have suggested to me, one privately and one publicly, that
my disagreement with Heinlein's usage of "her" as a neuter pronoun
reflects a problem with me and not Heinlein.  They claim that it is
perfectly natural for a strong, independently-minded woman to think in
terms of "she" and "her" by default, and that since Heinlein wrote the
novel in the first person from Friday's point of view, that he was
simply reflecting her thinking.  I considered this before I wrote my
original comments and rejected it.  Literate people use standard
English, and standard English requires "he" and "him" for the
gender-unspecific prounoun.  This has nothing to do with sexism and
everything to do with correct grammar.  I am against sexism as much as
anyone, but it seems to me that a woman may be as strong and
independently-minded as Friday is and still respect the rules of
grammar.

------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1982 12:05:15-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: language in FRIDAY

   I've only glanced at the book, but I recollect that it's told in
the first person; I'd hardly call it trendy for a competent female
agent to use female pronouns as collectives.
   As for language evolving by itself, take a look at what happened to
French a few centuries ago. There's also a question of who's evolving
it (yes, I \know/ "evolve" isn't supposed to be a transitive verb); do
neologisms promulgated by TIME (e.g. "smog" and c.f. their ad of 12-14
years ago in which they boasted of all the new words they spread)
somehow deserve more consideration than the neologisms of utopists?

------------------------------

Date: 21-May-82 12:31:13 PDT (Friday)
From: Haynes at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Kettle-Belly Baldwin

I believe Kettle-Belly is the "hero" of "Gentlemen, (please?) be
seated", a short-story about early days on the moon.

        -- Charles

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 1982 12:07:47-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: THE SWORD AND THE SORCERER

   It sounds like you have a group of SCA people who take themselves
too seriously; in this area (Boston) the SCAdians I've talked to
(including an ex-monarch) seem to take it as amusing parody rather
than a straight story.

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 1982 1418-PDT
From: Cabral at SUMEX-AIM
Subject: The SWORD and the SORCERER

Pico review: Much fun

The movie opens to show the startling revival of a long-entombed
sorcerer/demon.  The villain, with the help of this sorcerer,
overwhelms the fair realm of King Richard, destroying Richard's armies
with magic and disposing of all but one member of the royal household,
a young prince named Talon who escapes with his father's impressive
sword.  The villain and the sorcerer have a falling out, and the
sorcerer escapes into hiding.  Years pass, the boy grows up, has
earned a fair (!) reputation as a warrior, and ends up back at his old
stomping grounds.  The people plot a rebellion against the villain,
but Talon has business elsewhere, so this is just a stopover, and,
well, if it wasn't for the rather spirited young woman he encountered
 ...
Like most such epics, there is a lot of blood spilled, and happily a
lot of it is off camera, allowing the imagination full arena for
providing the details.  It includes some wonderful Dungeons and
Dragons type scenes, a fast-moving pace (slow motion was used in just
one short instance, and somewhat effectively), and a refreshing ending
with promise of more fun to come.  A must-see once, and possibly more.

Art

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 1982 at 1500-CDT
From: ables at UTEXAS-11
Subject: SW:IV,V,VI ; ST:III

I saw a 20th Century Fox flyer for their forthcoming movies recently,
and "Star Wars: A New Hope" (Episode IV) will be re-released in July
or August, I forget exactly. It also said that "Star Wars: The Empire
Strikes Back" will be re-released at Christmas (a traditional money-
making time for theatres) and of course, everyone knows "Star Wars:
The Revenge of the Jedi" is to come in May of 83.

I was watching the syndicated show "Entertainment Tonight" one night
last week and heard something I haven't heard anywhere else. They said
that Paramount has announced the title of the next Star Trek movie, it
is to be "Star Trek: In Search Of Spock." I wasn't listening closely
and couldn't decide if they were serious or not. Has anyone heard this
from another source or was anyone listening when they said it and
could tell if they were serious or not? The reason I'm puzzled is "In
Search Of" was Leonard Nimoy's TV series for a number of years
(although they never picked it up in our market so I never saw it,
from what I heard it was fairly good). This title seems a little too
coincidental. Help????

-ka

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 1982 1246-PDT
From: Craig W. Reynolds  from III via Rand  <REYNOLDS at RAND-AI>
Subject: TRON TV

As the publicity blitz for TRON continues to build, several TV shows
are coming out in the near future. I thought I would let the SFL
readership know when they are happening. Aside from stills in the
press, these shows will be one of the few places to see tha animation
before the release date, July 9.

It may come as a surprise to many of you, but "Computers are People
Too" - or at least that is the title of the making-of- TRON TV show.
It was produced by the publicity department of Disney Productions. I
have not seen the show yet, but it should include clips from the film
and interviews etc. shot "behind the scenes" including some shot here
at triple-I.

   Computers Are People Too
        Los Angeles     Sun, May 23     KTTV / 11       7pm
        Boston          Sat, May 22     WBZ / 4         5pm
        Chicago         Sun, May 23     WGN / 9         1pm
        Philadelphia    Sat, May 22     KYW / 3         1pm
        San Francisco   Sun, May 30     KPIX / 5        5pm
        and many more - check your local listings

   PM Magazine - one segment on TRON
        LA              Fri, May 28     KTTV / 11       8pm

The "Universe" segment should be great fun, they put old Walt out on
the Electronic Game Grid, rezzed him up and created a true "electronic
journalist" ("Gee Mom, Walter's GLOWING").  Again shots made here, at
Disney, and perhaps at MAGI in NY.

   Walter Cronkite's Universe
        Anytown, USA    Tue, June 29    CBS affiliates  8pm

As I was writing this, Larry Malone pointed out a strange thing on
page 172 of the recently published novelization of TRON (Ballantine
Books). The text is what was refered to in the script as "Flynn's
fatal evidence", the proof he sought that his programs had been stolen
by the evil Dillinger (nee Sark). Steve Lisberger asked me to write
something that looked "computerish" to be used as the evidence. The
text I gave him is reproduced exactly, including the line at the
top, which was supposed to be a comment telling me where to find this
text on our TOPS-10 file system:

        File = DSKI:FLYNN.MEM[700,706]

Oh, well. Now my account ("[700,706]" - TOPS-10 doesn't use usernames)
is famous, next it will want royalties and start driving around town
in a Limo.

-c

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 1982 06:36-EDT
From: Eric P. Scott <EPS at MIT-AI>
Subject: Biblestarve Galaxative

It was easier to pick up the units and their spellings once they
started showing Adama's Tektronix dictating machine...  Adama said
that their lifespan had reached nearly 200 YAHRENS; I guess a Yahren
is within an order of magnitude of our Year.  Interestingly enough,
when the Galactica intercepted Michael and Sarah's ship (bound from
Lunar Seven to Paradeen), they said that the writing within (obviously
1970's English to us) was unlike anything they had in their records.
So how come Adama's words are displayed in the same Roman letters as
he speaks (when none of the markings about the Galactica are save the
name painted on the hull)?  Sloppy, sloppy.

I watched most of the "Odyssey of the Battlestar Galactica" when it
was shown in LA on KCOP recently.  I didn't pay too much attention to
details this time around.  Come on Lauren, you must have videotaped
the entire series?  (I wouldn't mind seeing it again; it was better
than Space 1999 and UFO combined.  I hope some independent picks it
up.)
                                        --Eric

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 1982 1809-PDT
From: Lynn Gold <G.FIGMO at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Duck's Breath Mystery Theater

They're based in San Francisco.  I work for KFJC in Los Altos Hills
(about 40 mins from "THE City"), and we have several tapes of their
material which they did for us a while back.

You BET they're local!

--Lynn

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 1982 12:16:35-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: authors and war

   My recollection is that Laumer is an ex-diplomat (Retief obviously
started as a wish-fulfillment fantasy, especially if you find the
really first Retief story (last in the chronology, and very different
in tone from all the others). Dickson, like Anderson, was some sort of
science graduate; for all I know he may have gotten through college on
ROTC but in reading his autobio relative to the Childe cycle there
seems to be no room in the chronology for active duty.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 26-May                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #56
*** EOOH ***
Date: Wednesday, May 26, 1982 1:40PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #56
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest        Wednesday, 26 May 1982     Volume 5 : Issue 56

Today's Topics:
                Administrivia - Mailing Difficulties,
              SF Fandom - ARCHON,  SF TV - In Search Of,
          SF Movies - Summer Releases & Conan the Barbarian,
             SF Topics - Military SF,  SF Books - Friday,
                 Random Topics - Genderless Pronouns
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, May 26, 1982 1:40PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS-REQUEST at MIT-AI
Subject: Mailing Difficulties

We experienced some transmission difficulties with issue #55 that
resulted in some digests being sent out with incorrectly formatted
headers.  The problem has been isolated and fixed.

Since we are in the process of moving our transmission facilities and
making other technical changes in the way the digest is made and
distributed, I am afraid that similar problems may crop up in the
future.  Apologies to all in advance, and we will try to keep the
hassles to the readership to a minimum.

Jim

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 1982 1243-PDT
Subject: ARCHON Update
From: Amy Newell through <WMartin at Office-8>

The membership rate for the 1982 ARCHON goes up to $16.00 as of 1
June, as determined by postmark date. However, I have it on good
authority that they will not reject memberships at the current $12.00
rate that happen to get in a little late...

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 1982 10:27 PDT
From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: "In Search Of"

        I'm afraid "In Search Of" was a disappointing circus of
pseudoscience. For overall credibility I would place it between
"Ripley's Believe It or Not" and the "science" articles in the
National Enquirer (they were not actually ashamed to put out something
which was true, but avoided it where convenient).
        Nimoy's main contribution seemed to be the quality of his
voice as narrator, and it would be to his distinct credit if he could
prove he did the entire thing under hypnosis..

                                        Jerry

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 1982 0513-PDT
Subject: Movies (DC area)
From: ADPSC (Don)

The Circle Theater will be playing the following:

        May  27 - 29    Time After Time (w/ The 7% Solution)
        June  1 -  2    Scanners , ZARDOZ
        June  9 - 10    The Shining, The Howling

Check the POST for show times

Don

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 1982 11:40:21-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Re: conan review

In response to your message of Mon May 24 02:52:47 1982:

   You've got several good points there. (After all, I never said
Friedman wasn't a flaming idiot with tastes right out of Sinclair's
Main Street.)
   On the other hand, I remember reading of a lot of \good/ actors who
disappeared from Hollywood when the talkies came in---their accents
(which didn't matter in silent films) just couldn't be fitted in. Oh
well.

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 1982 at 2148-CDT
From: hjjh at UTEXAS-11
Subject: LAUMER & THE MILITARY

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ LAUMER & THE MILITARY ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The way \I/ recall it, he was a military (or air force?) attache'
somewhere in Indo-China.

Nicholls' SCIENCE FICTION ENCYCLOPEDIA says--

"Laumer... served in the army 1943-5,... in the U.S. Air Force 1953-6,
an then joined the U.S. foreign service.  He rejoined the USAF as a
captain in 1960."

The crucial point is probably how close to the actual fighting did he
get during the 1943-45 WWII years.

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 1982 at 2110-CDT
From: hjjh at UTEXAS-11
Subject: FRIDAY

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ FRIDAY ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Charlie Brown of LOCUS says, "This sequel to "Gulf" (1949) is my
favorite Heinlein since THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS".  I checked on
what RAH has written since TMiaHM (1966), and that isn't much of an
accolade.  But the comment does provide a lead to where the Baldwin
character occurred earlier.

I wouldn't want to read it again (which is my personal criterion for
"outstanding"), but found it enjoyable once the ugliness at the
beginning was out of the way.

My biggest gripe is that I cannot accept that a male who takes part in
a gang rape could be redeemable (even if he \didn't/ have B.O.).  The
depiction of prejudice, especially in the New Zealanders, was -- to
someone acquainted with that country --a masterly touch, for race
relations there are so g-o-o-d, that when one does encounter it, and
one can, it's doubly devastating.

I am particularly interested in seeing what reception FRIDAY gets from
the strident libbers in SF-- the ones who've damned RAH for Podkayne
(and damned him wrongfully, as a full and unbiased view of the book
and its period in the light of a study of female protagonists in SF
can adduce).  I wonder if they'll realize that beneath all her
competence and superiority-- Friday is no Damn-their-eyes Lazarus
Long, but still the lonely, emotionally vulnerable Podkayne-type whose
deepest need is not just acceptance despite being an Artificial
Person, but to love and be loved.

But there were a lot of little fun ideas woven thruout-- especially if
one enjoys RAH's balancing of curmudgeonly outlook on humanity with
optimism.  As both a computer- and Antipodes-lover, my favorite quote
is, "A friendly computer with a Strine [Australian] accent is better
company than most people."

The spaceship names are a particular joy-- Dirac, Maxwell, etc., AND
Forward.  \Last/ time (in THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST) our SF-L colleague
just got invited to a party.  \Here/, "Anti-gravity...was a mystery
until Dr. Forward came along and explained it".

As for sentient computers or robots, RAH's view is sadly convincing.
(I think one is safe in assuming that the following conversation in
FRIDAY is RAH speaking behind the scenes--)

     "...several times AI scientists have announced that
      they were making a breakthrough to the fully self-
      aware computer.  But it always went sour."

     "Yes.  Distressing."
     "No-- inevitable.  It will always go sour.  A compu-
      ter can become self-aware-- oh, certainly!  Get it
      up to human level of complexity and it \has/ to be-
      come self-aware.  Then it discovers that it is not
      human.  Then it figures out that it can never be
      human; all it can do is sit there and take orders
      from humans.  Then it goes crazy."

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 82 5:06-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Friday review

                          By Roland J. Green
                      (c) 1982 Chicago Sun-Times
                          Field News Service

    FRIDAY. By Robert A. Heinlein. Holt, Rinehart & Winston. $14.95.

    (Roland J. Green is a science fiction novelist and columnist.)

    Robert A. Heinlein's latest novel is practically a compendium of
the major virtues of this distinguished science fiction storyteller.
    His main character, Friday, is an Artificial Person. She was not
only fertilized but brought to viability in vitro, intended for a life
of indentured servitude. Rescued and thoroughly trained as a secret
courier, she now serves an intelligence agency headed by ''Boss'' -
the centenarian Dr. Baldwin, a mentor in the tradition of Jubal
Harshaw from ''Stranger in a Strange Land.''
    As an Artificial Person, Friday is smarter, stronger, and faster
than normal humans-all assets in her profession. She is also rather
active sexually, but despite this, has doubts about her own beauty and
very few illusions about male human sexuality. Above all, she is
thoroughly vulnerable to the vicious prejudice against Artificial
People. Friday is one of Heinlein's most believable and compelling
characters.
    Friday's world is the Earth of the mid-21st century, which has
solved many of its major survival problems and even colonized the
planets of certain stars, without eliminating what Heinlein has always
considered the main dangers to human race - incompetence, bigotry and
stupidity. One of Heinlein's greatest strengths has always been not
just building plausible worlds, but showing them to us as the
viewpoint characters would see them. Since Friday is a courier, what
could be more natural for her than considering alternative routes to
her destination - and in the process giving the reader a concise
picture of Earth's transportation technology?
    In fact, Friday and most of the large supporting cast are on the
move through most of the book. It opens with Friday killing a man she
suspects of having trailed her from a space station. She then travels
halfway across the Earth with her message, is kidnapped and tortured,
then rescued by her agency's people. She takes a vacation with her New
Zealand extended family, who divorce her after discovering that she is
an Artificial Person - and at this point we are still less than a
quarter of the way through the book.
    Despite this exceedingly brisk pacing, Heinlein seldom leaves
scenes, characters or social institutions undeveloped. He also leaves
himself plenty of room for a vintage collection of asides on
bureaucrats, religious fanatics, the ethics of sex and self-defense,
gourmet food and cats (''The coldest depth of Hell is reserved for
people who abandon kittens'').
    When all is said, however, this book hardly requires extensive
theoretical analysis. It is a book to be read, enjoyed, then reread
again and again, savoring the new richness one is likely to find with
each reading.

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 1982 0202-EDT
From: Steven J. Zeve <ZEVE at RUTGERS>
Subject: Re: \Friday/

Most bigots are irrational in their prejudice.  Get out and talk to
some real dyed in the wool bigots.  They still use the good old "Well,
they're just different", maybe they dye it a slightly different color
but it's still there.  There is nowhere near "universal agreement"
about the stupidity of any form of prejudice.  If there is so much
agreement, how come there is still so much prejudice and bigotry left?
Agreed, there are other insidious forms of bigotry (in all areas, not
just in race) that need to be attacked, but the old-fashioned blunt
versions are still around and still need to be attacked.  Satire is a
tool, a technique, it cares not for the status of the object it is
attacking.  I don't see that it is only for "making fun of things that
everyone holds sacred".  I'll bet a good satirist can poke solid holes
in that idea; just imagine, ritualized satire with its own set of
specialized sacred cow rules.
   The California exaggeration wasn't necessary to advance the plot,
I'll agree to that.  However, have you considered possible reasons why
he put it in the book?  Maybe he feels that there is something still
to be said about it.  Although I am not certain about this, I believe
that Heinlein lives in California.  If he does indeed live there,
maybe that gives him a different attitude than yours about the
"state's spacy excesses".  Having just read White's "America in Search
of Itself: the Making of the President 1956-1980", I have relatively
fresh in mind White's opinion that California is where the current
style of national politics (with its emphasis on image and media above
issues and facts) was really born.  Heinlein has a slight reputation
as an observer of trends in this country.  Perhaps Heinlein wanted to
state his feelings on where we might be going as a country.
   On to the him/her debate.  Currently accepted English semantics may
"require" the use of he/him/his, but standard English GRAMMAR makes no
such requirement (I rather doubt that semantics requires it either).
English grammar merely requires the use of the correct type of word
(noun vs pronoun versus adjective versus verb) at the appropriate
place in a sentence.  The question is not one of English grammar, but
one of attitude and upbringing of the character in question.  As an
extrapolation of current trends it is perfectly reasonable to assume
the Friday has been brought up in an environment where the use of
he/him/his as a standard has not been taught to everyone from birth
forward, whether such an environment is either more "sexist" or less
"sexist" is another matter entirely.
   Since you brought up the term "literate", lets look at it a minute.
I contend that being literate has nothing to do with the matter at
hand.  By definition (taken from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary),
"literate" means

    adj 1a) educated, cultured, b) able to read and write
        2a) versed in literature or creative writing, b) lucid, polished
    noun 1) an educated person
         2) one who can read and write

None of this implies the use of he/him/his over she/her/hers; nor, for
that matter, above it/it/its which is completely gender non-specific,
species non-specific, and several other kinds of non-specific.  Also,
the definition of "literate" says nothing about "standard English".
And speaking of "standard", whose standard English shall we use as THE
standard?  British?  American mid-west?  American east?  Canadian?
Australian?  19th century (most of the well known writers of that era
would fail modern high school english if they wrote the way they did
then)?  Friday was literate by at least one of the definitions above:
she could read and write, she was educated, and she was probably
versed in literature by the end of the book (pun unintentional).  I
never noticed what set of pronouns/possesives Friday used, at least no
until you mentioned.  I would be upset if the pronouns/possessives
were used in the wrong place in a sentence, unless it was in the
speech patterns of some character that supposedly didn't know the
proper usage the various pieces in the English language.

        Steve Z.

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 1982 23:38:03-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: language in Friday, pt II

   "Standard English"? Well, first define it, then we'll talk about
what it requires. I believe I have a little more experience in this
than most of the digest, as I've edited three books by three \very/
different SF authors within the last 18 months and gone several rounds
with someone who swears (mostly) by the Chicago Manual of Style.
   Or maybe you define "literate people" as those who use your version
of "standard english"? Was James Joyce illiterate? Language is not
immutable, nor can you (outside of strictly controlled, strictly
expository material (e.g. THE NATIONAL REVIEW?)) state that the
conventions are unalterable--- else you wipe out much worthwhile SF.
It could be argued that we're riding the line between prose and
poetry, but good \writing/ (as opposed to good \exposition/) is going
to fall wherever around that line is appropriate.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 31-May                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #57
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <?@BRL>
Date: Monday, May 31, 1982 12:18AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #57
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Friday, 28 May 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 57

Today's Topics:
    SF Books - News from LOCUS & Number of the Beast & Heinlein &
             Podkayne of Mars,  SF Topics - Long Novels,
       SF Movies - Revenge of the Jedi & Conan the Barbarian &
      Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan & Spielberg,  SF TV - HHGttG,
 Random Topics - Genderless Pronouns,  Humor - Genderless Video Games
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 May 1982 at 2304-CDT
From: hjjh at UTEXAS-11
Subject: Snippets from Recent Issues of LOCUS

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Snippets from Recent Issues of LOCUS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

To counteract the impression that FRIDAY is the only book around--

"Jerry Pournelle is buying reprint and original stories and poetry on
the themes of artificial (robotic) and enhanced human intelligence,
for an anthology, SILICON BRAINS."

COILS, a trade paperback by Zelazny & Saberhagen, has "a hero who has
the psychic ability to enter computer data-links and 'coil' his way
into the strange realm of machine minds. ... Though this book may not
have all that much to tell us about man's relationship with his
machines, it fulfills its promise as polished entertainment by a pair
of old pros."

Among "April books from the [SF] Book Club [were] VOYAGE FROM YESTER-
YEAR by James P. Hogan and ... BUGS, an occult computer/insect-of-
the-month book by Theodore Roszak."  Hogan's book, is due out in
paperback from Ballantine/Del Rey in July.  "Although it starts out as
a hardback novel, this quickly turns into a new version of Eric Frank
Russell's famous 'And Then There Were None".  It's interesting, but
not completely successful."

"Harry Hellerstein's novel WIRED: A FANTASTIC ADVENTURE STORY OF THE
COMPUTER AGE will be published in May [by St. Martin's]."

From Atheneum in March: "Patricia McKillip's non-fantasy STEPPING FROM
THE SHADOWS".

"MIT Press will reprint THE CYBERNETIC IMAGINATION IN SCIENCE FICTION
by Patricia S. Warrick in June in a paperback edition."  \This/ is the
book whose inadequacies inspired the CYBER-SF project here on SF-L.

"Keith Laumer has turned in a new novel, RETIEF TO THE RESCUE, to
Timescape... [to] be published in hardback."

I had thought Heyer sub-fandom was pretty much dead in SF, but getta
loada THIS con--
   "FRIENDS OF THE ENGLISH REGENCY 8 (Jun 11-13 '82) Los Angeles
   Airport Travelodge Hotel, CA; ...Dance instruction, costume
   slide show, tea tasting, card games, afternoon teas, regency
   ball, etc.  Info....: Elayne Pelz, 15931 Kalisher St., Granada
   Hills CA 91344."

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 1982 16:13 mst
From: Harvey.Multics at PCO-MULTICS
Subject: NotB Hardcover Publication

In response to DYER-BENNET of 17 May, Heinlein's novel The Number of
the Beast WAS published in hardcover by the New English Library.  It
was announced as such in Analog (or Destinies?) by Spider Robinson.
There was also a comment in there that the trade edition would be
"slightly edited".  It could have used more than that, but...

By the way, the New English Library publishes in the UK.

 - Ron

------------------------------

Date: 27-May-82  9:35:50 PDT (Thursday)
From: Chapman.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Where does Heinlein live?

Heinlein and his wife Jenny do live in California.

Cheryl

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 26 May 1982 19:17-PDT
From: jim at RAND-UNIX
Subject: RAH a Californian

According to my ham radio Callbooks of 1976 and 1978, one Robert A.
Heinlein does indeed live in California (ran across the name by
chance).  In my book(s) that gives him all the right in the world to
criticize us.  (I won't give the address, since I doubt that he would
want random unfiltered mail.)

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 1982 1921-PDT
From: Cabral at SUMEX-AIM
Subject: RAH locale

Although SUMEX-AIM is Stanford, our group works out of UCSanta Cruz,
and imagine my surprise to discover some wickedly delightful rumors
about one Robert A Heinlein living on Empire Grade (which runs just
west of campus).  Reportedly the house has an electrified barbed-wire
fence, which he calls (again reportedly) his "anti-hippie" fence.
Local SF groups seem to have a hard time getting him to talk with
them, although promises to donate blood to blood drives has been
rumored to work.  (Actually, he lives a few miles off Empire Grade on
Bonny Doon Drive ...).  My perception of Santa Cruz is that it
out-California's California, so Heinlein may have been commenting
about that in his satire (but I haven't read Friday yet).

For those of you unfamiliar with California geography, Santa Cruz is
about 80 miles south along the coast from San Francisco, over the hill
(20 mi) from San Jose, and across the bay from Monterey.

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 1982 1638-PDT
From: Dolata at SUMEX-AIM
Subject: Nits

Does anyone else besides me think that Revenge of the Jedi is a bad
title?  I personally cannot belive that a Jedi would be out for
Revenge!  Revenge is linked to the dark side of the force.  Justice,
truth, reckonings I could belive, but not revenge!

How about SF books lengths recently.  Does anyone else think that
Silverbergs book 'Lord Valentines Castle' was too long, too padded?
There are a lot of 300+ page books coming out.  A friend suggested
that was because copy editing was more expensive than just publishing
the turkey and charging the reader for the extra pages.  Any thoughts?

------------------------------

Date: 27 May 1982 0853-MDT
From: Michi Wada <WADA at SANDIA>
Subject: ST:TWOK; ST:III

I did not see "Entertainment Tonight", but some of my friends have.
It seems Paramount has indeed announced that ST:III has been
tentatively titled "Star Trek: In Search of Spock".

The Merv Griffin Show (May 24) devoted the entire hour to Star Trek.
William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley and Bibi Besch were
there.  Three film clips from ST:TWOK were shown.  It was fantastic.
The 3 film clips were:
 1) Battle scene between Reliant and Enterprise.
 2) Bridge scene just before Enterprise leaves space dock.  Kirk and
    McCoy enters bridge.  Spock in command chair decides to let
    Lt. Saavik take Enterprise out of space dock.  Then McCoy asks
    Kirk if he wants a tranquilizer.  The look of panic and anxiety
    on Kirk's face was just beautiful.
 3) Khan and Kirk interplay just before Khan gets the Genesis bomb.

One question: In the second clip Spock calls her "Mister Saavik".  Can
anyone help me in trying to explain this?

Leonard Nimoy also announced that he had been contacted by Paramount
to discuss contracts for the third movie.  From the sound of it he
will be in ST:III.

For those who would like to know more about the plot and may not be
aware of it "Starlog" has published "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan; The
Official Movie Magazine".

                        Michi

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 1982 1553-PDT
From: Stuart McLure Cracraft <McLure at SRI-KL>
Subject: Spielberg interview

                 26 May 82 (For release Sun., May 30)
                            New York Times

    In the case of ''E.T.,'' Spielberg points out, the opposing force
is not a tangible enemy like the shark in ''Jaws,'' but the intrusion
of the grown-up world. Whereas 10-year-old Elliott wants only to love
and be loved by his extraterrestrial friend, this grown-up world,
represented by corps of doctors and technicians, wants to preserve
E.T. as a specimen of alien life. ''I always thought of the adult
world as being symbolized by tall people who cast giant shadows,''
says Spielberg, ''people who don't think like kids, but think like
professionals. That's dangerous - they might understand E.T.
biologically and scientifically, but they'd never ever understand that
he had a heart.''
    A similar message, of course, has long been a favorite theme in
children's literature - from J.M. Barrie's ''Peter Pan'' to Antoine de
Saint-Exupery's ''The Little Prince'' - and ''E.T.'' is filled with
references to well-known books and films. During one scene, for
instance, John Williams's score recalls the music used in ''The Wizard
of Oz'' to accompany the Wicked Witch, Miss Gulch; and in the movie's
penultimate scene, Elliott and his friends soar into the sky on their
bicycles, in much the same way that Peter Pan and Wendy flew off to
Never Never Land. Certainly Spielberg and the writer of the film,
Melissa Mathison, were well aware of the genre they were working in -
before starting, they screened such movies as ''Night of the Hunter,''
''Bambi,'' ''The Blue Bird'' and ''Our Mother's House''
- but the film also grew out of preoccupations that have animated
Spielberg's work from the beginning.
    Most of his movies, after all, have featured children in important
or emblematic roles. ''Sugarland,'' ''Close Encounters'' and
''Poltergeist,'' for instance, all involve the attempt of a mother to
regain custody of her child. And in both ''Close Encounters'' and
''E.T.,'' it is a child - and those adults who maintain a childlike
innocence and openness to the possibility of miracles - who is granted
communion with these visitors from outer space and a vision of a more
lovely world.
    ''I've always wanted to do something about kids because I'm still
a kid,'' says Spielberg, who at 34 still radiates a boyish enthusiasm
and ingenious charm. ''I'm still waiting to get out of my Peter Pan
shoes and into my loafers. I think it's easier for me to have a
complete conversation from Pac-Man to exobiology with an 11-year-old
than it is to sit down with an adult and discuss Nietzsche and the
Falklands . Why? I guess because I'm probably socially irresponsible
and way down deep I don't want to look the world in the eye.
Actually, I don't mind looking the world in the eye, as long as
there's a movie camera between us.''

------------------------------

Date: 24-May-1982
From: DAVE PORTER AT SMAUG
Reply-to: "DAVE PORTER AT SMAUG c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: "Hitchhikers Guide reruns"

Just thought you'd like to know that the TV version of The Hitchhikers
Guide to the Galaxy is being reshown on BBC1 on Monday evenings ...

/dave/

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 1982 0247-EDT
From: Steven J. Zeve <ZEVE at RUTGERS>
Subject: Re: conan review

There is a problem with the point about diction, how do you separate
bad diction from an accent?  (Or can they be separated?)  While there
are many people who are good at picking up languages, there are very
few who are good enough to sound like a native.  I had no trouble with
Schwarzenegger's diction/accent, and I can easily rationalize its
appearance in the movie.  On the other hand I've garnered lots of
experience dealing with worse here at Rutgers (some of them still give
me lots of trouble though).
   Looking back, I realize that I did not make my point clear in my
note to SF-L.  Let me try again.  The reviewer seemed to be singling
out Schwarzenegger to pick on for some reason.  In particular he
seemed (to me) to be trying to make Schwarzenegger look like a moron.
Consider his opening lines "...Schwarzenegger has biceps like the
trunk of a gnarled old apple tree, and Jones can act.".  Well sure we
all knew that, but why doesn't he tell us something new?  And then he
goes on to

        When he says ''Is this your robe?'' it comes out sounding like
        ''Is this Europe?'' Conan may need a travel agent even more
        than a diction coach."

It sounds to me like Freedman is trying to make Schwarzenegger look
like a muscle bound moron.  Freedman just doesn't make it clear that
the problem isn't that Schwarzenegger doesn't know English, but
instead that English isn't Schwarzenegger's native language.  (Can
Freedman speak German or Austrian as well as Schwarzenegger speaks
English?)
   Sure the movie has problems, but Freedman never really gets around
to them.  He's too busy taking potshots at all the players execept
Thulsa Doom.  Heck, I would rather spend my time with Thulsa Doom than
with Freedman.  At least Thulsa Doom has some idea of what he wants
and what he's talking about.

        Steve Z.

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 1982 0047-EDT
From: JHENDLER at BBNA
Subject: sorry, but more on sexist language

On the him/her/it controversy I feel that another two cents is due:
Let's not forget this book is supposedly written in a future time
period.  Already the standard of using "him" is fading.  If you do not
believe me look in the American Psychological Association (APA) style
manual, which now includes a section on the use of non-sexist language
in text.
  -jim hendler

------------------------------

Date: 27 May 1982 09:39 EDT
From: Marshall.WBST at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #56

My daughter brings home frogs, toads, beetles etc. and always refers
to them as "she". Should I correct her?

--Sidney

------------------------------

Date: 27 May 1982 10:46:30-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Podkayne

   is not disliked just by "strident libbers"; Anne McCaffrey has
referred to her as an unspeakable minx. My personal feeling is that
she comes closest to a character mentioned in "Screwtape Proposes a
Toast".

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 1982 1037-PDT
From: Jwagner at OFFICE
Subject: Genderless Video Games

Pacperson?

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 31-May                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #58
*** EOOH ***
Date: Monday, May 31, 1982 9:22PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #58
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Sunday, 30 May 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 58

Today's Topics:
                       SF Books - Norman Query,
         SF Movies - ET: the Extra-Terrestrial & Bladerunner,
                SF TV - Dr Who & Battlestar Galactica,
                 Random Topics - The Lauren Channel,
                SF Topics - Science in the Public Eye,
                    Humor - Genderless Video Games
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 May 1982 0157-PDT (Saturday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Norman

Greetings.  Sometime ago, during a rather brief digression of SFL into
the subject of the infamous "Gor" books, one contributor mentioned
John "Norman" Lange's real, full name and the college where he
teaches.  Several people have contacted me recently asking if I
remembered this information -- apparently they wish to contact Norman
to "discuss" some of his opinions on a variety of topics (stand back
folks!)

I feel that their project is worthwhile, but I didn't note the
required information when it scrolled by... and the kindly SFL
moderator informs me that technical problems make recovery of that
message from the archives very difficult.

Therefore, I would appreciate it much if the person who originally
sent in the data about Norman would send me a message directly with a
duplicate of that info.  Sorry to bother the whole list with this...

--Lauren--

P.S.  Watch for my upcoming review of Philip Jose Farmer's
      "Image of the Beast", coming soon to this digest.

--LW--

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 1982 14:27:56-EDT
From: Lee.Moore at Super-Vaxen at Rochester
Reply-to: lm62 at CMU-10a
Subject: ET: the Extra-Terrestrial


pico-review: A glorious child's eye view of a visitor from space

nano-review: Spielberg says, "Only children can accept extra-
               terrestrials as being real.  Adults just mess things
               up."; D&D players and others who take fantasy seriously
               will enjoy it.

ET was previewed here in Rochester, NY (as I assume it was elsewhere)
last night.  The article in Time magazine is right about this being
another big hit for Spielberg.  While the film doesn't go for the
sweeping scope or heavy dramatic tension of either "Jaws" or "Close
Encounters" it nevertheless wins big with its intimate view of three
childern and one ET.

The story takes place in a newly built California suburb (i.e. without
any trees or shrubs) which adjoins a forest.  A space ship lands in the
forest and its occupants go exploring.  Some adults (who we only see
at waist level) arrive and the space ship has to make such a quick
departure that they leave one alien behind.  The alien (ET) is found
by one of the kids while it is foraging for food in a garden shed.
Eventually, the kid and his brother and sister hide ET in their closet
so that the adults won't find him/her.  The film comes to a climax as
the creature is dying (of homesickness?).  The kids don't have the
power to save the alien.

Most of the film is shot at the level of the childern.  Thus we can
barely see the heads of most of the adults.  Grown-ups are seen as
vaguely threatening and not very understanding.  The adults world is
seen as difficult to comprehend: the kids parents are separated; the
biology teacher wants them to kill harmless frogs.  (...which leads to
a great liberation scene... "run for the river!" Eliot cries to the
rescued amphibians)

The film tosses off references to all sorts of popular child culture.
For example, Star Wars toys are shown to the alien as one might a
baseball mit.  On halloween night we see a kid dressed as Yoda.  The
childern are first seen playing D&D at the kitchen ("I still have a
death spell left") and latter use D&D terminology at the bus-stop to
insult ("You have zero charisma").

All in all a great film.  A must see for subscribers to this list.

------------------------------

Date: 05/27/82 22:06:08
From: DMM@MIT-ML
Subject: Bladerunner

In case you're wondering why Bladerunner is taking so long to hit the
theatres after it's sneak several months ago...  According to a recent
article in Time or Newsweek, (I can't remember which), because of
audience response to the sneak screening they had a while back in
Dallas (which I attended), the film is undergoing extensive
re-editing.  It's nice to know that one's opinion still counts for
something.  By the way, these same issues of Time & Newsweek also have
interesting articles about Speilberg's new movies for this summer: The
E.T. & Poltergeist (SP?).
                         Cheers -- DMM

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 1982 06:47:34-PDT
From: pur-ee!pur-phy!retief at Berkeley
Subject: Dr. Who?

  Has Dr. Who's real name ever been mentioned or is he always just the
Doctor?

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 1982 1747-PDT (Tuesday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Video (Battlestar Dyslexia, etc.)

Sorry Eric, but no go.  Don't believe ALL the stories you hear about
me, at least 5% of them are not true.  Contrary to popular belief, I
am *not* related to Gerry Todd of SCTV fame!  While it *is* true that
I have a fair amount of video equipment (sitting next my terminal here
are three separate remote controls for three different pieces of
gear), I try to keep things reasonably under control.  I'm not really
interested in off-air taping -- most of the available programming
(including Dyslexia, of course) is such trash (in my humble opinion)
that I wouldn't want to waste the tape.  If I *was* going to tape all
the episodes of a fairly contemporary program, it would probably be
"Lost In Space", which has always appealed to my sense of the perverse
and truly warped.  LIS was a truly great program in that it did not
take itself seriously (after the first few episodes, at least).  The
amazing list of stars who appeared on that show as "guest aliens" is
quite impressive... names like Wally Cox, Michael Rennie, Hans
Conried, and many more.  It was totally misunderstood by the viewers
who expected "serious" SF (like "Time Tunnel", "Land of the Giants",
and "The Invaders" [Serious???  Who are we kidding?]).  But I digress.

Actually, my current projects are more oriented toward production...
or at least they will be eventually.  The local cable company here is
setting up the necessary equipment for me to feed video into the
system from my house via the cable reverse channel... it will then
loop through the headend and back out over the entire system.  It is
not completely clear *how* this will end up... should be amusing
though.

My grand plan is to find enough backing to rent time on a satellite
transponder to have a national cable television channel oriented
toward bizarre programming of all sorts.  Alot of OLD television shows
(ranging from "The People's Choice" to "Our Miss Brooks" to "The Many
Loves of Dobie Gillis", classic SF, etc.)  Unfortunately, satellite
time does *not* come cheap, nor do satellite uplink facilities (though
during off-hours such things are considerably less expensive...)  It's
a dream, anyway.

"The Lauren Channel"?  Well, it might not be totally impossible if
enough people prove interested.  Wanna be my first subscriber?

--Lauren--

P.S.  To those SFL readers who are thinking that this message was a
bit off the mainstream of SFL topics... I agree.  But c'mon, if Lauren
Via Satellite isn't Science Fiction, what is?  Ta ta.

--LW--

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 1982 1255-PDT
From: William "Chops" Westfield <BillW@SRI-KL>
Subject: Ignorance @i(isn't) bliss! [54 lines]

The editorial from the may 12, 1982 issue of EDN, by Roy Forsberg:
(copyright 1982 by Cahners Publishing Company.  Reprinted by
permission!)  Quoted without comments....

"An interesting but alarming debate took place in print a couple of
months ago.  It was interesting because of its topic - "Informing the
public (about science and technology)" and the debaters: Leon
Trachtman, a science writer, and Isaac Asimov, the well known author.
It was alarming because it occurred at all.
  "Trachtman questioned the validity of three basic assumptions
underlying the need to keep a democratic society informed on science
and technology:  (1) Knowledge is a good thing in itself; (2) Such
knowledge will make people wiser and better consumers; (3) The very
structure of a democratic society depends on an enlightened citizenry,
and the citizen's political and social behavior will be more
constructive when informed by a solid scientific understanding.
  "The first assumption didn't bother Mr Trachtman too much, although
he ventured that sending several hundred thousand dollars on making
the public aware of science and technology is a total waste of
resources.  Asimov, arguing the pro-information side, countered that
compared with a quarter-trillion-dollar one-year defense budget full
of science-and-technology-related items, several hundred thousand in
insignificant - and a good investment.
  "Regarding the last two assumptions, Trachtman showed a low regard
for the public.  He maintained that any attempts to inform it about
science and technology only confuse it, in both its consumer and
social decisions -- and that such decisions are arrived at no more
rationally than if the public were totally uninformed and merely
making yes/no guesses.
  "Asimov disagreed and cited several instances where death rates, for
example, are declining because the public is considering information
about medical science seriously.  He closed his rebuttal thusly:
  ""One thing is true, attempting to educate the public in science
(and technology) is difficult.  It's hard enough to get the essence...
across to graduate students let alone people who have never learned
the art of rational thought.
  ""The stakes, however, are very high, and we have no choice but to
try -- and, as we try, to endeavor to learn how to try even harder and
better -- and to remain undaunted by defeat.
  ""We may, in the end, lose.  We may, in the end, have accomplished
nothing, and left the world uniformed after all.  We may (as Trachtman
gloomily suspects) merely succeed in confusing the public, at the cost
of hundreds of thousands of dollars (half an advanced war plane) a
year.
  ""But what is the alternative?  To abandon the fight?  To hold high
the tattered banner of defeat?  To leave the world to the @i(National
Inquirer, the astrologers and the creationists?  Shall we march off
into the darkness loudly crying: 'We give up. They are just as well
off ignorant anyway.  And at least we save a lot of money and in two
years we can buy one more beautiful warplane'?
  ""Never!  As for myself, I may be defeated at last, but I intend to
struggle to the end.  I will not surrender, embrace ignorance and kiss
its hideous face."

  "Well said, Mr (sic) Asimov."

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 1982 0253-PDT (Monday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Pacperson

Actually, the latest "Pac<foo>" game is called:  MS. PACMAN.  Hmmm.

--Lauren--

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 31-May                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #59
*** EOOH ***
Date: Monday, May 31, 1982 10:12PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #59
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Tuesday, 1 Jun 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 59

Today's Topics:
               SF Books - Podkayne of Mars & Heinlein,
      SF Movies - ET: the Extra-Terrestrial & Shock Treatment &
             Conan the Barbarian,  SF TV - Kiddie Shows,
         SF Topics - Science in the Public Eye & Spaceflight,
 Random Topics - Genderless Pronouns,  Humor - Genderless Video Games
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 May 1982 at 1848-CDT
From: hjjh at UTEXAS-11
Subject: Poor Pitiful Podkayne?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ POOR PITIFUL PODKAYNE? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Chip says that tho he's not a strident libber, he (and Anne McCaffrey)
dislike Podkayne, also.  I do not challenge Chip and Anne's literary
judgment-- Podkayne IS a twit.

But strident libbers object to Podkayne \on principle/, castigating
Heinlein for creating such a cutesy, sentimental, vulnerable-little-
girl character.

As a scholar...and a properly objective one, I hope...who has made a
study of genre SF books with female protagonists, it offends my sense
of justice for RAH to be taken to task for the \kind/ of heroine he
created AT A TIME WHEN:
        -- - ---- ----
   a) that type of character was nothing unusual in "young people's
      books" for girls,
   b) the book was the \first/ SF juvenile-for-GIRLS by an estab-
      lished writer, AND
   c) \ANY/ KIND OF FEMALE PROTAGONISTS IN SF BOOKS WERE JUST ABOUT
      AS RARE AS HEN'S TEETH!

Barring their precursors-- a feminist Utopian novel in the 1880's and
the Golden Amazon series and C.L. Moore's JUDGMENT NIGHT in the
pulps-- genre SF books with fempros (female protagonists) can be said
to not have begun until a 1950 hardback by Judith Merril.  Or even not
until 1951 if one takes mass-market paper-back or SF Book Club
publication as criteria for weeding out items not widely accessible
to SF fans.

It was short-sighted for SF libbers to look back from the latter 70's
when there were over 50 science fiction (NOT fantasy) novels between
1976 and 1980, and bitch about Heinlein's teenie heroine.

Between 1950 and PODKAYNE in 1963, there were only e-i-g-h-t SF
fempros (and one of those was actually a mainstream "lit'ry" work.
Moreover, of the pre-Podkayne fempros, Ioredh, Elspeth Marriner, Jael
97, and Greta Forzane <plus Trigger Argee, in some people's opinion>
were also pretty much twits, too.)

It took \guts/ to write an SF book with a fempro back in those days.

\I/ say... give the old gentleman credit!  Not that the fempro
character was done well, but that, in 1963, it was done at all!

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 1982 20:14:37-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Re: Poor Pitiful Podkayne?

In response to your message of Mon May 31 19:53:46 1982:

   I am much less-inclined to be tolerant of Heinlein's portrayal of
Podkayne for the following reasons:

  1. This was easily the most obnoxious of the many female characters
he'd created. Consider John Thomas Stuart's girlfriend in THE STAR
BEAST, or Meade Stone in THE ROLLING STONES, or even Peewee in HAVE
SPACE SUIT, WILL TRAVEL---and he had never been so cruel toward a
female character as was Asimov in the last Foundation story
(suggesting that death would be kinder than marriage to Arkady).
  2. I'm not convinced that this is really a juvenile; I recall that
\my/ hometown library system (in relatively liberal Montgomery Cty MD)
filed it with the adult books).
  3. I would seriously object to your characterization of Greta
Forzane as a twit, having just reread THE BIG TIME with an eye toward
staging at Constellation. Not an admirable character, certainly, but
then few in the Change War are. As for Trigger Argee, she's definitely
on the low list---a pity, since Telzey Amberdon was carrying a much
stronger role in that period (I think).

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 1982 2127-EDT
From: Steven J. Zeve <ZEVE at RUTGERS>
Subject: Heinlein and random unfiltered mail

I suspect that Heinlein wouldn't be enthralled to get a major flood of
mail, but, like many SF authors, wouldn't mind getting a few letters
now and then from his fans.  I am, however, under the impression that
it is better to contact a writer through his or her publishers if you
don't know the writer personally.
   I remember reading of an incident involving Heinlein where someone
tried to just "drop in" on him and got pretty thoroughly told off.
(Yet when the same person wrote to Heinlein ahead of time, he was
cordially invited to come visit.)

        Steve Z.

p.s. In a speech printed in "View from Serendip", Arthur Clarke refers
to Heinlein as sitting out in California behind his Hippie-proof
chainlink fence.

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 1982 04:47-EDT
From: Eric P. Scott <EPS at MIT-AI>
Subject: E.T.

Just saw a preview of E.T. (in Arcadia, Ca.).  After waiting in line
for almost two hours, the management announced that folks already
there for the regular feature ("Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid") were being
given the option of staying for the preview.  Word got out to the
other theaters (the Santa Anita Cinema is a quad and people started
sneaking into #3) and when they got around to proffering tickets for
the 7pm showing there were only twenty seats left.  (I've never seen a
theater that didn't clear the audience before and after previews, but
I'm told that this policy is common at several chains).  Anyway, they
added a second showing at 9:30 so we waited around until then for...

 ...a movie that looks like a Disney production.  Not to say it's bad
or anything (I enjoyed it), it's just hokey.  I don't want to generate
a spoiler, but someone did mention a resemblance to "Escape From Witch
Mountain" in two of the scenes.  Except for an explicit reference to
male genitalia this film merits a "G."  Bring the kids.  It's very
funny at times.  It also incorporates a number of social statements.
Anyone want to venture a guess \which/ U.S. Gov't agency is looking
for undocumented aliens?  Good special effects (as usual) by
Industrial Light and Magic.  *** One thing that bothered me about the
film was the blatant presence of certain brand-name consumer products,
a pizza franchise, and TESB "action figures."  This seems to be the
new fad in the industry.  *sigh*

E.T. was preceded by a trailer for "Dark Crystal."  It's a Jim
Henson/Frank Oz production (with NEW muppets!).  Anyone know anything
about it?

Side note:  we had five people in our car when we arrived.  We only
had four when we returned.  Hod, if you're out there, please PHONE
HOME.  (Life imitates art) (how do I say that in Latin?)

                                        --Eric

P.S.  Did they use an EXTRA Terrestrial 'cuz they work cheaper?
[couldn't be that cheap--he has a speaking part]

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 1982 04:56-EDT
From: Chris W. Stassen <CHRISS at MIT-AI>
Subject: Shock Treatment!

Not long ago, the movie "Shock Treatment" (Richard O'Brien) was
released, which failed horribly and was shortly removed from nearly
ALL theatres in which it had started. There is (to my knowledge) only
one theatre in the US currently running it -- The Tiffany (of
Hollywood), which also happens to be the theatre that kept "Rocky
Horror" until it became popular as a cult film. For those of you who
saw the movie, and are rather observant, the opening credits have the
line "Book by Richard O'Brien."  Does anybody know where I can find
the book? Price is no object, and I'm looking for about six copies (at
least; I could find places for twenty or more!).
                                -- Chris Stassen

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 1982 2240-EDT
From: VAF at CMU-20C
Subject: Conan

One thing that I think most people are failing to realize when
reviewing 'Conan' is what the Conan books were all about. They were
never written as intellectual SF or Fantasy, but rather, were pure
escapist literature. After seeing the movie 'Conan', I think the
spirit of the Conan books has been faithfully followed. The movie fits
quite well into the hack-and-slay type escapist genre.

--vaf

------------------------------

Date: 29 May 1982 09:57-EDT
From: James M. Turner <JMTURN at MIT-AI>
Subject: From the land of the kiddie show

Watching the tube this morning drove home how far saturday morning
cartoons have degraded from the high standards of Jones, Ward, et al.
While the actual art is relatively reasonable (although it seems any
attempt at perspective has been abandoned), the plot sucks rocks.

My main bitch is with the SF/fantasy flavored shows, that try to jazz
up the dialog with psuedo-science. For example, this goodie was heard
on the animated Fantastic Four:

     "Wow! That object is going faster than supersonic speeds!"

Now, given that these shows are what kids are getting their view of
science from, is it any wonder we have such a technologically
illiterate society.

A ray of hope: both ABC and CBS run fillers between the shows,
"Schoolhouse Rock" and "In the News" respectively. These are
interesting, informative, and enjoyable even if you know the material.
It is a sad commentary on the animation houses when they can't compete
with the fillers.

                                Save our youth,
                                Nuke Hanna-Barbera,
                                        James

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 1982 12:00 edt
From: Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: Across the Space Frontier
I was digging through some impedimentia the other day and came across
my old copy of "Across the Space Frontier."  This book, which fired my
fevered pre-teen imagination, was written by the Peenemunde crowd
(Kaplan, von Braun, Haber and Ley) and was the first description of a
Space Shuttle-like system.  It was also the place where the
wheel-shaped space station first appeared.  For those of you not lucky
[?] enough to be pre-everything, herewith follows a comparison of ASF,
circa 1951, and STS (Space Transportation System -- Shuttle to the
media), circa 1981.

Feature                    ASF                          STS

No. of Stages               3                           2.5
Height                     265 ft                       184 ft
Weight                     16.1 Megapounds              4.4 Megapounds
Wingspan                   156 ft                       78 ft
Planform                   Canard                       Delta
Payload                    72,000 lbs                   40-65,000 lbs
Crew (Max)                  6                            7
Thrust at Liftoff          28 Megapounds                6.6 Megapounds
Fuel                       Nitric Acid/Hydrazine        Solid + Hyd/OX
1st Stage Engines          51 [!]                        5
2nd Stage Engines          22                            3
3rd Stage Engines           5                            2 (OMS)
Orbit                      1075 miles                   115-600 miles
Reentry Temp (Max)         1350 deg                     3000 deg
Heat Shield                Stainless Steel              Ceramic
Landing Weight             59,400 lbs                   187,000 lbs
Landing Speed              65 mph                       195 mph
Reentry Duration           66 minutes                   31 minutes


So basically what they were proposing was four Saturn V's lashed
together with more of a glider on top; it is unlikely that such a
vehicle could survive the aerodynamic stress of liftoff.  Remember, in
1951 the highest anything had gone was 250 miles (V2/WAC Corporal
lashup) and that with essentially zero telemetry, so the gang really
did pretty good.  They also predicted the use of a movable launch
pad, and said the best place to start from would be Johnston Island in
the Pacific, although the USAF proving ground at Cocoa Beach FL would
do (as, of course, it did).  They even gave the budget: we could have
been orbiting by 1963 for a mere 4 billion.  To give an idea of what
that would be in current dollars, VW started importing in 1954, and a
beetle cost $1300.

Earl


PS Oh, and orbital maneuvering was to be by flywheel.  Spin us up a
notch, Sulu.

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 1982 2111-EDT
From: Steven J. Zeve <ZEVE at RUTGERS>
Subject: APA manual and the english language
I'm not sure I trust anything from a psychology manual.  Let alone
instructions on how to use the English Language.

        Steve Z.

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 1982 2236-EDT
From: VAF at CMU-20C
Subject: Re: Genderless Video Games (SF-LOVERS Digest V5 #57)

But 'PACperson' would be ambiguous, with the advent of 'MS. PACman'...

(I know, this is a meaningless point, but I couldn't resist)

--vaf

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 1982 2107-EDT
From: Steven J. Zeve <ZEVE at RUTGERS>
Subject: Re: Genderless Video Games

No, no, no.  It's Pacperchild.  Why use a sexist term like PacperSON
(see, there's that male gender again) when you can make up a nice term
like Pacperchild?

        Steve Z.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  4-Jun                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #60
*** EOOH ***
Date: Friday, June 4, 1982 12:57AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #60
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Thursday, 3 Jun 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 60

Today's Topics:
            SF Movies - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan &
         Shock Treatment & The Dark Crystal,  SF TV - Dr Who,
                 SF Books - Podkayne of Mars & Hugos,
   Random Topics - Regency Fandom,  Humor - Genderless Video Games
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1-Jun-82 11:27AM-EDT (Tue)
From: David Miller <Miller at YALE>
Subject: Star Trek II Premier



This may be hard to believe, but...

          The world  premier  of  Star Trek II is in Stamford
          Connecticut on 3  June  '82  (That's  right:   June
          third) tickets  are $15 a seat, and the extra money
          goes to benefit a local Catholic  School.   Anybody
          out  there  have  any  idea  how  this  came to be,
          whether it is a local phenomena or whether Catholic
          schools all  over  the  country  are having special
          premiers.
                                                Dave
                                                (miller@yale)

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 82 14:04-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Review: Star Trek II

                   Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
                           By JANET MASLIN
                   c. 1982 N.Y. Times News Service

    NEW YORK - Now this is more like it: after the colossal,
big-budget bore that was ''Star Trek: The Motion Picture,'' here comes
a sequel that's worth its salt. The second Star Trek movie is swift,
droll and adventurous, not to mention appealingly gadget-happy. It's
everything the first one should have been and wasn't.
    As its title suggests, ''Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan'' has a
much stronger plot than its predecessor. That helps, but it's not the
only improvement. This film also has the gamesmanship that the first
one lacked, a quality that helped win the ''Star Trek'' television
series its amazingly devoted following. Maybe it's just that there are
more and brighter blinking lights on the control panels of the
Starship Enterprise this time, or that the costumes are so much
cleverer, or that the special effects are so good they don't call
undue attention to themselves. Perhaps it's the directorial switch
from Robert Wise (''The Hindenburg'' and ''The Sound of Music'') to
Nicholas Meyer (''Time After Time'') that has brought the material
more pep. In any case, this time something has most assuredly gone
right.
    In addition to its derring-do, ''Star Trek II'' also has the
quality of a sentimental journey. Here they are again - William
Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley and the rest of the crew - 16
years older than they were when the television series began, still
playing the roles for which they are best known.
    Shatner's Captain Kirk is an admiral now, given to ribbing the
young trainees and wistfully saying things like, ''Galloping around
the cosmos is a game for the young.'' Nimoy, a k a Mr. Spock, now has
a pointy-eared protegee, a staggeringly competent young woman named
Saavik (Kirstie Alley), with whom he converses in their native tongue,
which is Vulcan. Kirk, Saavik confides to Spock, isn't what she
expected. ''He's so - human,'' she says. ''Nobody's perfect, Saavik,''
Spock replies. This passage is translated from the Vulcan by
subtitles.
    This film may not make a new Star Trek devotee out of anyone, but
it's sure to delight the old ones. Shatner makes the grandest of grand
entrances, surrounded by a halo of blue light. He proves immediately
that he has regained his dry sense of humor, which was markedly absent
the last time around. Here, on his birthday, he is given a bottle of
blue firewater by Kelley, vintage A.D. 2283, and both characters
remark on how long the stuff has aged. (The story is set in the 23d
century.) For his part, Spock presents Kirk with a copy of ''A Tale of
Two Cities,'' saying, ''I know of your fondness for antiques.'' The
novel will later figure quite sentimentally in the plot, which is an
odd blend of mawkishness, mysticism, high adventure and remarks like,
''I suppose it could be a particle of pre-animate matter, caught in
the matrix.'' Even the mumbo jumbo of this latest ''Star Trek'' is
fun.
    Most fun of all is Khan himself, played as the classiest of
comic-strip villains by Ricardo Montalban, who really is something to
see. With his fierce profile, long white hair, manful decolletage and
space-age jewelry, Montalban looks like either the world's oldest rock
star or its hippest Indian chief . Either way, he looks terrific, every
bit as happily flamboyant as the first film's characters -
notwithstanding the beautiful, bald Persis Khambatta - were drab.
    It is not necessary to have followed Star Trek lore any too
faithfully to understand some key things about Khan. He has been
frozen cryogenically in the 20th century, banished to a remote planet
and deprived of Mrs. Khan. He blames Kirk for all of these injuries
and plans to get even with the aid of a secret weapon that, by the
standards of movies like this one, has a modicum of nasty originality.
You see, the one remaining life form on the barren planet to which
Khan was banished is some special-effects cross between a tortoise and
a crustacean. It has scorpion-shaped babies that can be deposited, by
someone as sadistic as Khan, in an enemy's ear. ''Their young enter
through the ears and wrap themselves around the cerebral cortex. This
has the effect of rendering the victim extremely susceptible to
suggestion.'' Khan says this with the greatest imaginable relish.
    ''Star Trek II'' lasts a long time, and it ends on a note that
will seem misty to those who are veteran fans of the series, corny to
those who aren't. For those who find it corny, the movie may wear out
its welcome after a while. But it's cheerful and ingenious most of the
way through, with none of the overblown foolishness that spoiled the
first film. The ''Star Trek'' television show lay no real claims to
greatness. This movie can't either, and it doesn't really try. But on
its own simple terms, those of pure escapism, it certainly succeeds.

     ''Star Trek II'' is rated PG (''Parental Guidance Suggested'').
The scorpions-in-the-ear scene may well frighten small children, as
might several other gory scenes.

------------------------------

Date: Tue 1-Jun-1982 17:25-EDT
From: Bill Russell <RUSSELL at NYU>
Subject: Re: Shock Treatment!

Shock Treatment is still playing midnights at the "Waverly" in the
Village in NY.  After closing for several weeks and moving uptown to
the "New Yorker" (both old RHPS midnight theaters) it is back at both
of them at midnight, Friday and Saturday.

As for the credit of "Book by ...", every musical (for the stage or
film) has a "book" by someone.  This refers to the story that this
being presented.  It has nothing to do with a real book in any sense.

As for the movie itself, I've seen it twice.  The second time to see
the movie, as the first time I was distracted by the "stage show".
It's not a bad movie, but it's not a good movie either .  There are too
many pauses for the audience to react by throwing in their own
"questions" or "answers".

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 1982 11:34:35-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: THE DARK CRYSTAL

   has been the subject of presentations at many SF conventions,
starting (?)  with Denvention last summer. The basic plot is fairly
conventional ([attempted] Overthrow of the Evil Tyrants) but the
development of it looks good and the pictures I've seen of the
[muppets] are spectacular.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 1982 11:06:59-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Regency Fandom dying out?!?

   No Way! The Heyer Tea at Boskone is always well-attended, as is the
same at most Worldcons and the one Loscon ([Los Angeles]) I've
attended.  A prime mover in Regency fandom tells me that she is
willing to speak well of Jerry Pournelle because, on the way to the
Seacon '79 tea (which was held in Regent's Pavilion) a heckler
accosted Jerry (who was wearing a hussar's uniform), asking him where
his horse was; Jerry's thunderous glare and reply effectively
squelched the heckler.

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday,  1 Jun 1982 14:24-PDT
From: Kevin W. Rudd <kevinw at ISL>@ISL at Sumex-Aim
Subject: Dr. Who

Doctor who?

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 1982 at 2242-CDT
From: hjjh at UTEXAS-11
Subject: PODKAYNE: The Book vs. The Character

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ PODKAYNE: The Book vs. The Character ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

CJH's objection to "Heinlein's portrayal of Podkayne" is irrelevant to
the point I was making.

I'm NOT defending Podkayne-the-character.  \My/ thesis is--

   "Give the old gentleman credit!  Not that the fempro
    character was done well, but that, in 1963, it was
    done AT ALL!"

As for juvenile status-- it sure reads like one, tho Wells' SF &
HEROIC FANTASY INDEX agrees with CJH.  On the other hand, Wells lists
as RAH's "juveniles" only those titles pub'd by Scribner, and RAH
pub'd nothing thru Scribner after 1956.  Somebody in a recent SF-L
message even characterized PUPPET MASTERS as a juvenile, so criteria
must vary wildly.  In \my/ idea of a juvenile book, the protagonist is
typically (tho not necessarily) a teen-ager, as Poddy is.

To me, Greta Forzane IS a twit.  This, tho, is just a personal
reaction to the character.  But whether she is or not, \I/ say Hats
off! to Leiber and Schmitz and De Camp, etc., AND Heinlein-- who dared
write SF fempros \then/.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 1982 2041-EDT
From: Thomas Galloway <Galloway at YALE>
Subject: 1983 Hugos

It was pointed out by Jack Chalker at Disclave last weekend that the
competition for best novel Hugo could consist of RAH's Friday, the
Asimov Foundation IV, and the Clarke 2010 (and two poor schmucks
offered up for sacrifice).  Anyone know if this sort of head-to-head
competition between the biggest names in the genre has occured before?

tom galloway @ yale

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 1982 13:56 EDT
From: Becker.Henr at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Pac-man

Actually I have heard that Pacman was designed and made(?) in Japan
and that "Pacman" means to eat something!

Jane

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  4-Jun                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #61
*** EOOH ***
Date: Friday, June 4, 1982 1:42AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #61
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest          Friday, 4 Jun 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 61

Today's Topics:
Baldwin/Gulf
Star Trek - TWoK
Review: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Review: Star Trek II
Since we're talking about California...
Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #59
Genderless Video Games
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 May 1982 at 2016-CDT
From: hjjh at UTEXAS-11

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ANOTHER SF TEXANA ITEM ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I was re-scanning Justin Leiber's BEYOND REJECTION as a quasi-fempro
(the plot involves the Varley-like insertion of a dead person's
personality-tape into a blank-mind body, but here it's a re-used body
rather than a clone of the personality's prior one).  The tricky part,
for my female protagonist criteria, is that Leiber's universe does not
have the common sex-reversals which Varley's does, and the plot
revolves around the problems arising from trying to get a fairly macho
personality to accept existence in a female body.

There's only one reference to anything recognizably Texan (a very
minor character named "Isa Pigg", which patently derives from the old
Texas Grande Dame, Ima Hogg).  B-U-T, the operation takes place in
"the Norbert Wiener Research Hospital"--- in HOUSTON!

<And by the way, it's a \good/ story.>

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 1982 1447-MDT
From: William Galway <Galway at UTAH-20>
Subject: Baldwin/Gulf

Gregory "Kettle Belly" Baldwin is one of the main characters in
"Gulf".  I'm almost certain that he does not appear in "The Puppet
Masters", although both stories describe the activities of
super-secret "intelligence" organizations.  Baldwin is "... sort of
the executive secretary of this branch of an organization of
supermen."  "Superman" turns out to mean "very intelligent".  Baldwin
is also rather coy about his age--hinting that he's been around for
quite awhile.  The "Gulf" of the title refers to the difference
between "homo novis" and "homo sapiens"--on their way towards becoming
separate species.
The background society for "Gulf" does not sound like the one
described in "Friday".  Although there isn't a lot said about it, one
gets the impression of a fairly widespread and stable government.

One of the most fascinating things in "Gulf", in my opinion, was the
language used by this group of superpeople.  "Speedtalk" is apparently
sort of like Loglan, and uses a fairly small vocabulary (like Basic
English).  Given this small vocabulary of roughly 1000 words, Heinlein
then supposes that each word can be expressed as a single phoneme.
(Naturally, you have to be pretty bright to distinguish between the
phonemes while talking and listening.)  So, what we would think of as
words turn out to be sentences in Speedtalk.  You really gain by
thinking in Speedtalk--Heinlein supposed that to even be able to learn
the language you had to think roughly 3 times faster than an "ordinary
man", and that using the language allowed you to manipulate symbols 7
times faster than in English.  So, given a lifespan of 75-80 years,
you get the equivalent of 1600 years or so by thinking in Speedtalk.

------------------------------

Date: 4 June 1982 00:39-EDT
From: James M. Turner <JMTURN at MIT-AI>
Subject: Star Trek - TWoK

Go see this movie. I don't care if a wealthy arab is offering
gigabucks for your backyard. Get out of your chair, go to the nearest
theatre, and see it.

If you get the idea this movie left an impression on me, you're right!
The gang was second time lucky, and the result was a joy to behold.
Lots of action, humor, and (thank God) less pathos than ST-TMP. It's
VERY reminiscent of the series, and the direction in which the movies
are heading leads me to believe ST-III will be a bigger win.

I refuse to give away plot, but I will say that the effects are
better, but more subdued than TMP (Hey looks guys! We're going to hit
you over the head with another effect now). Contracting out to
Industrial Light and Magic seems to have made a bug difference in
quality.

Go to the movie. Don't expect too much of a message (although the
"Kirk deals with mortality" plotline is lightly mixed in with the
rest), but expect one hell of a good time.

                                        James

And I will take bets I know how Spock manages to return in ST-III...

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 82 16:21-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Review: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

                   Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
                            By BOB THOMAS
                       Associated Press Writer

    ''STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN'' is an improvement over the
bloodless ''Star Trek: The Motion Picture.'' This time Kirk, Spock and
company are provided with a gripping plot, spectacular special effects
and a classic villain.  A galaxy removed from Mr.  Nice Guy of
''Fantasy Island,'' Ricardo Montalban is superb as the demonic Khan, a
role he played in a memorable chapter of the ''Star Trek'' TV series.
Khan and his revenge-hungry followers have been marrooned on a dead
planet festering with anger against the man they believe put them
there - Admiral Kirk.  Escaping from exile, Khan aims to kill Kirk,
even if the plot entails destroying the universe.  Director Nicholas
Meyer handles the human factor as deftly as the space hardware.  The
script provides surprises: Kirk (William Shatner) discovers a
long-lost son - and yes, Spock (sob!) dies.  The entire crew of the
Starship USS Enterprise has returned, with some interesting newcomers:
Bibi Besch as a space scientist and Kirstie Alley as a half-Vulcan
trainee.  Rated PG because of the excitement and one profanity.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 82 14:04-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Review: Star Trek II

                   Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
                         By RICHARD FREEDMAN
                        Newhouse News Service

    (UNDATED) Long after the bloated ''Star Trek: The Motion Picture''
came out, devout Trekkies still were having a hard time explaining to
the unconverted the nature of their obsession.
    But now, with ''Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,'' just about
everybody will want to clamber aboard the Starship Enterprise for an
intergalactic roller coaster ride.
    As fast-moving as the original ''Star Trek'' movie was inert,
''Star Trek II'' - the only film title that sounds like a razor blade
- wisely focuses on identifiable human types instead of cold,
glistening machinery.
    First, of course, there's Admiral James T. Kirk (William Shatner),
chafing at his desk job and feeling the full pangs of mid-life crisis.
    David (Merritt Butrick), the son he had with Dr. Carol Marcus
(Bibi Besch), barely knows his eternally voyaging dad and doesn't seem
particularly fond of what he does know.
    The basically old-fashioned Kirk receives for his birthday a pair
of Ben Franklin glasses, a hardbound copy of ''A Tale of Two Cities,''
and a bottle of blue booze (we're in the 23rd century, when we can
expect bourbon to look like Windex).
    But what Kirk needs above all is some action. He gets plenty of
that when Starship Reliant mistakenly lands on planet Ceti Alpha V,
where 15 years ago Kirk had marooned the evil Khan (Ricardo
Montalban).
    Nursing vengeance ever since his wife died on that barren outpost,
Khan has got hold of the secret Project Genesis, designed to convert
arid planets into veritable Gardens of Eden. In the wrong hands,
though, the Genesis Effect could create ecological chaos.
    Just to show how wrong Khan's hands are, he injects scorpion
larvae into the ears of two of Kirk's most reliable men. The scorpions
head for the cerebral cortex, where - in a scene reminiscent of
''Alien'' - they cause untold psychic damage.
    Fancying himself a futuristic Captain Ahab, Khan unfortunately
looks more like a cross between Geronimo, a Malibu Beach guru and
Leonard Bernstein after a bad rehearsal.
    Nevertheless, with guns like high-tech electric shavers blasting
away, he manages to cause considerable damage to the Enterprise, even
splattering blood all over Kirk's spiffy Burger King uniform.
    But because his ''pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking,'' he
is ultimately defeated by Kirk and his doughty crew: pointy-eared
First Officer Spock (Leonard Nimoy), Engineer Scotty (James Doohan),
Physician ''Bones'' McCoy (DeForest Kelley) and Lieutenant Chekov
(Walter Koenig).
    The dialogue in ''Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan'' is as
excruciating as ever, with people blurting out such clinkers as:
    - ''They're jamming all the frequencies, Captain!''
    - ''We're talking about universal Armageddon!''
    - ''It never rains, but it pours.''
    But perhaps the very banality of the movie constitutes its chief
charm. Directed with tongue-in-cheek amiability by Nicholas Meyer
(''Time After Time''), the latest ''Star Trek'' neither takes itself
too seriously nor cheaply camps itself up.
    It's an ideal science fiction romp for the pure of heart and the
innocent of mind.
    X X X
    FILM CLIP:
    ''STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN.'' Vastly superior to the first
''Star Trek'' movie, this one pits Admiral Kirk and the crew of
Starship Enterprise against the vengeance-hungry Khan, who wants to
convert Project Genesis into universal Armageddon - and nearly gets
away with it. Rated PG. Three stars.

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 1982 1649-EDT
From: Larry Seiler <SEILER at MIT-XX>
Subject: Since we're talking about California...

Since California craziness has become an SF-Lovers topic lately, I'd
like to point out something that people who haven't lived there
probably don't know (and may not believe even after I tell you).
Granted there are a lot of crazies in California.  There are crazies
everywhere.  But the average, ordinary people in California are also
different.  Specifically, in comparison to ordinary people in the
Boston/Cambridge area (not students - most of them are from somewhere
else), Californians are a lot friendlier and a lot more cheerful.
Talking to people from cities like New York, I get the impression that
the same is true, or more so.  My wife and I have lived in a wide
variety of places, so this claim is not mere parochialism.  For that
matter, Californians are in general a lot less parochial that people
in Boston, and (I gather) other parts of the country as well.  I have
some ideas as to why this is so, but I think I've already strayed far
enough from SF.

Larry Seiler (Seiler@MIT-XX)

PS - If you feel an urge to flame, try to do most of it to me,
personally, instead of to the list.  And if you haven't ever lived in
California, I don't want to hear from you - you don't know what you're
talking about.  Ditto if you have only lived in California.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 1982 2340-PDT
From: Dolata at SUMEX-AIM
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #59

In response to your message sent  1 Jun 1982 1412-PDT


SEX-less pronouns?  I expect much better from a group dedicated to
SF&F!  What about ET's and BEM's, hmmmm???  How about Dolphins and
Intellegence boosted apes???  We are be-ing 'species-ist'.  Some
suggestions;

she/he ==> it
waiter/waitress ==>  waitron
chairman ==>  chaircreature
manager ==> itager (not to be confused with reals or strings)

And since I am getting married soon, I won't introduce people to my
best-man but to my best-thing.  And if he has an assistant I will
introduce them to the next best-thing too!

In jest....   Dolata@sumex-aim

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 1982 1138-PDT
From: Jwagner at OFFICE
Subject: Genderless Video Games

Q.  What does Ms. PacMan say when PacMan comes home drunk?

A.  PacUp.

(No more, I promise.)

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  5-Jun                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #62
*** EOOH ***
Date: Saturday, June 5, 1982 2:33AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #62
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Saturday, 5 Jun 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 62

Today's Topics:
                       SF Movies - Poltergeist,
                SF TV - Dr Who,  SF Topics - Supermen,
                  Random Topics - Pogue Carburetor,
                    Humor - Genderless Video Games
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 1982 0108-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Poltergeist


                             Poltergeist
                           By VINCENT CANBY
                   c. 1982 N.Y. Times News Service

    NEW YORK - More than any other Hollywood film maker of his
generation, Steven Spielberg has preserved the wonderment of childhood
while growing up to make the sort of movies he always loved as a
child, but bigger and better and far more imaginative. He's a
brilliant technican who still has doubts about the dark.
    His ''Close Encounters of the Third Kind'' was the last, dazzling
word on sci-fi fantasies, not about the end of the world but about the
beginning of a benign new one. ''Raiders of the Lost Ark'' is every
cliffhanging adventure film ever made, wrapped up into one hilarious
odyssey, but with few of the anticlimaxes usual in such films.
    Now, in ''Poltergeist,'' co-produced by Spielberg, directed by
Tobe Hooper and based on Spielberg's original story, he has come up
with a marvelously spooky ghost story that may possibly scare the wits
out of very small children and offend those parents who believe that
kids should be protected from their own, sometimes savage
imaginations.
    I suspect, however, that there's a vast audience of teen-agers and
others who'll love this film. Indeed, ''Poltergeist'' often sounds as
if it had been dictated by an exuberant 12-year-old, someone who's
sitting by a summer campfire and determined to spin a tale that will
keep everyone else on the edges of their knapsacks far into the night.
    ''Poltergeist'' is full of creepy, crawly, slimy things that jump
out from the shadows. It contains playful ghosts and mean ones. It's a
film in which childhood wishes and fears are made manifest, as in the
image of a gnarled, long-dead tree, something to climb during the day
and play in, but which, at night, casts scary shadows on a child's
bedroom wall.
    ''Poltergeist'' is like a thoroughly enjoyable nightmare, one that
you know that you can always wake up from, and one in which, at the
end, no one has permanently been damaged. It's also witty in a fashion
that Alfred Hitchcock might have appreciated. Offhand, I can't think
of many other directors who could raise goose bumps by playing ''The
Star-Spangled Banner'' behind a film's opening credits.
    The setting is an ordinary, quintessentially middle-class, new
California subdivision called Cuesta Verde, where every house looks
alike and comes equipped with the same vast assortment of appliances.
Every family in Cuesta Verde is more or less on the same social,
economic and book-club level.
    However, it's to the credit of Spielberg and Hooper, and to the
screenplay by Spielberg, Michael Grais and Mark Victor, that though
the members of the Freeling family are typical, they aren't the
nonentities one usually finds in such movies. This is as much a
reflection of the manner of the movie as it is of the characters.
    Steve and Diane Freeling (Craig T. Nelson and Jobeth Williams) are
in their 30s, happily married, doing all right financially and the
parents of three children, a daughter in her midteens (Dominique
Dunne), a son several years younger (Oliver Robins) and a 10-year-old
daughter, Carol Anne (Heather O'Rourke). Carol Anne, a small, blond
beauty, becomes the innocent hostage of the occult forces that, one
night, come flying out of the untended television set.
    It's one of the nicer variations on the film's ghost theme that
the Freelings, though baffled by this visitation, are not initially
panicked. Diane Freeling is enchanted when she finds that she can play
games with the unseen creatures, rather as if they were to be treated
as rare pets.
    Suddenly, however, for reasons that are finally explained, they
turn mean. All hell breaks loose, requiring the services first of an
intelligent, somewhat embarrassed psychologist (Beatrice Straight),
who moonlights as a parapsychologist, and eventually those of a most
eccentric exorcist, a tiny woman played by Zelda Rubinstein, whose
last film assignment was in ''Under the Rainbow.''
    Further details of the plot should not be revealed. More important
are the film's extraordinary technical effects, by which we are made
to see and experience the terrible assaults these angry spirits make
on the Freelings, sometimes occupying their minds as well as their
house. These effects are often eerie and beautiful but also
occasionally vividly gruesome.
    The structure of the film is not perfect. It seems to have two
endings. This isn't because there are two, but because the film's
exorcism rite is so spectacular that one really isn't prepared for
still another confrontation, which doesn't quite measure up to the
first one.
    Miss Williams, still better known as a New York stage actress than
as a film actress, is charming as the beleaguered Mom, a modern sort
of woman who isn't above smoking a little marijuana after the kids are
safely tucked into bed. Nelson is also good as the stalwart but not
stolid father, and the children are excellent, especially Miss
O'Rourke. The style of the film is probably best exemplified by the
performances of Miss Straight and Miss Rubinstein, who play it
absolutely without facetiousness, though with great good humor, and
never look silly.
    There's some controversy about the individual contributions to the
film made by Spielberg and Hooper, best known as director of ''The
Texas Chainsaw Massacre.'' I've no way of telling who did what, though
''Poltergeist'' seems much closer in spirit and sensibility to
Spielberg's best films than to Hooper's.

    ''Poltergeist,'' which has been rated PG (''Parental Guidance
Suggesped''), is a movie that parents will want to consider very
carefully before sending off very young children to see it. Though
it's as harmless as a nightmare, it could also prompt some.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 1982 0109-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Poltergeist


                             Poltergeist
                         By RICHARD FREEDMAN
                        Newhouse News Service

    (UNDATED) Poltergeists are things that go bump in the dark. Though
not exactly Casper the Friendly Ghost, traditionally they're more
mischievous than menacing.
    Not so the spooks haunting ''Poltergeist,'' perhaps the first
PG-rated movie that would send Casper gibbering in terror up the
aisles.
    Co-written and co-produced by Steven Spielberg (''Close Encounters
of the Third Kind'' and ''Raiders of the Lost Ark''), who also
apparently helped Tobe Hooper (''The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'') with
the direction, this is a dandy ghost story - both very funny and very
scary at the same time.
    The family afflicted with poltergeist problems are the Freelings,
who live in a nice new tract house in a recently created mid-American
suburban development. They have three nice children, of whom the
youngest and cutest is Carol Anne (Heather O'Rourke).
    Steve (Craig T. Nelson) and Diane (Jobeth Williams) Freeling are
your average American husband and wife. He sells real estate. She
tries to settle breakfast squabbles between the kids.
    They all watch too much television, and at sign-off time, when the
kids are finally in bed, Steve and Diane settle down to share a
friendly joint before enjoying the sleep of the just.
    But why does that gnarled old Arthur Rackham tree outside the
children's bedroom window seem to be clutching for them when the
lightning flashes and the wind howls?
    And why does Carol Anne's pet canary just keel over in its cage
one Sunday afternoon and have to be buried in a cigar box, only to be
unceremoniously exhumed by a bulldozer the next day to make way for a
swimming pool?
    Perhaps it's because the little girl thinks she's in touch with
the ''television people'' who emerge from the flickering screen after
''The Star-Spangled Banner'' has been played and the set has gone
blank for the night.
    In any case, before long all hell has broken loose in the Freeling
household. Ordinary objects fly through the air crashing into each
other, wraiths left over from the finale of ''Raiders of the Lost
Ark'' whisk through the living room, and Carol Anne herself is sucked
into a closet by a magnetic light ray.
    Being the normal, rational folks they are, the Freelings seek
professional help from parapsychologist Dr. Lesh (Beatrice Straight),
who arrives at their haunted house sensibly equipped with her own hip
flask and accompanied by a pair of fellow spookologists.
    Dr. Lesh assures the Freelings that unlike real hauntings, which
can go on forever, poltergeist phenomena usually last ''only'' about
two months. But they're a memorable two months.
    With Carol Anne still trapped in the closet, further aid clearly
is needed. Enter Tangina (Zelda Rubinstein), a solemn midget exorcist
who lectures the afflicted parents perhaps a bit more thoroughly than
they - or we - need about the rules governing the spirit world before
restoring their daughter to them.
    Like any tale of the uncanny, ''Poltergeist'' demands from its
audience a willing suspension of disbelief.
    One does wonder why, in a neighborhood so densely populated that
television reception is impaired and Mister Rogers pops unasked into a
football game the Freelings are watching, nobody calls the cops when
the poltergeist creates such a racket.
    But such is Spielberg's cinematic mastery that we're willing to go
along with any inconsistencies reality might impose on his nightmare
world, and even to forgive the rather trite explanation the film
ultimately offers for its grisly goings-on.
    Only one scene is truly horrific, though, in this refreshingly
unexploitative horror film. The rest of ''Poltergeist'' provides
splendid entertainment for anyone over the age of haunted little Carol
Anne.

    ''POLTERGEIST.'' Wonderfully funny and scary ghost story by Steven
Spielberg (''Close Encounters of the Third Kind'') about an average
suburban American family menaced by things that go bump in the night.
Rated PG. Three and a half stars.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 1982 1250-EDT
From: Larry Seiler <SEILER at MIT-XX>
Subject: Doctor Who - the Definite Article

Dear Kevin Rudd,
    In reference to your question, "Doctor who?":  yes.

Dear "pur-ee!pur-phy!retief",
    In reference to your question, "What is Doctor Who's real name":
well, that depends on what you mean by "real".  Almost certainly that
would not be his name on Gallifrey (excuse my spelling, please).  But
in at least one early Doctor Who movie, he was explicitly referred to
as "Doctor Who".  And even in the Tom Baker series, there are
references.  For example, once when the Doctor was masquerading as an
android that was intended to masquerade as him, he tells another
android "Nobody knows who's Who around here."

    By the way, is it too much to ask that people sign their messages
with human-readable names?  I would rather refer to people by name
than by alphabet-soup computer designations.

Larry Seiler

------------------------------

Date: Friday,  4 Jun 1982 14:45-PDT
From: jim at RAND-UNIX
Subject: Supermen
                           Compare and contrast


       Stranger in a Strange Land         Gladiator
       Robert A. Heinlein                 Philip Wylie
       (c) 1961                           (c) 1930, 1958

1. VALENTINE MICHAEL SMITH born   1. HUGO DANNER born amid friction
   amid friction between parents.    between parents. Develops into a
   Develops into a superman with.    superman via genetic engineering.
   Martian help.

2. Trying to find his place in    2. Trying to find his place in
   society, joins a carnival as      society, joins a carnival as a
   a magician .                      strong man.  Makes a friend named
                                     VALENTINE MITCHEL.

3. Immolated by an enraged mob.   3. Immolated by a lightning bolt.


I liked Heinlein's version better (except for the slapstick scenes in
Heaven).  It's interesting to read both books together and notice the
difference in approach:  Heinlein basically interested in the human
potentials and Wylie in human arrogance, which occasionally needs to
be slapped down by God.

I'm guessing that the parallel is intentional, because of the
similarity of names (as well as the themes, of course).

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 1982 11:50 edt
From: Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: The Pogue Carburetor

This isn't SF, but it should be.  Ralph Ginzburg, late of EROS, the
Federal Pen, and Moneysworth, is running ads promising the secrets of
the 200 mpg Pogue Carburetor, one of those legendary inventions like
the eternal razor blade that are suppressed by the monopolistic
meanies of big biz.  The ad caused a severe nostalgia shock, for about
25 years ago a friend and I built one from the original patent
drawings (which, as I recall, went back to the 30's), after an article
we had uncovered in, I think, an ancient issue of Modern Mechanix.

We got the patent drawings through friend's father, who was a
consulting engineer.  The device is essentially a gasoline preheater.
It consists of two adjacent spiral chambers, the kind of arrangement
you would get if you laid two strips of paper together and then wound
them into a coil.  Gasoline went through one and exhaust through the
other.  The vaporized gasoline was metered into intake manifold
through an LP gas valve.  We never got to verify the 200 mpg claims
because our silver soldering technique wasn't up to the task and we
(evidently) got a leak, because the thing exploded, flew clear over
one house and landed in the adjacent yard.  Such adventures were only
possible in the years BN (Before Nader).

Earl

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 1982 0814-PDT
From: FEATHER at USC-ISIF (Martin S. Feather)
Subject: Video Games

What do you call a PacMan that doesn't eat anything?

PacIfist.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  6-Jun                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #63
*** EOOH ***
Date: Sunday, June 6, 1982 6:23AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #63
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest          Sunday, 6 Jun 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 63

Today's Topics:
                  Administrivia - Duplicate Digests,
                SF Books - "Shortstack" & Macro Story,
     SF TV - Dr Who,  SF Movies - Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan &
             Rating of Poltergeist & Revenge of the Jedi,
                SF Topics - Science in the Public Eye,
                   Humor - Genderless Video Games,
            Random Topics - Duck's Breath Mystery Theater
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sunday, June 6, 1982 6:23AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS-REQUEST at MIT-AI
Subject: Duplicate Digests

Once again, because of those transmission difficulties mentioned a
couple of weeks ago, a few people were sent duplicate copies of issue
61 (Friday's digest).  Sorry about that.

Jim

------------------------------

Date: 02-Jun-1982
From: ANDY VESPER at EVE
Reply-to: "ANDY VESPER at EVE c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: Looking for a story

Does anyone know where the following story might be found?  (magazine,
anthology, etc)

The title is "Shortstack" or something similar and it is about a man
named Short. The story begins as he is inflating a plastic hut in the
desert - but the plastic was cut wrong and instead of a hut he gets a
chimney - the 'stack' of the title.  The rest of the story shows how
useful this is and why Short is billed as a savior by mankind.

I read this at least 10 years ago so I don't remember just where I
read it - I think in a mainstream anthology.  Does anybody recognize
it?

Thanks, Andy

PS: I am also waiting for \The Universal Pantograph/ by Alexei Panshin
- it is the fourth in a series about a Trog named Torve and a human
named Anthony Villiers (aka Viscount Charteris) - light fare but
refreshing.
------------------------------

Date: 4 June 1982 10:48 edt
From: Gubbins.4506i14TK at RADC-Multics
Subject: Macro Story


     The following is a story story that a good friend of mine wrote.
I thought it might fit in well with SF-Lovers.
                                          - Gern

       --------------------------------------------------------


     "Rats!", the Moon thought, "My Kepler crater itches!"
     He hated it when he had an itch.  There was no way of relieving
it unless a small meteorite would strike the spot.  And the chances of
that happening were millions to one.
     The Moon remembered his youth, when he had thought about more
than tiny itches.  He had been cradled in a lush pocket of spacetime,
set in ultimate comfort among the cosmos.  He took leisurely strolls
around a beautiful blue planet, admiring its grace and purity.
     Yet something was missing; a purpose, a reason.
     Was this his ultimate fate, to circle this epitome of beauty?
Was his sole purpose to praise and serve this model of perfection?
     He had certainly hoped not.
     As time passed,, he grew to hate the blue planet, jealous of the
attention it drew and magnificence it possessed.  He hated his own
mundane looks and meaningless purpose in life.
     Then they came.  Tiny, miniature creatures in white.  They hopped
around and stuck a bright cloth in him.  They danced, they shouted,
they frolicked.  They sang praises to him!
     Praises to him?  Creatures from the beautiful blue planet singing
praises to him, an ugly rock, a mere servant?  Maybe he was important.
Maybe he had a purpose in life.
     He was a goal!  Something to reach for, something to accomplish.
He had found his purpose.
     Suddenly a tiny asteroid pelted the Moon just inside the Kepler
crater.
     "Ahh!", sighed the Moon, "That hits the spot."
     And so it did.



                                        - Aries

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 1982 0931-MDT
From: Michi Wada <WADA at SANDIA>
Subject: Dr. Who and Star Trek II premier

In the story "The Armaggedon Factor" the Doctor met Drax, a fellow
Gallifrian.  Drax called the Doctor "Theta Sigma" when they first met.
According to the book version of the story "Theta Sigma" is a
Gallifrian designation and not the Doctor's real name either.  Other
than that one instance he has always been just "The Doctor".

Albuquerque, New Mexico also had a premier showing of Star Trek II on
3 June '82.  This one was sponsored by a radio station here in
Albuquerque.  Tickets were for free, but were gotten by answering or
asking Star Trek trivia questions or being in one of 2 science fiction
clubs who got a limited number of tickets for helping out with the
promotion.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 1982 0915-MDT
From: Pendleton at UTAH-20 (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Star Trek:TWOK premier

   I attended what has billed as the premier of ST:TWOK last night,
Thursday June 3rd, in Salt Lake City, Utah.  It was not billed as the
world premier, just as the premier.  It was part of a promotion by a
local radio station and a local furniture dealler.

Bye the way, I haven't enjoyed an SF movie so much since the first
Star Wars movie.  It was classic Star Trek!

     Bob Pendleton

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 1982 08:53 CDT
From: Johnston.DLOS at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #60

No premier on 3 June in Dallas.

Rick

------------------------------

Date: "3-JUN-1982 17:30  "
From: TSC::COORS::VICKREY
Reply-to: "TSC::COORS::VICKREY c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: The Wrath of Khan

"Somewhere at the ends of the universe a battle is about to begin ..."

So begins the radio commercial for TWOK.  What a lovely way to wake up
in the morning!

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 1982 2014-EDT
From: HEDRICK at RUTGERS (Mgr DEC-20s/Dir LCSR Comp Facility)
Subject: an alarming review of ST.TMP.2

After seeing all the positive reviews that have been published here, I
was interested to hear the WCBS movie critic give a fairly negative
review of Star Trek II.  What was interesting about it was that he
criticized the movie by saying that it was just a bunch of people
sitting around in swivel chairs.  Even that were true (which it is
not), I would find it a fairly alarming reaction.  Star Wars (which as
I recall the same reviewer liked) of course had more different sets
and more "action".  But these days more and more of the real life
challenges are going to occur to people who are sitting at desks or
consoles.  If we are going to survive as a technological society, we
are going to be willing to put effort into challenges that are
essentially abstract - ethical issues that we can only see by perusing
a list of numbers on a printout, and life and death struggles that
show up only on a display screen.

I think what we see in that review is the sort of alienation from
technology that Pirsig analysed so well in @i[Zen and the Art of
Motorcycle Maintenance].  [I trust everyone on this mailing list knows
about that most extrodinary book.  Although it is a work of fiction,
it contains interesting discussions of at least the following points:
  - people's reactions to technology
  - esthetics
  - the problem-solving process, with emphasis on debugging.  [the
        only other significant treatment that I know of outside the
        AI literature is Polyani's book @i[How to Solve it.]  It isn't
exactly science fiction, but it seems to share many of the merits of
science fiction.  It is one of the few books that seems to create its
own genre.  The normal sorts of things you expect to see in a review
wouldn't be that useful, because the action is almost completely on
the level of ideas.  The chief villain is an academic department at
the University of Chicago.  [Interestingly enough, I believe that the
department actually exists.  One suspects that the usual disavowal of
"no similarity to any people living or dead" is misleading in this
case.  He minces no words about who his villains are.  They are mostly
universities, and they are all identifiable.]]]

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 1982 0108-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Rating of Poltergeist


                          By ALJEAN HARMETZ
                   c. 1982 N.Y. Times News Service

    HOLLYWOOD - The voluntary movie-rating system of the Hollywood
studios has made news again - in two ways that reflect the tensions
inherent in trying to protect children, movie grosses and an
uncensored society at the same time.  ....
    On the other side of the ledger, MGM-UA's ''Poltergeist,'' a movie
that has a very explicit body count of decaying corpses, was rated R
by the industry's Rating Board. Because ''Poltergeist'' - which
concerns the ghostly possession of a tract house and its occupants -
should find its greatest audience in young teen-agers when it opens
Friday, the studio appealed the decision.
    By a surprisingly lopsided vote, the Appeals Board, which consists
of 24 members of organizations of movie producers and distributors and
theater owners, overturned the R-rating and granted ''Poltergeist'' a
PG-rating.
    In the last three years, only three of 16 appeals have been
granted by the Appeals Board - not counting movies that appealed their
ratings because of sexually explicit language that automatically gets
a movie an R.
    The PG-rating for ''Poltergeist'' suggests ''parental guidance''
but allows even a 5-year-old to attend the movie unaccompanied. The
ratings system was instituted in 1968 as a way of staving off
government censorship. For the last six or eight years, there has been
a fierce but almost completely private argument inside the industry
over adding an R-13 rating, which would restrict a movie for young
children but not for teen-agers. Jack Valenti, president of the Motion
Picture Association of America, has been very reluctant to draw
attention to the ratings by tampering with them in any way, but the
rerating of ''Poltergeist'' is bound to force him to address himself
to the hot-potato issue once again.

 ....

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 1982 1600-EDT
From: DD-B <DYER-BENNET at KL2137>
Reply-to: "DYER-BENNET at KL2137 c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: SFL submission


( Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest V5 #57 )

(Dolata at SUMEX-AIM) I agree that revenge does not befit a Jedhi.
They certainly don't map directly onto the samurai, for example.

There are more long books recently, and also more series and sequels
and the like.  Personally, I like long books and series.  I would
certainly object if I felt a book were padded, but that's not
something I tend to notice (or else my definition of "padded" differs
from most peoples').  So be reassured that this trend in writing or
publishing at least serves the interests of someone, somewhere, other
than those doing it.

(Discussions of "standard english") This is more germane to SF than
many of our sidetracks here, but I think it's also more unresolvable.
Using female pronouns generically in a book told in first person by a
female bothers me much less, at least in the abstract (I haven't read
Friday yet), than many things I've seen done.

( Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest V5 #59 )

(Steven J. Zeve <ZEVE at RUTGERS>) I thought it was pachuperoffspring?

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 1982 1328-PDT
From: FEBER at USC-ISIC
Subject: Pacman

The name Pacman apparently comes from the Japanese verb "paku-paku"
which is an onomatopoetic word representing the sound the lips make as
someone gobbles food.  It implies voraciousness.
------------------------------

Date: 26-May-1982
From: JOHN FRANCIS AT EIFFEL
Reply-to: "JOHN FRANCIS AT EIFFEL c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: Ferrets of Old England

In reply to Mijjil's ferret query:  I have never heard of "Duck's
Breath", but I suspect that your question about the ferrets of England
refers to "The Ferrets of Old England", a truly marvelous song.  I
don't remember much of it - just the following phrase:

        "Do you like your Ferret baked or boiled?"
        "No - I preFERRET raw!"
        "Oh, God bless the Ferrets of Old England".

This song is from an old BBC radio series "I'm sorry, I'll read that
again" starring David Hatch, Jo Kendall, John (Otto) Cleese, Tim
Brooke-Taylor, Graham Garden, and Bill Oddie (who wrote the songs),
and produced by Humphrey Barclay. Ferrets are a recurring theme in
this series, as are gibbons, and several other weird things.  If you
haven't ever heard this series, you are missing a lot of the jokes in
the Monty Python TV shows and films. For example, in "Monty Python and
the Holy Grail", the vampire rabbit is a reference to an ISIRTA show
where the wimpy hero (Tim Brooke-Taylor) is trapped in a room with a
vampire rabbit and a large wooden chest.

"Oh" he dithers, "Should I attempt to kill the creature by driving a
pointed stick through it's heart, or should I hide in the chest ?"

"What should I do ?"

and the audience reply

        "Stake the Bunny!"  "Hop in the Box!"


P.S.  Referring to the show as ISIRTA is not just SFL-ism in
      abbreviating everything to it's initials - that's what they
      called it themselves.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  8-Jun                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #64
*** EOOH ***
Date: Tuesday, June 8, 1982 6:20AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #64
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest          Monday, 7 Jun 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 64

Today's Topics:
           SF Books - Here's the Plot...What's the Title &
                       Puppet Masters & "Gulf",
             SF TV - Dr Who,  SF Topics - Politics in SF,
               SF Movies - ET: the Extra-Terrestrial &
                   Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,
     Random Topics - Commercials at the movies,  Spoiler - "Gulf"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Monday,  7 Jun 1982 14:27-PDT
Subject: Help locating a Parallel Worlds Story
From: norm at RAND-UNIX

I wonder if somebody could help me locate a Science Fiction Story.

Its a parallel worlds plot.  I know neither the author nor the title.

The story begins with the hero in England interviewing relatives of a
girl he loved in a parallel world.  The family claimed that the girl
never existed.  After further investigation he finds her, with a
different name, in Canada.  He once slips and refers to her by the
parallel world name.  Her mother than tells him that while pregnant
and on a riverboat trip with her lover she saw the name, the hero
inadvertently used, on a passing boat and planned to name her baby
after the boat.  As far as she knows nobody else knew this name.  The
naming plans were changed when the mother's lover was killed in (I
think) the First World War.  The mother never told her lover's
relatives of her pregnancy.

The story is NOT the similar story based on the 1971 English movie
"Quest for Love", though I would also like to locate that story.

Since I'm not on the SF_LOVERS list, I'd appreciate replies directly
to me.

thanks much

Norm Shapiro
norm at RAND-UNIX

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 1982 1621-EDT
From: Mark <MARKT at MIT-XX>
Subject: Dr. Who's real name

In the last "Keys of Time" series (I don't remember the series' name),
Dr. Who met an imprisoned time lord who knew him from their college
days, I think his name was Drax.  Anyway, he called the Doctor
"Phete", and once said his full name, "Phetus Sigma".  I'm just
guessing at the spelling.  Later on in the episode, the Doctor told
Drax that he now preferred to be called "The Doctor".

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 1982 22:33:36-EST
From: Chris Kent <cak at Purdue>
Reply-to: cak at Purdue
Subject: Dr Who and Tom Baker

Has anyone out there gotten any of the 'new' episodes (i.e. those with
Peter Davison playing the Doctor)? The local station has been
backpedalling -- we've seen the Key to Time sequence twice, and they
are now rerunning VERY EARLY Tom Baker episodes. The last episode that
has been shown (chronologically speaking) is Logopolis, in which
Davison replaces Baker (sniff).

Can't really picture anyone else playing the Doctor.

chris

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 1982 1239-PDT
From: Mike Leavitt <LEAVITT at USC-ISI>
Subject: Utopian, feminist sf

        A good friend is putting together a seminar on utopias from a
feminist anthropological position, and one session (perhaps more) will
be devoted to contemporary sf's contribution.  Some obvious ones come
to mind (Dispossessed (pace, SD), Anderson's Winter of the World,
miscellaneous Russ), but I felt that I was probably missing many good
choices.  The utopias don't have to be explicitly feminist utopias,
but rather, utopias that would be of interest to feminists.  A
blatantly anti-feminist one would be great, too.  By "contemporary," I
mean, say, since John Campbell started at Astounding.  I exclude
mainstream favorites (1984, etc.)  since they will be covered
elsewhere.  Any ideas?  If anybody so indicates, I will be happy to
share a summary with individuals or with the list.

        Mike <Leavitt at USC-ISI>

PS I vaguely recall a similar discussion in months (years?)  past in
SFL.  Pointers to specific issues would also be most welcome.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 1982 17:16:30-PDT
From: decvax!minow at Berkeley
Subject:  Progressive literature

In sf-lovers several weeks ago, James Cox (APPLE @ MIT-MC) stated
"politics generally makes bad literature.  Nobody ever reads fiction
writers 'with a cause.'"
A week or so ago, I submitted a list or "progressive writers" to
POLI-SCI, but network difficulties -- such as the non-existence of an
arpa gateway -- prevented submitting it to SF-LOVERS.  The following
slightly expanded list "popular, progressive" authors is ordered
roughly chronologically (with apologies for misspellings):

Aristophenes, Macchievelli, Voltaire, Swift, Balzac, Thomas Paine,
Thoreau, Harriet Beecher Stowe (and the other abolitionists), Mark
Twain, Victor Hugo, Strindberg, Ibsen, Dosteyevski, Gorky, Shaw,
Driesler, Jose Marti, Lorca, Jallosa Vargas.  Zola, Camus.

In our era, we have:

Brecht, Gunter Grass, Orwell, Satre, de Bouvoir, Vilhelm Moberg, Ivar
Lo Johansson, Maj Sjovall and Per Wahloo, Theodorakis, Vaino Linna and
Steinbeck.

These writers all exhibit several characteristics:

1.  They are all part of the Western cultural tradition.
2.  They were in opposition to the traditional society.
3.  They were popular during their own time.

Cox subsequently pointed out that it was a bit unfair to include
satirists such as Swift and Twain, as their intention is to attack the
social order.  He also pointed out that, to classify, say,
Dosteyevsky, as a progressive writer is to miss the importance of his
work.  The same could well be said of all the writers on this list.

By the way, the list contains a fair number of Scandinavian writers
that, while readily available in translation, are almost unknown here.
Several of the Scandinavians are accessible via film:
Sjovall/Wahloo's The Laughing Policeman, Moberg's The Emigrants, and
Linna's The World is a Sinful Song have all been shown in the US.
(The Laughing Policeman lost most of its political bite: read their
books instead.)

I can think of few "progressive, successful" SF authors (besides
Brunner, of course).  Any others?

Regards

Martin Minow (with some help from a friend)
decvax!minow

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 1982 0900-EDT
From: Ed Bailey <BAILEY at KL2116>
Reply-to: "Ed Bailey <BAILEY at KL2116> c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: E.T.: the Extraterrestial


        This past weekend I was able to catch the Hartford,
Connecticut preview of E.T.  I was quite surprised to find a quality
offering that answered such questions as, "What would your little
sister do if she found an extraterrestrial in your closet?", and "What
would NASA do if they found an extraterrestrial in your closet?".  The
film has some very funny moments, as well as enough of a tear-jerker
to get an eight-year-old sobbing (and a twenty-three-year-old a little
misty eyed).  I found it a little surprising that one of the NASA
people couldn't figure out what "E.T." built out of a radar detector,
a phonograph, and a TI "Speak 'n Spell", but it was not that critical
to the plot.

        So, if you're willing to forego documentary style accuracy
(you won't find it here), and want to see what may be the most
expressive face that never lived, see E.T.

                                        Ed

About the units of time on "Battlescow Garbagecan".  I think you will
find that the units are powers of ten, as I remember hearing/seeing a
countdown go from one centon (?) to 99 microns....

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 82 2:06-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Star Trek II

Pretty good.  True to the series and characters.  A bit melodramatic
and sentimental near the end.  Sometimes hysterical one-liners.
Vastly superior to the first movie.  Impressive, but not suffocating,
special effects by Industrial Light & Magic.  Nicholas Meyer's
reputation can only increase with this one.

------------------------------

Date: 6 June 1982 02:55-EDT
From: Gary E. Ansok <GEA at MIT-AI>
Subject: ST:TWOK -- A question

    Is there a reason that Khan never takes the glove off of his right
hand?  (i.e., is this an artificial hand or such like?)

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 1982 0220-PDT
From: Dolata at SUMEX-AIM
Subject: Commercials at the movies!

I just saw Star Trek; The Rath of Kahn.  I like it.

However, what I was writing about was the fact that before the film
they showed a commercial for Pepsi!  I have already written and
printed out a letter expressing my distaste for commercials in the
movies, promising that I would be concienciously buying COKE in
protest.

I encourage everybody who feels similarly to join me in writing such
letters of complaint when theatres pull this cheapo.  After all, once
commercials become firmly established at the beginning and end of the
movie, where is the next obvious place to put them???????????

[  This practice is quite common in European theatres.  Usually
   commercials are shown before the movie for 5 to 15 minutes.
   However, no place I know of has adopted a policy of showing
   them DURING the movie itself.  --  Jim  ]

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, June 8, 1982 2:26AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following message is the last in the digest.  It discusses some
plot details of the story "Gulf."  Some readers may not wish to read
on.

------------------------------

Date: Monday,  7 Jun 1982 09:35-PDT
From: jim at RAND-UNIX
Subject: Puppet Masters and Gulf revisited

Because of the widespread differences of opinion on The Puppet Masters
and Gulf, I thought I'd re-read both and report:

Kettle-Belly Baldwin is indeed a main character of Gulf, and does
indeed head a super-secret PRIVATE organization of supermen dedicated
to the concept of separating smart people from average people with the
eventual goal of creating a separate and superior species.  They speak
a constructed language as previously described in this newsletter.
The hero is a guy called Joe Green, who doesn't survive (I guess this
is a spoiler).  The setting is sometime after recovery from (!) the
3rd world war, which may have been won by the Soviets.  I haven't yet
read Friday.  Does this sound like the same Kettle-Belly?

The hero of Puppet Masters is named Elihu Nivens (cover name Sam).
His father, Andrew, is the head of the super-secret GOVERNMENT
organization which seems to have some kind of security duties ...
perhaps like a Gestapo or something, but all good guys, of course.
Sam eventually takes over the organization by popular acclaim.  The
organization does not have its own language, although Sam's girl
friend (cover name Mary, originally named Allucquere) was a member of
the Whitmanite religious (?) sect which used its own artificial
language.  No Kettle-Bellies, no Baldwins.  Separate universe.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  8-Jun                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #65
*** EOOH ***
Date: Tuesday, June  8, 1982 8:17PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #65
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Tuesday, 8 Jun 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 65

Today's Topics:
             SF Movies - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,
             SF Books - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,
              Spoiler - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7-Jun-82 10:39AM-EDT (Mon)
From: David Miller <Miller at YALE>
Subject: Star Trek II

All the reviews of this movie that I've seen so far have sounded very
good so, though I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, let me dwell on some
of its weaknesses.

While STTMP was filled with grand concepts, it lacked in plot, ST-II
has lots of plot but no grand concepts at all.  There is little to
talk about (as far as the content is concerned) in this movie, except
for speculation about the ending.  One can make comments about, and
repeat the many nifty lines in the film, but it reminded me more than
anything else of "Chariots of Fire" a wonderfully entertaining film
that kept your interest all through the film, but was entirely up
there on the screen, with nothing left to ponder about.

The director and writer (does anybody know who the writer was?  I saw
no credit for him/her) gave in completely to the popular criticisms of
the previous films:  The bridge voices were back, there was more
snappy dialogue (in STTMP there were only two lines of that type
             1) "Spock, transmit now"
             2) "Out there, that-a-way")
and there was blood and battle.  The first two were really nice to
see, the last I'm afraid they went a bit overboard on.  Really what
was the point of Scotty carrying up the broken body of his assistant
to the Bridge?  And while ILM's affects are always a pleasure to look
at, almost two thirds of the film was in battle, or preparation for
battle.

Star fleet itself seems to have changed character slightly.  In almost
every episode, and even in the last film, Kirk gets a chance to say
that are weapons are purely defensive, but in this film, with the new
Prussian uniforms, they goto great lengths to remove all defensive
weapons, and go onto offense whenever possible.

Finally, For Kahn having the greatest intelligence he certainly is
foolish.  I guess that old D&D saying about a genius only being as
intelligent as the Dungeon Master is really true.

Perhaps the next film can be a merger of the strengths of both films,
then we'll have not only a fun film, but a good piece of cinema.

                                                Dave
                                                (miller@yale)

------------------------------

Date: 7 June 1982 08:28-EDT
From: Andrew Scott Beals <BANDY at MIT-AI>
Subject: Star Trek II - TWoK

Is a GREAT movie! Both the special effects and the editing was good,
although, the plot /did/ have some silly moments. Does anybody know if
the was that they're going to bring back Spock has anything to do with
his touching McCoy's head and saying ``remember''? (I would guess that
this /is/ the way, but then again....)
                                        - Andy
                                        - andrew.univax at brl-bmd
                                        - dbl!andy.univax at brl-bmd

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, June  8, 1982 6:19PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following messages are the last in the digest.  They discuss some
plot details in both the movie and the book Star Trek II:  The Wrath
of Khan.  Some readers may not wish to read on.

------------------------------

Date: 8 June 1982 9:21 am PDT (Tuesday)
From: MORRILL.PA
Subject: Star Trek II


*******************************************************************
****SPOILER***SPOILER***SPOILER***SPOILER***SPOILER***SPOILER******
*******************************************************************


Spock lies, McCoy's bootlegging whiskey, Kirk's got an illegitimate
son and Scotty has V.D.  What ever happen to those nice boys who ran
the Enterprise fifteen years ago?

                                                        Toby

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 1982 13:22 EDT
From: Stevenson.WBST at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Star Trek II


*******************************************************************
****SPOILER***SPOILER***SPOILER***SPOILER***SPOILER***SPOILER******
*******************************************************************


        "What ever happened to those nice boys who ran the
        Enterprise fifteen years ago?"

They're going right on doing what they've always done:


1. Saavik: "You lied!"
   Spock: "I exaggerated."
   Spock already proved he's capable of "exaggeration" (and explained
   why) in "The Enterprise Incident".

2. McCoy bought bootleg Romulan ale; he didn't smuggle it himself.
   In various Trek episodes he prescribed booze for "medicinal
   purposes", as did Dr. Boyce before him.  (I think it was Dr.
   Boyce who "prescribed" for Captain Pike in "The Cage"/"The
   Menagerie" -- or was Boyce the doctor in "Where No Man Has
   Gone Before"?)

3. There is no such thing as an "illegitimate child"; there are only
   "illegitimate" parents.  Kirk could have been married to Carol
   Marcus at the time of David's birth -- there may be such things
   as temporary "contract" marriages in that era.  The fact that Kirk
   married Miramanee (and got her pregnant) in "The Paradise
   Syndrome" seems to indicate that he's less than totally averse
   to marriage and children.

4. Ok, you've got me there.  The looks on Kirk's, Scotty's, and
   McCoy's faces certainly indicated that Scotty had caught something
   embarrassing.  (But is VD any more embarrassing than athlete's foot
   in the 23rd century?  Maybe Scotty's embarrassing medical problem
   was dandruff - any Head & Shoulders commercial I've ever seen
   implied that that's the REALLY disgusting "social disease".)
   Scotty was always portrayed as being a bit of a hall-raiser -- when
   he could be forced into spending time away from his engines, that
   is.  He displayed a definite propensity for alcoholic beverages in
   "The Tholian Web" and "By Any Other Name", to mention a couple,
   called himself "an old Glasgow pub-crawler" in "Wolf in the Fold",
   and threw the first punch in the barroom brawl in "The Trouble With
   Tribbles".

                        Bill
                        ("Picky, picky, picky!" screams the audience.)

------------------------------

Date: 8 June 1982 11:52 edt
From: Barry Margolin at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #63

Re: pronouns and Star Trek II

(Very mild spoiler warning - moderator's discretion)

Now that I have seen ST:TWOK twice, I am convinced that in the scene
between Kirk and David near he end David refers to Saavik as "he".
Can anyone corroborate this?

Other questions about Saavik have come up around here.  First, there
is her (his?) name.  In the series we were led to believe that Vulcan
male names are of the form S---k (except for Stonn, the man who wanted
to marry Spock's fiancee), and that female names were of the form
T'P---.  Saavik seems to be of the male form.

Then there is her species.  I believe that there were reports in this
digest claiming that she is half-Vulcan and half-Romulan.  Are we
expected to have been able to derive this from the movie?  And if she
is, she would have to be at most 16 earth-years old, because we saw
what claimed to be the first face-to-face meeting between Federation
members and Romulans in the original series episode "Balance of
Terror".
                                barmar

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 1982 1842-EDT
From: Thomas Galloway <Galloway at YALE>
Subject: ST II- Movie vs book

*SPOILER WARNING* *GO SEE THE MOVIE FIRST!*

After catching ST-II last night, i bought the novelization by Vonda
McIntyre.  All in all, a good job, but some things in the book really
should have been in the movie, and based on previous rumors, etc.,
believe they were at one time, but got cut out.

I)   Saavik is supposed to be half Romulan as well as Vulcan.  This
     would help explain her "Damn" in the opening, and leads to quite
     a bit of character development in the book.  Hopefully, this will
     be played up, with a bit of prejudice of the part of the crew
     towards her.
II)  Peter Preston, the engineering cadet who Scotty carried up to the
     bridge and who was the only one to stick at his post, was
     Scotty's nephew.  As I recall, Scotty was looking rather proud
     when Kirk singled Pete out.  There was also a good scene where
     Kirk teases Pete, but Pete gets back by presenting  him with a
     "left-handed scanner".
III) Sulu is now a captain and about to take over his own ship.  This
     ties in with the line "good to have you back on for three weeks
     Mr. Sulu".
IV)  The scene where Terril kills himself is done better, giving him a
     bit more reason to be able to throw off Khan's control.
V)   David finds out when he attacks Kirk who his father is.
VI)  There's a lead-in to bringing Spock back at the end.

All in all, a good job of novelization and film .  Just wish some of
these elements had made it through the editing, particularly the first
two.

tom

------------------------------
Date: 7 Jun 1982 2054-EDT
From: HEDRICK at RUTGERS (Mgr DEC-20s/Dir LCSR Comp Facility)
Subject: some background for those who plan to see Star Trek II

I have just finished reading the novel based on Star Trek: the Wrath
of Khan, by Vonda McIntyre.  I recommend the book, even if you see the
movie.  It has enough more material to be worth reading, particularly
in its handling of the characters of Saavik, Spock, Peter Preston, and
the folks on the Regula Spacelab.  I am including some information
from the book, to help tie up some of the loose ends left after seeing
the movie.  I have tried not to say so much that this will spoil
either the movie or the book.

The loose ends it ties up are mostly associated with Saavik and Peter
Preston.  The movie, at least in the form we see it, centers around
Adm.  Kirk and the people around him (Spock, McCoy, etc.).  In the
book, there is a second center of attention around Saavik, including
Saavik, Peter, and David.  There seems to be some evidence that a lot
of this was originally in the script and ended up on the cutting room
floor. I will not actually tie up said loose ends (in order to avoid a
spoiler rating) but will give the background necessary for you to do
so yourself when you see the movie.

Saavik:  Saavik is half Vulcan and half Romulan.  No one knows who her
parents are, but from the habits of both races it seems that she is
probably the result of rape.  Now and then Romulans manage to kidnap a
Vulcan and rape him or her (perhaps rape is too mild a word for the
actual situation, but it will do for a summary).  The resulting child
is of no interest to either race.  Saavik ended up growing up in the
underworld of a Romulan colony world.  The Romulans gave up the colony
as a lost cause, and withdrew their personnel.  Of course they did not
bother with Saavik or those like her.  Some time later, an expedition
from Vulcan found the planet.  The Vulcans weren't much more
enthusiastic, but Mr. Spock, who happened to be on the expedition,
forced them to do their duty by the half-breeds, and Saavik was
rescued.  This history explains why Saavik does not seem to be a
normal Vulcan.  Spock clearly believes that Saavik should not try to
be a Vulcan - her background does not allow it.  Spock was able to
function as one only because he grew up with the Vulcan disciplines.
He would prefer to see her end up as an effective human than an
ineffective Vulcan.  However Saavik quite naturally idolizes Spock,
and wants to be like him.  By the way, Saavik strikes me as someone
that we are likely to see more of in future episodes (if any).

Peter Preston is not actually part of the crew of the ship.  He is a
cadet, 14 years old.  It sounds like this is a 23rd-century equivalent
of the sea scouts.  After all, this is a training voyage, and it is
not unheard of to take scouts on such a trip.  His station is the
second backup control for the auxiliary power.  There is seems to
have been a casting problem here.  The movie uses 18-year olds for
their 18-year olds.  So when they use someone at least as old for
Peter, the relative ages come out wrong.  Also, some of Peter's dialog
needs a 13 or 14-year old actor. I suggest using your imagination when
watching him.  In particular, Kirk's first encounter with him makes
many people think that Starfleet has suddenly turned militaristic.  If
you keep in mind his actual age, you will realize what is really going
on.  The book does quite a nice job in portraying Peter.  As with many
adolescents, everything he tries to say or do comes out embarrassing
him. To make things worse, he is Scotty's nephew. (Have you ever seen
what happens when a teacher has his own son in his class? a fate worse
than death...)  Despite this, he is a thoroughly sweet kid, and
clearly everyone on the crew loves him.  Spock assigns him to Saavik
to be tutored in math, with the intention of showing Saavik the bright
side of being human .  In general, it seems to work.

a random comment:

yes, the Enterprise does have robots capable of doing repairs in areas
with high radiation.  However if they are used continually, they
eventually give out due to radiation damage.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line:  10-Jun                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #66
*** EOOH ***
Date: Thursday, June 10, 1982 10:44AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest        Wednesday, 9 Jun 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 66

Today's Topics:
    SF Books - Podkayne of Mars & Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,
           SF TV - Dr Who,  Humor - Genderless Video Games,
     Random Topics - Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance &
          How To Solve It & Halliwell's Filmgoers Companion,
     SF Movies - Movie Reviews & Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,
              Spoiler - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 08-Jun-1982
From: ANDY VESPER at EVE
Reply-to: "ANDY VESPER at EVE c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: Life imitates art

Reference: Eric P. Scott at MIT-AI (SF-LOVERS Digest vol 5 # 59)

Vita imitaret artes.  ("Life imitates art" in Latin.)

Reference: Podkayne of Mars

I must agree she is a twit - but she is a very believable twit.
Should a hero be larger than life - or human?  I have always admired
RAH's characterizations - I can see people like them all around.  Even
Lazarus Long has his foibles - his \ridiculous/ sexual hangups (which,
come to think, might have helped him stay alive all those years).

------------------------------

Date: 8-JUN-1982 17:58
From: TSC::COORS::VICKREY
Reply-to: "TSC::COORS::VICKREY c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: The Fifth Doctor Who

Saw a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a video tape of
Castrelvalva, the first Dr. Who with Peter Davison as the Doctor, this
weekend.  The story (from what I could see & hear - nth generation
tapes are hard to watch) was about the Doctor's problems with his
latest re-generation:  his memory is extremely erratic, making it
difficult to find his way around the Tardis (he has to leave a trail
of clothing); a quarter of the Tardis has to be jettisoned in order to
get sufficient thrust to get away from the Big Bang (unfortunately
including the Zero Room, which was the only place where his dendrites
could heal properly); and the Master is still after him.

The Tradition Continues!

------------------------------

Date: Wednesday, 9 June 1982  14:14-PDT
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: video games

        What do you call <going out into the woods and using a
battery-powered Atari>?

PacPacing

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 1982 22:59:13-PDT
From: Cory.caro at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Pirsig's "Zen..."


(HEDRICK at RUTGERS) I must take exception to your brief summary of
"Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance."  Although it is many
things, I would not call it "fiction".  At the very least, it is
semi-autobiographical.  At the most, it is a serious philosophical
teatise (but that is REALLY stretching things.)  That Pirsig chose to
present his ideas in a "mainstream" literary format reflects the fact
that he wanted people, all people, to hear his "message".  Also, I
think the literary approach has more "Quality".

In any case, it has as little to do with SF as this letter.

Perry A. Caro
ucbvax!ucbcory!caro

------------------------------

Date: 9 June 1982 10:20 edt
From: Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: Misc. Nonfiction

1. "How To Solve It" was written by Polya, not Polyani.  His lectures
were wonderful.  His work was extended by Imre Lakatos in an excellent
book called "Proofs and Refutations" (Cambridge U Press).


2. "Halliwell's Filmgoers Companion" is popping up on the B. Dalton
remainder tables at half price.  These are actual 1980 editions, not
shlock (e.g. Crown) reprints.  Only a little SF in this, but everthing
about everthing about movies, especially those of the thirties and
forties.

Earl

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 1982 1113-EDT
From: John Redford <VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO>
Subject: Outside movie reviews

Lately it seems that most of the movie and book reviews on this list
have come from newpapers and wire services.  Although I appreciate the
effort that people have gone to in typing them in or in transferring
the files, I would really rather hear what fellow fans have to say.  A
reviewer like Richard Freedman is obviously not a fan, and on the
whole he seems to despise this sci-fi stuff.  After reading three or
four pieces from professional reviewers, I think people are a little
reluctant to express their own opinions.  So come on out there!  What
do you think of Spielberg making another sentimental and stupid movie
about aliens?  Should Trekdom be revived?  Is the Conan movie fascist
or merely brutal?  Surely we can do better than "Wonderful special
effects and such fun for the kids".

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 1982 1335-PDT
From: Stuart McLure Cracraft <McLure at SRI-KL>
Subject: objections to mainstream movie critics

Redford raised an objection about the newswire reviews of SF movies
(and books presumably) that have appeared on this mailing list.  I,
for one, *WANT* someone's view other than a hardcore SF fanatic's who
generally has little or no care for characterization, often being
interested in spectacular effects alone. A Trekkie's view of the Star
Trek movie is practically worthless. I want to know if the movie
stands on its own, what is the level of the acting, how does the plot
hang together, etc. If Freedman, Maslin and Ebert decry the stupidity
of a SF movie, rest assured that the film *is* stupid. The fact that
several SF movies have received good reviews from them lately is
reassuring.

[  Two points: first, we can only print what we get submitted.  So if
   people want to hear from the readers of the list on your favorite
   movie or book, then contribute!  Remember, send all messages to
   SF-LOVERS@MIT-AI .  Second, the news wire stories are not only
   useful for an alternate veiwpoint, but they also come out up to
   one week before the movie opens to the public.  Thus, since many
   people seem to appreciate reveiws as soon as a movie opens, we
   try to time the distribute this material to coincide with the
   opening of the movie.  After it has opened, the amount of material
   available from the outside press naturally decreases, while the
   contributions from the readership naturally increases as more people
   see the movie.  --  Jim  ]

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 1982 1102-EDT
From: DD-B <DYER-BENNET at KL2137>
Reply-to: "DYER-BENNET at KL2137 c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: For SFL: TWoK Review

I saw Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn at the official opening last night.
There will probably be lots of reviews floating around, but I'm going
to contribute mine anyway.

Micro review:  This is a good movie, even taken apart from any special
appeal it may have for Star Trek fen.  See it.

Mini review: I didn't expect to like the movie much.  I felt that the
last one was of no interest except to hard boiled Trekfen, because it
contained almost no story.  This one, on the other hand, had
sufficient plot for the length, and as a bonus contained more of the
feel of the television Star Trek episodes than the first movie did.

A couple of caveats: the ST universe contains many magic artifacts,
such as the transporter, which must be accepted without an attempt at
explanation.  ST:TWoK contains a new one, but it isn't pulled out of a
hat at a crucial moment or anything obnoxious like that.  There are
certain "standing stupidities" built into Star Trek, such as always
sending the highest-ranking officers around on landing parties, and
failing to keep up communications between the landing party and the
ship, which figure in this movie as well.  People who have not become
inured to these by now will probably not like the movie.

Mainframe review:  See spoiler section.

------------------------------

Date: Thursday, June 10, 1982 8:32AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following messages are the last in the digest.  They discuss some
plot details in both the movie and the book Star Trek II:  The Wrath
of Khan.  Some readers may not wish to read on.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 1982 1134-EDT
From: DD-B <DYER-BENNET at KL2137>
Reply-to: "DYER-BENNET at KL2137 c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: SFL: ST:TWoK Mainframe review **SPOILER**

I'm writing this part of my review for people who have seen the movie.
I assume that most will either see the movie before reading spoilers,
or skip them entirely if they don't care about the movie.

Someone mentioned Spock "slipping" once and addressing Lt. Saavik as
"Mr. Saavik" (for those who haven't seen the movie, she's female).  I
was looking for this.  I found it, not once but each time.  It seemed
as if they were using "Mr." as the title of address for officers on
the bridge without regard to sex (was Uhura ever addressed by anything
but name or rank?).

I always keep a "list" of "idiot steps" in the plot: connections that
wouldn't be there if the characters weren't idiots.  This movie did
better than most (really better: it had fewer idiots):

1.  Chekov and the captain should have stayed in communication with
the ship when they were down examining Kahns community.

2.  Kirk should have raised shields earlier when approaching the
Reliant.  The fact that he acknowledges this himself later makes this
much less bothersome to me.  Certainly people make mistakes; but if
the entire plot of a story hinges on a mistake, it should be explained
as "justified" somehow, or at the very least acknowledged as having
been a mistake.

3.  The story Chekov tells about Kahn putting "creatures" into them to
make them obey should have been checked out.  Either it was true, or
Chekov was hallucinating; it's clearly important to determine which,
since both are serious.  This should be settled before he goes back on
duty.

These did not manage to spoil the film for me.

I thought the plot was very good.  Kahn has always been portrayed as a
superman with emotions sized to match, which fit well with his
appearance here.  The threat was real and convincing, the responses
were reasonable.  Kahns people put up a plausible amount of opposition
to his insistence on revenging himself against Kirk before making
themselves a paradise.

I found the acting superior.  Lt. Saavik did particularly well in the
opening sequence (no-win scenario).  I thought her reactions were
perfect for an officer placed in a test which she sees as unfair, and
yet knows is very important for her career.  Her Vulcan heritage
(deduced from ears plus the fact that she and Spock speak together in
some foreign language) explains the subtlety of the reactions.

Kirk and McCoy were in top form.  Spock was Spock (not to denigrate
Nimoy's acting, but I've found less variation in Spock than in any of
the other major characters).

Kahn was Kahn.  I'd have preferred a more rational opponent, but the
one we were given was well acted.

The alien life-form that just happens to parasitize humans, and just
happens to make them subject to command before it kills them, is of
course grossly implausible.  Don't ask me why it didn't bother me.
Perhaps my sensibilities have been damaged by too many bad movies.

I'm also bothered by the lack of explanation for Chekov's recovery --
Kahn had said that the creatures killed the hosts eventually.  Oh
well.  Maybe he lied.

Overall, I felt that this was a good movie, and at the same time a
good Star Trek movie.  It was MUCH better than I expected.

Oh, yes, they did kill Spock in the end, but then beat very heavily on
the idea that he would probably be back.  That part was a bit clumsy
and came close to spoiling an otherwise very good ending (the memorial
service and burial-in-space were particularly good).

I have low expectations for the next film.  It seems as if they have
created a situation low on plot to work from.  From things Kirk says,
it appears that he intends to come back to the newly-formed (by the
Genesis bomb, from a nebula) planet where Spock's coffin miraculously
lands (without reentry gear) in hopes of finding Spock brought back to
life (presumably by the residual magic from the creation of the
planet).  Since the announced title for the next film is In Search of
Spock, it seems likely that that's what it will be about.  But I don't
see a Star Trek type action story there.
------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 1982 16:23 EDT
From: WRIGHT.WBST at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Star Trek II

Not to mention "the usual"
i.e. "half a gallon of scotch"

"Spectre of the Gun"

------------------------------

Date: 9 June 1982 2159-EDT (Wednesday)
From: Mark.Sherman at CMU-10A
Subject: ST:TWOK - Origin of Saavik

One thing that bothered me during the movie was the implication that
Saavik was Vulcan while the reviews I read claimed that she was only
part Vulcan.  In either event, she certainly didn't act like Vulcans
seen during the series, e.g., all of those Vulcans at Spock's
"wedding".  Having gotten and read the book, the details are
available.  She is half Vulcan, half Romulan and brought up as a
Romulan (as opposed to Spock who was brought up as a Vulcan).

------------------------------

Date: 10-JUN-1982 08:45
From: VAX4::MCCOY
Reply-to: "VAX4::MCCOY c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: ST:TWOK

I finally managed to see ST:TWOK last night (after all it's been out
almost a week now). It was quite an improvement over ST:TMP, less time
spent showing off the special effects and more time developing the
plot. I

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 11-Jun                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #67
*** EOOH ***
Date: Friday, June 11, 1982 3:39AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #67
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest        Thursday, 10 Jun 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 67

Today's Topics:
                     SF Topics - Politics in SF,
     SF TV - Dr Who,  SF Movies - Sword and the Sorcerer Query &
                   Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,
              Random Topics - Commercials at the movies,
             SF Books - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,
              Spoiler - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 1982 at 2107-CDT
From: hjjh at UTEXAS-11
Subject: FEMPRO'S AND UTOPIAS

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ FEMPRO'S AND UTOPIAS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You'd think that there might very well be a noticeable connection
between SF books with female protagonists and feminist Utopias.  But
except for the 1880 Utopian novel MIZORA: A PROPHECY, and maybe some
of Russ' polemical ones (another gifted storyteller who sold her
birthright for a pot of message), what connection there is is not very
strong.

The theme of an all-female culture/planet crops up every once in a
while in SF, but generally the drawbacks rather than the benefits are
emphasized, as in Edmund Cooper's cruel fempro, GENDER GENOCIDE
(British title, WHO NEEDS MEN?).  Since such stories seem to tend to
be told from the viewpoint of a male visitor/intruder, e.g., Poul
Anderson's VIRGIN PLANET, they don't qualify as truly Utopian OR as
fempro's.  Charles Eric Maine's ALPH \is/ a fempro, but has the
advanced all-female culture experimenting with re-creation of a male
and considering the re-introduction of that sex as advantageous.

A feminist Utopia beneficial to both sexes forms the background to
Mack Reynolds' AMAZON PLANET, where the viewpoint is again that of a
male visitor.  Marion Zimmer Bradley's fempro, THE RUINS OF ISIS has a
viable, strongly female-dominant culture, but \I/ hesitate to call
anything a Utopia where half the people are chattel (even if they
\are/ mere males).

 ..................

<Peripheral note: I had heard that MZB had trouble getting RUINS OF
ISIS published.  This seemed odd, as it was nowhere as sexually
explicit as her WORLDWRECKERS which DAW had handled, \and/ DAW
publishes the Gor series.  The stumbling block, she told me, was not
sex per se, but that on Isis she had portrayed a successful culture
which was Lesbian in sex-orientation.  \SOME/ things are just too far
beyond the pale (shudder!) even for 'way out SF.>

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 1982 at 1930-CDT
From: hjjh at UTEXAS-11
Subject: Politics and Popular Writers

For a "progressive, successful SF author" with a strong political tone
I'd nominate Mack Reynolds.

------------------------------

Date: 09-Jun-1982
From: JONATHAN OSTROWSKY AT GALAXY
Reply-to: "JONATHAN OSTROWSKY AT GALAXY c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: thanks and another question

Thanks to all who answered my query a few months back about the origin
of the terms "skren," "nexialist," and "varish."

Now I need some help in settling an argument.  I remember Lee Horsley,
who played Talon in "The Sword and the Sorcerer," as Archie Goodwin in
the "Nero Wolfe" TV series that starred William Conrad and aired a
couple of years ago.  No one believes this.  Can anyone out there
settle this?  Thanks.

--Jonathan Ostrowsky

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 1982 1519-MDT
From: Michi Wada <WADA at SANDIA>
Subject: Dr. Who 'new' episodes

The 'new' episodes with Peter Davison as "The Doctor" were shown in
England earlier this year.  The (Tom Baker) Dr. Who episodes were
syndicated in the U.S. in 2 sets with 3 seasons worth of episodes in
each.  No way of knowing when (if ever) the BBC will syndicate the
(Davison) Dr. Who episodes.  At this time the only way of seeing the
(Davison) Dr. Who is knowing someone with a VCR and camera copy tapes
of the Davison episodes from England.

------------------------------

Date: 10-Jun-82 11:12:54 PDT (Thursday)
From: Kluger at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Commercials during films

I saw the film "Airplane!" in Basil, Switzerland in May, 1981.  In the
middle of the film, 10 minutes of commercials were shown.  Most of the
people headed for the lobby.

The lobby's lights were flashed a few minutes before the commercials
were over.  Some of the commercials were only slides (stills), others
were more like U.S. TV.

My Swiss friends told me that the commercials were standard practice.
The movie theater we had gone to showed first run films and had two
classes of seating:  cheaper chairs were closer to the screen.  Cost
for the cheaper seats was about $5 .

Larry Kluger

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 1982 1052-PDT
From: Jwagner at OFFICE
Subject: Commercials at the movies

Last night's showing of Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid (what about dead
women?) was preceded by a commercial for Coca Cola.  It featured
little thirsty penguins stranded in a desert that luckily had a
snack-bar oasis.  Not long ago I saw two commercials for Capri
automobiles on different occasions.  The first featured a guy and his
dog who stumble upon a red Capri in the desert and fly, not drive,
away.  The second was one of those Hi-tech, New Wave numbers featuring
weird camera angles, screeching music, and bony women lounging around
in unnatural poses.  It had the same red Capri.  All these commercials
seemed to be longer than a minute -- a captive audience, literally, so
I guess they can get away with it.  At the local drive-in, I've seen
commercials of the "Hi-kids-I'm-Ed-Barbara-president-FurnichUSA-and-
I-wanna-help-you-get-started-in-the-credit-world" flavor.  These are
Bay Area theaters, by the way.

-- Jim Wagner

------------------------------

Date: 10 June 1982 18:11-EDT
From: Thomas L. Davenport <TLD at MIT-MC>
Subject: Commercials at the movies!

And what about commercials IN the movies?  I hear that E.T. features
Star Wars "action figures" and a national pizza chain.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 1982 1332-EDT
From: Bob Clements <CLEMENTS@BBNA>
Subject: Commercials IN the movies

My suspension of disbelief was destroyed by the blatant JVC
advertising in the Superman flick. The huge JVC ad in pseudo-Times
Square that was on screen for many minutes and the JVC TV set in the
diner were pretty crass.

But I was really offended by the Marlboro advertising. What possible
reason was there for Lois to be smoking at all, or Marlboro in
particular (rather than an anonymous non-branded package) except to
entice viewers into following the role model into addiction?

Anyone know how much those companies paid for those ads? The credits
did list someone with a title equivalent to "commercials salesman" (or
sales-entity --- "sales-person" discriminates against non-organic and
non-physical sentients).

/Rcc

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 1982 0254-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Commercials in the movies


Showing merchandise in movies is hardly showing commercials -
afterall, people DO smoke brand name cigarettes, and DO drink Coke.
To NOT display these items would be unrealistic, which in turn can be
artistically fatal.  I HATE films which are so abstract that you
cannot identify the local (especially when, as in Superman, you were
SUPPOSE to identify New York).  Don't most people on this list
constantly complain about unrealistic details in movies?

If the producers can get another company to pay for mentioning their
names, then fine - that's more money for Lucus and Company to play
around with.  As for fears that this could result in reduced artistic
control over the movie: nothing could be worse than the control the
Hollywood studios already exert on creative talents.

Jim

------------------------------

Date: Friday, June 11, 1982 3:39AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following messages are the last in the digest.  They discuss some
plot details in both the movie and the book Star Trek II:  The Wrath
of Khan.  Some readers may not wish to read on.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 1982 09:22 EDT
From: PATTERSON.Henr at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Genderless Pronouns???

Speaking of genderless pronouns, both Kirk and Spock refer to Saavik
as Mr. Saavik although Saavik is a Vulcan female.  Any additional
comments?


Richard Patterson (PATTERSON.Henr at PARC)


P.S.  To TSC::COORS::VICKREY Are you sure that you were not listening
to the morning news??  (re: SF-Lovers Digest V5 #63)

P.P.S.  I agree that people should give their full names and mailing
address when writting SF-Lovers.
P.P.P.S.  Does anyone know where there is a list of what mailing
address via net are what real locations and normal names.  (i.e.
PATTERSON.Henr at PARC is me at Xerox Corp located in Henrietta, New
York).

Richard

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 1982 11:19 CDT
From: Surber.DLOS at PARC-MAXC
Reply-to: Stevenson.WBST at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Star Trek II - (nf)

I have been told by a navophile ( a person interested in navies ) that
all junior officers, regardless of sex, were referred to as "Mister"
in the 20th century U.S.  and Royal British navies.  Apparently Star
Fleet has preserved the historic title.

Doug Surber / Surber.DLOS

------------------------------

Date: 10 June 1982  14:03-EDT (Thursday)
From: Pat O'Donnell <PAO at MIT-EECS>
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #64

I, too, was a bit mystified by Kahn's refusal to remove his right
glove.  Noticing the metal links, I kept expecting him to backhand
someone with it.

------------------------------

Date: 10 June 1982  18:24-EDT (Thursday)
From: Mijjil (Matthew J. Lecin) <LECIN at GREEN>
Reply-to: Lecin at RUTGERS
Subject: ST:TWOK (not a spoiler)


The glove - no evidence comes from the TV series episode "Space Seed"
- but we can assume that in the devastation Ceti Alpha 5 got when Ceti
Alpha 6 exploded, that his hand could be munged up a bit.

<Mijjil>

------------------------------

Date: 10-Jun-82 12:21AM-EDT (Thu)
From: B.J. Herbison <Herbison at YALE>
Subject: Khan: "I never forget a face."

"I don't know you ... but you I know, Mr. Chekov, I never forget a
face."

This evening I was lucky enough to see *Space Seed* (the Star Trek
episode Khan was introduced in).  The crew of the Enterprise was the
normal first season crew - which did not include Chekov.  A friend on
mine who KNOWS Star Trek informed me that Chekov joined the crew in
the second season.

Khan's "superior intellect" did some wonderful things, but remembering
the face of a person he never saw tops them all.

                                            B.J.
                                            (Herbison@Yale)
                                            (decvax!yale-comic!herbison)

------------------------------

Date: 10 June 1982  18:28-EDT (Thursday)
From: Mijjil (Matthew J. Lecin) <LECIN at GREEN>
Reply-to: Lecin at RUTGERS
Subject: ST:TWOK - spoiler potential - blooper fer shure


Kahn (when investigating his 2 captives, first to Captain Terrel:):

    "I don't know you."

(Then to Checkov)

    "But you I know.  I never forget a face.  Mr. (pause) Checkov,
    isn't it?"

They goofed gang!

The episode "Space Seed" aired in the first season, when there WAS NO
CHECKOV character!  There was no Checkov that Kahn should remember!

Of course we can always claim the following:

    Checkov *WAS* on the Enterprise - he just wasn't BRIDGE CREW yet.
He might have been in the security department, or wherever, and Kahn
met him then - but OFFICIALLY, there was no Checkov first season.

<Mijjil>

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 11-Jun                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #68
*** EOOH ***
Date: Friday, June 11, 1982 6:35PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #68
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Friday, 11 Jun 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 68

Today's Topics:
         SF Movies - ET: the Extra-Terrestrial & Poltergeist
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 82 11:56-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: additional (short) reviews of ET

"One of the best movies in recent years."
                Ebert/Siskel, PBS's Sneak Previews

"One of the best movies I've ever seen."
                ABC critic on Good Morning America

"Another Wizard of Oz. Will live on for generations."
                local TV critic in San Francisco

I don't think I've ever seen such reviews for any other movie.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 82 14:37-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Review: E.T.

                      E.T. The Extra-Terrestial
                         By RICHARD FREEDMAN
                        Newhouse News Service

    (UNDATED) Steven Spielberg's ''E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial'' may be
the finest children's movie since the heyday of Disney. It is
certainly the most sentimental, so grownups who don't share
Spielberg's particular brand of southern Californian affirmation are
duly warned.
    At the end of his ''Close Encounters of the Third Kind,'' you may
recall, Spielberg landed a giant spaceship, gaudy as a Christmas tree,
on earth, and out came some pointy-headed but clearly benign visitors
from outer space. The moral was clear: Not all aliens need be enemies.
    This point is hammered home in ''E.T.,'' which, without being a
sequel, picks up where ''Close Encounters'' left off. Now the
spaceship, in departing - what did it accomplish while it was here? -
has inadvertently left behind one of its passengers.
    He's E.T. (the ingenious creation of Carlo Ramboldi), who looks
like a cross between a tortoise, the Yoda of ''The Empire Strikes
Back,'' and the late Somerset Maugham.
    He has a voice to match, ranging somewhere between a bleat and the
sound of someone gargling with Clorox. So fortunately, he isn't as
sententious as the Yoda. He's a real doll, in short - a fact you can
bet won't be lost on toy manufacturers come this Christmas.
    E.T. has the luck to land in the backyard of 10-year-old Elliott
(Henry Thomas), who discovers him while going out for a pizza. With a
child's open-mindedness and capacity for wonder, Elliott almost
immediately takes to the alien visitor, treating him as a pet much
like his dog Harvey.
    Elliott lives in a suburban California home resembling the haunted
one in Spielberg's ''Poltergeist.'' His father has taken off for
Mexico with a girlfriend, leaving his mother (Dee Wallace) to cope
with Elliott, his adolescent brother Michael (Robert MacNaughton) and
his adorably sassy little sister Gertie (Drew Barrymore, granddaughter
of the legendary John Barrymore).
    E.T. becomes Elliott's special pet. The boy teaches him how to
survive in America by watching television and drinking Coke, but
unlike Mary and her little lamb he can't take E.T. to school with him.
''How do I explain school to a higher intelligence?'' he asks with the
clear-eyed perception of childhood.
    The two become so close that when E.T. raids the refrigerator for
beer (it doesn't take long for a higher intelligence to graduate from
Coke), Elliott burps. And the resemblance of his newfound friend to
Kermit the Frog inspires the boy to disrupt a biology experiment in
school by liberating all the doomed frogs from their killing jars.
    Unfortunately, such is their mystical emotional rapport that when
E.T. becomes sick, so does Elliott. It seems the alien must return to
his home planet or he will die.
    So Elliott and his friends nobly conspire to sneak him out of the
hospital, swaddle him in towels and, in the movie's delightfully wacky
conclusion, lead the police on a merry chase as they bicycle E.T. to a
conveniently waiting spaceship.
    All this, of course, is a science fiction variant on the tear-
jerking formula about a boy and his dog or horse, so it comes as no
surprise that ''E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial'' was written by Melissa
Mathison, who collaborated on the screenplay for ''The Black
Stallion.''
    But despite the basic cliches of plot and a facile score by John
William that borrows handily from Mahler's Ninth Symphony for its
theme, the film offers enough movie miracles to keep kids and adults
alike enchanted throughout the summer. Only teen-agers might feel
''superior'' to it.
    Among its many pleasures are the visions of E.T. dressed up for
Halloween as a tiny ghost, with only his two goggling eyes peeping
warily through a bedsheet, and of bicycles soaring in the sky,
silhouetted against the moon.
    Most miraculous of all, this is a gentle, lyrical evocation of
childhood without a trace of exploitative violence. It never belabors
its obvious moral - that nothing should be alien to us humans
including, possibly, even fellow humans - while entertaining us
throughout.
    One can only hope that aliens from outer space - if indeed there
are any - will turn out as nice as Spielberg imagines them in this
enchanting fantasy.
    X X X
    FILM CLIP:
    ''E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL.'' Steven Spielberg's gentle,
enchanting fantasy about a small boy who befriends a stranded alien he
finds in his suburban California backyard. A bit saccharine at times,
but one of the best children's films ever made. Rated PG. Four stars.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 82 15:11-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Reviews: E.T., Poltergeist

                         E.T. and Poltergeist
                           By VINCENT CANBY
                   c. 1982 N.Y. Times News Service

    NEW YORK - ''Children's literature in America,'' says The Oxford
Companion to American Literature, ''first consisted of aids to piety,
seemingly addressed to miniature adults.'' Among the earliest such
works, the companion cites John Cotton's ''Milk for Babes, Drawn out
of the Breasts of Both Testaments,'' published in 1633.
    American babes have come a long way since. Our children's
literature now embraces everything from the Uncle Remus stories to
Mark Twain, Louisa May Alcott, E.B. White, Nancy Drew, sane sex
manuals, comic books and, this century's crowning contribution, motion
pictures, especially the work of Walt Disney. Now add the work of
Steven Spielberg, currently represented by two new films, each of
which is an extension of a popular children's form, though neither is
an aid to piety or seeks an audience of miniature adults.
    The films are ''Poltergeist,'' which was produced by Spielberg,
directed by Tobe Hooper and is one of the few really satisfactory
haunted-house movies I've ever seen, and ''E.T. the
Extra-Terrestrial,'' directed by Spielberg, a sweet-natured fantasy
with all sorts of connections to earlier children's literature
including ''Peter Pan,'' ''The Wizard of Oz,'' ''Lassie,''
''Flubber,'' Spielberg's own ''Close Encounters of the Third Kind,''
''Star Wars'' and ''The Empire Strikes Back.''
    As good as both films are, their simultaneous release may not be a
wise decision, even if, as now seems possible, they succeed in
cornering a large portion of this summer's movie business between
them. ''Poltergeist'' and ''E.T.'' are enough alike to invite
comparisons but just different enough that anyone who is charmed by
one will probably be disappointed by the other.
    What they do give us, however, is the opportunity to consider the
concerns and methods of a very particular talent as demonstrated in
two separate films seen side by side. In this day and age, when most
filmmakers take three or four years on each project, this kind of
opportunity doesn't come along very often. Since 1977, when ''Close
Encounters'' was released, Spielberg has made four films, ''1941,'' '
Raiders of the Lost Ark,'' ''Poltergeist'' and ''E.T.''
    The most immediate conclusion: Spielberg has become his own
filmmaker, even when working through an associate, as he did with
Hooper on ''Poltergeist.'' If he were a playwright or a novelist, one
would say that he had found his own voice, but because a filmmaker
deals in images and sounds as well as words, I'm not sure what the
movie equivalent would be.
    It was apparent in ''The Sugarland Express'' and ''Jaws'' that
Spielberg is an unusually facile director and a first-rate technician,
but not until ''Close Encounters'' was it apparent that there is also
a true sensibility guiding those techniques. He is an American
director who brings to the hard-boiled, hustling world of Hollywood a
delicacy of vision more often associated with small, low-budget movies
than with studio productions that have Fort Knox-sized budgets.
    This is not to say that his films look small. Far from it. They
are behemoths by almost any standards. They are constructions only
slightly less complicated than the building of the Brooklyn Bridge.
Yet the mind behind them remains unblunted by the heavy logistics of
the Hollywood creative process.
    Of the two new films, ''E.T.'' is the more conventional. At heart
it is an updated version of that old Hollywood standby, the
boy-and-his-dog picture, but with a small, frightened creature from
outer space instead of a dog. This fellow, E.T., a piece of
walking-talking sculpture created by Carlo Rambaldi, looks like a
chubby, distant cousin of the creatures in ''Close Encounters.'' He's
about three-feet tall with bulgy forehead and eyes, spindly arms,
dachshund legs, duck-like feet, a stratospheric intelligence and, when
walking, the wobbliness of a wind-up toy manufactured in Taiwan.
    When his space ship, which is on a specimen-gathering mission, is
forced to make a fast getaway, E.T. finds himself marooned in Southern
California, in some woods adjacent to a middle-class housing
development. It's there that he's found and befriended by a
10-year-old boy named Elliott (Henry Thomas).
    Elliot takes the creature home, where, with the enthusiastic
cooperation of his older brother, Michael (Robert MacNaughton), and
bossy little sister, Gertie (Drew Barrymore), he hides the lost
traveler. The kids console him, pet him, feed him, dress him up like a
doll and, generally, treat him as if he were an especially exotic
plaything. Only after E.T. causes tennis balls to dance in the air
does it dawn on the children that their companion would find even
Einstein's company a drag.
    Will E.T. be discovered by the United States government's security
forces that are scouring the neighborhood? Can E.T. long survive in
the earth's alien atmosphere? What are the lessons he has to teach
Elliott, who comes to identify with E.T. so closely that when E.T.,
left alone in the house, goes on a beer binge, it's Elliott, several
miles away in school, who burps and becomes serenely smashed?
    The answers to these and a lot of other questions are exactly the
sort that everyone in the audience wants to hear.
    ''E.T.'' is one of the shrewdest non-Disney, Disney-type pictures
ever made. It's a funny, clever variation on a Hollywood formula film,
made by adults working to come up with an adventure that will satisfy
the yearnings of children, at least as those yearnings are perceived
by adults. The perceptions are not far off the mark.
    ''E.T.'' seems to have been photographed mostly at the eye-level
of the children - though this may only be an impression - so that it
implicates the audience in everything the children and E.T. do.
However, because there are no real villains in the piece, the result
is not a ''them'' (adults) against ''us'' (children) situation. It's a
simple reflection of a world in which children can be in control.
    Quite different, and possibly more risky, is ''Poltergeist,''
which is a child's nightmare cast in the form of a movie. It's a tale
of ghosts and goblins and creepy, slimy, unspeakable things, the sort
of narrative one child might make up for the heart-pounding
delectation of his friends.
    The Freeling family - Mom and Dad, daughter Dana in her mid-teens,
son Robbie, who's somewhat younger, and Carol Anne, who is 10 - live a
representatively ordinary existence in a house that may well be on the
other side of the same real estate development where E.T. is being
hidden by Elliot and his family.
    The placid home life of the Freelings is wrecked with the
initially unexplained appearance of some ghosts who seem to have come
forth from the color television set in the living room. The spirits
are at first playful, doing tricks with chairs and sirloin steaks to
amuse the family. They then become cranky and pushy and, finally,
ferociously angry.
    In the middle of the night a long-dead tree, which stands in the
yard just outside Robbie's room, reaches through the window and
attempts to swallow up the boy, though this turns out to be a
diversionary tactic. While Mom and Dana scream hysterically and Dad is
trying desperately to free Robbie, the spirits somehow make off with
Carol Anne.
    Negotiating Carol Anne's return from inner space involves the
services of several specialists in parapsychology, including a tiny,
possibly crazy woman exorcist, plus some of the gaudiest, grisliest
special effects to be seen since ''Raiders of the Lost Ark.'' There
are also some that are less grisly than funny, such as a giant demon's
head that looks like something you might see at F.A.O.  Schwarz at
Christmas - the world's biggest jack-in-the-box.
    ''Poltergeist,'' rated PG, is not a film to be seen by very small
children with sleeping problems. Slightly older kids will probably
find it less shocking than their parents do. ''Poltergeist'' is more
deliciously spooky than seriously frightening because Spielberg is so
obviously in touch with the child's imagination. This is the haunted
house film that he - and we - always wanted to see as kids but never
did.
    At their best, both ''E.T.'' and ''Poltergeist'' demonstrate a
feeling for children's fantasies that is most unusual in American
films. They meet kids on their own turf. They don't look down on them
or pat them on the head or flatter them by making them behave like the
miniature adults in the old Our Gang comedies.
    Working within the conventions of the Hollywood film, Spielberg is
creating a kind of children's literature that need not insult the
adults in the audience. Among other things, he knows how to cast
children and then how to direct them - or to see that they are
directed by Hooper - so they don't turn into monstrous little robots.
Heather O'Rorke, who plays Carol Anne Freeling in ''Poltergeist,'' is
almost as memorable as Cary Guffey, the little boy in ''Close
Encounters.''
    Further, these films are genuinely witty. Like Francois Truffaut,
whose presence as an actor in ''Close Encounters'' gave that film a
center of gravity, Spielberg seems to have mixed feelings about a
particular milieu. Truffaut's Antoine Doinel longs to be a part of a
middle class that will never tolerate him. He remains always on the
outside of it, looking in.
    Spielberg's feelings about his middle-class characters are more
benign but almost as incisive as those expressed in a Truffaut movie.
He acknowledges the existence of broken homes, junk food, children
brainwashed by TV, and appliances that save time that, in turn, will
be wasted, but he is not appalled. He is amused and, perhaps, even
slightly homesick.
    These are his people, and because they are, he's not about to
condescend to them with some sort of contemporary ''Milk for Babes,
Drawn out of the Breasts of Both Testaments.'' Spielberg's suburbia is
located halfway between outer space and inner space, with easy access
to both.
------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 13-Jun                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #69
*** EOOH ***
Date: Sunday, June 13, 1982 9:54AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #69
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Sunday, 13 Jun 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 69

Today's Topics:
                  Administrivia - Truncated Digests,
     SF Books - "Shortstack" & Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan &
        Index to Science Fiction Anthologies and Collections,
         SF Topics - Politics in SF,  SF Lovers - True Names,
              Random Topics - Commercials at the movies,
              SF Movies - Sword and the Sorcerer Query &
                   Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,
              Spoiler - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sunday, June 13, 1982 9:54AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS-REQUEST at MIT-AI
Subject: Truncated Digests

For some reason we have yet to discover, issue 66 (Wednesday) was
unexpectably truncated in transmission.  Since this appears to have
happened to everyone, and since the missing material is quite short,
we are including the last message in issue 66 as the last message in
this issue, rather than retransmitting all of issue 66.

Jim

------------------------------

Date: Fri 11-Jun-1982 22:24-EDT
From: Bill Russell <RUSSELL at NYU>
Subject: Shortstack

Shortstack is a short story written by Walt and Leigh Richmond.  The
following publication history was extracted from "index to SCIENCE
FICTION anthologies and collections" edited by William Contento, and
published by G. K. HALL & Co., 70 Lincoln Street, Boston, Mass.

Magazine:       Analog, December 1964

Anthologies:    Elsewhere and Elsewhen, edited by Groff Conklin,
                Berkeley, May 1968

                Themes in Science Fiction, edited by Leo P. Kelley,
                McGraw Hill, 1972

Collection:     Positive Charge, by Walt and Leigh Richmond,
                Ace, 1970, #27235, with "Gallagher's Glacier"

Great little story.  The "Contento" index is a great help in finding
short SF fiction.  It cost $28 in 1978.  The Science Fiction Shop in
NYC might still have one or two left in stock.

This index has almost all English language SF anthologies and
collections published thur 1977.  It covers over 2,000 book titles
with full contents listings of over 1,900 books containing 12,000
different stories by 2,500 authors.  It has a book checklist, author
index, story index, and a book contents section.  As you might guess
it was generated by a computer.  The compiler says that he used a
computer at work to maintain his private collection.  Does anyone on
the list know "William Contento"?

This one book gets more use than any other of the reference works that
I have on SF.  Having an extensive collection of books (3,000+), but
not having the time or space to index them all, this is what I use as
an index to locate a particular story, or book to add to the
collection.

I hope that you can locate one of those books, I have two of them, and
as far as I know, ALL three are out of print.

Enjoy, Bill

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 1982 1130-EDT
From: Larry Seiler <SEILER at MIT-XX>
Subject: "Message" Literature

    It is my prejudiced opinion that "message" literature (eg the
stuff that Red Shift intends to put out) will be bound to be bad
literature if the author considers the "message" to be more important
than the story.  A good author (such as Ayn Rand) can put across a
combined political tract/story (I'm thinking of "Atlas Shrugged") and
make it work, but think how much better it might have been (judged as
a story) if she had tried to make realistic characters, instead of
making everyone who disagreed with her point of view into idiots.  But
enough about Ayn Rand.  I'll close by quoting Isaac Asimov, describing
his story "Day of the Hunters" in the anthology "Buy Jupiter":

        "This story, alas, seems to have a moral, and, in fact, ends
        by pounding the moral over the reader's head.  This is bad.
        Straightforward preaching spoils the effectiveness of a story.
        If you can't resist the impulse to improve your fellow human
        beings, do it subtly."

Larry Seiler, Seiler@XX

------------------------------

Date: Saturday, 12 Jun 1982 16:23-PDT
From: jim at RAND-UNIX
Subject: Nero Wolfe and True Names

Jonathan Ostrowsky asked whether Lee Horsley played Archie Goodwin in
the TV program Nero Wolfe a few years ago.  It's not SF, of course,
but since I know the answer, you get it anyway.
Turns out I have tapes of both the pilot and one of the episodes from
that short-lived series (1/2 season, I think).  The pilot was
extremely good and faithful to the books.  It starred Thayer David as
Nero Wolfe, Tom Mason as Archie Goodwin, and Biff McGuire as Inspector
Kramer.  The pilot was from "The Doorbell Rang."

The episode from the regular season is "The Golden Spiders."  It stars
William Conrad as Nero Wolfe and LEE HORSLEY as Archie (as
advertised).

I liked the first crew better.  William Conrad is a better shape for
the part, but Thayer David had the character down very well.  They
also went from a great harpsichord sound track to typical schlock
prime-time muzak.  Unfortunately the series didn't keep the promise of
the pilot, and degenerated into mere hackery ... and the ratings
showed that people realized it.

                And on another topic ...

Some people have asked for full "real" names and addresses on
correspondents.  I don't see the point.  What would this list be
without people like "Mijjil" or "Hobbit"?  Don't we all know them
better by these aliases than by their real names, which are often in
the "from" section anyway?  What does it matter where his/her real
system is?  If you've read True Names, by Vernor Vinge (fantastic
book, Mike, thanks for aiming me at it), you should agree that the
personality and opinions are enough, and shouldn't demand to know the
True Name of the hacker behind them.

                Jim@rand-unix
                (well, Jim Gillogly at the Rand Corporation,
                     if you must)

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 1982 0903-PDT
From: Mike Leavitt <LEAVITT at USC-ISI>
Subject: Commercials in movies

The Wall Street Journal recently ran a feature story about people who
get paid to place products in movies (like JVC in Superman, etc.)
Apparently the movie people don't actually get paid for running this
kind of "commercial," rather, they save on having to find the product
and pay for it, and, where appropriate, the product is made available
to people involved in making the movie.  When Coke (the drink) gets
placed in a movie, the entire crew might be provided with free Coke
for the duration of production.  I wouldn't be surprised if the
production crew in Superman II got free use of JVC equipment.

        Mike <Leavitt at USC-ISI>

P. S. does this really have much to do with sf?

[  Not much - which is why it is under the RANDOM TOPICS heading.
   --  Jim  ]

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 82 15:34-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Star Trek movie script

When Star Trek: The Motion Picture was originally being scripted, I
heard rumors that Roddenberry had put together a fantastic story about
the Enterprise et al meeting God.  The real God, that is.  It was
axed, because it was too "cerebral".  I, for one, would like to see it
some day.

In my opinion, there are two scriptwriters who should be executed:
Alan Dean Foster and Glen A. Larson.  They are responsible for much of
the garbage in visual SF.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 1982 1930-EDT
From: CZAR <BYRNE at CMU-20C>
Subject: Query about ST:TWoK

I am puzzled about the name (actor's) of Khan's right hand man.
Problem:

1) Khan's right hand man appears to be Bennu of ABC's 'The Phoenix'

2) Bennu is played by Judson Scott

3) Khan (as far as I can tell) never calls the RHM by his first name,
   thus there is no way to link the character's name to the actor's.

4) The credits in ST:TWoK give no mention to Judson Scott

What gives?  Does the RHM have a twin (clone?) named Judson Scott?
Did he change his name before 'The Phoenix'?  If anyone can shed some
light on this I'd sure appreciate it.

czar

------------------------------

Date: Sunday, June 13, 1982 9:54AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The following messages are the last in the digest.  They discuss some
plot details in both the movie and the book Star Trek II:  The Wrath
of Khan.  Some readers may not wish to read on.

------------------------------

Date: Friday, 11 June 1982 10:43-PDT
From: KDO at SRI-KL
Subject: Comments (spoilers) on ST:TWOK

Good acting, reasonable special effects (I like the new transporter),
but the plot is really awful.  Consider...

Khan and company have been left on Ceti Alpha (shouldn't it be Alpha
Ceti?)  5.  The 6th planet in the system has blown up, sucking the 5th
planet into its old orbit.  Right!  In 15 years, not only has Star
Fleet forgotten that Khan was left in this system, but the mass of the
planet has been forgotten, or else it couldn't be confused with
another one.  The planet has become desolate in 15 years, and the only
native life form happens to be an extremely well-adapted human
parasite. Huh? It heads straight for the ear and invades the brain
without causing major damage except for taking partial control of the
person's mind (We are told it makes him suggestible...actually it
seems to work by torture.  We are also told it leads to madness but
instead when Chekov resists it crawls out of his ear in frustration!)
Shades of Alien!  Why??

Then we have a machine that creates life by "rearranging the matrix"
or some such hogwash.  It needs a lifeless planet to work on, but when
it is set off in a nebula it creates a planet to put life on.

Oh well, a great stride forward HAS been made.  The crew still don't
have seatbelts, and the stars still move (between the planets, no
less), but THE ENTERPRISE CAN MOVE VERTICALLY.  I don't think they
have ever done that before...next thing you know it will take 4 enemy
ships instead of 3 to surround the enterprise...

                            Ken

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 1982 10:25:49-PDT
From: jef at LBL-UNIX (Jef Poskanzer [rtsg])
Subject: ST:TWOK - bugs.

No, not those bugs!  I mean bugs as in flaws...

- When Chekov sees the words "Botany Bay" and realizes where he is, he
should have immediately pressed the emergency beam-up button on his
communicator.  Instead he panics (not a good trait in a first officer)
and drags Terill outside.  This is fixed in the book - he does try the
communicator, but there is too much static.

- Towards the end, when the Reliant is a wreck and Khan triggers the
Genesis device, Spock instantly picks it up on the sensors.  However,
we were previously told that sensors don't work in the nebula.  Is
this one fixed in the book?

- As usual, photon torpedoes are considerably less powerful than your
average 20th century H-bomb.  Negative progress.

- And maybe I should mention the insectoid bugs after all.  They are
obviously an evolutionary impossibility.  It seems a little unlikely
that Chekov would be able to man a weapons console a few hours after
having one bore its way out of his skull - massive cerebral hemmorage
seems certain.  And Khan seems to have confused the cerebral cortex
with the cerebellum - in order to "wrap itself around the cerebral
cortex", it would have to be about two feet long.
------------------------------

Date: 06/11/82 22:02:43
From: DMM@MIT-ML
Subject: Re:TWOK

        Was that a photon torpedo casing that they launched Spock in
at the end of the movie (not a particularly dignified funeral), or was
that a starfleet coffin? (In which case, why did it say MARK VI on the
sides?)  In any case, how is it that it could make a controlled re-
entry?  Oh well, at least bones didn't say "He's dead, Jim."

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 82 00:52:12 EDT  (Sat)
From: Steve Bellovin <smb.unc@UDel-Relay>
Subject: Star Trek II -- The Wrath of Khan (spoiler)

OK, how many folks here are betting that the override code for the
Reliant becomes the super-user password on lots of systems....?  (What
were those numbers, anyway?)  And how many simulations are
reprogrammable from inside?

My biggest plot-gripe was how the plan to decoy Khan *depended* on him
monitoring an inherently insecure communications device.  You'd think
that in the 23rd century they could digitize and encrypt speech in
real-time (at the very least).

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 1982 13:42:49-PDT
From: decvax!steveg at Berkeley
Subject: ST-II

Sorry, but I thought the movie was a bit inane:

Kirk: I am old, I am young, etc. etc.

Spock: Khan's stategy shows 2-d thinking. (sheesh)

And that silly tag game in the clouds was ridiculous.

<more comments like "let them eat static", could have really improved
 the film>

                        - Steve Gutfreund

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 1982 17:27:12-PDT
From: decvax!minow at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Kahn's right glove

It looked to me to be a reference either to Dr. Strangelove or to
Rotwang, the scientist in Fritz Lang's Metropolis.  Rotwang "lost his
hand in the service of science" in that wonderful film.
Martin Minow
decvax!minow

------------------------------

Date: 06/12/82 22:02:11
From: DMM@MIT-ML
Subject: Re:The Wrath of Khan

Could the use of the term "Mister" in referring to Saavik have
anything to do with the fact that she's a cadet?
                  -- DMM IT-ML

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 82 12:25-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: REMEMBER. in Star Trek II

Someone recently asked on this list why Spock gives McCoy an apparent
Vulcan mind meld for a few seconds, saying "Remember." This struck me
as being pretty obvious. I would translate it as "Remember what we
went through over the years." I'd be interested in other theories.

------------------------------

Date: 10-JUN-1982 08:45
From: VAX4::MCCOY
Reply-to: "VAX4::MCCOY c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: ST:TWOK

I finally managed to see ST:TWOK last night (after all it's been out
almost a week now). It was quite an improvement over ST:TMP, less time
spent showing off the special effects and more time developing the
plot. I for one was happy to see a return to the humor of the TV
series. The undocking scene with Kirk on the bridge was vintage ST.

Did anyone notice spock using the Vulcan mind probe on Dr. McCoy?  He
held his hand on Dr. McCoy's face in the usually way from the series
and said (I think) "REMEMBER". I was expecting something to come of
this towards the end of the movie, but nothing.

Spock used this technique in at least two ST TV episodes. The first
time he used it to convince everyone the bullets were not real at the
OK Corral in "Spectre of the Gun" The second time was to help Kirk
forget the woman he married in "The Paradise Syndrome". Was it used on
the planet Vulcan in ST:TMP?

Does anyone think this was deliberate, are they looking ahead to
ST:III, or perhaps it was an editing mistake, with the result on the
floor of the editing room.

REMEMBER WHAT?
--------------

Gary
------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 15-Jun                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #70
*** EOOH ***
Date: Tuesday, June 15, 1982 6:40AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #70
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Monday, 14 Jun 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 70

Today's Topics:
             SF Movies - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,
              Random Topics - Commercials at the movies
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 82 13:11-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: trek article

                     Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan
                            By Don McLeese
           (c) 1982 Chicago Sun-Times (Field News Service)

    BEVERLY HILLS - ''When we were making the series, maybe the second
season, the Spock character was well-established and people were
liking him,'' Leonard Nimoy reminisced. ''There was this whole thing
about this character who has no emotions - or controls his emotions,
which is a better way to put it, I think.
    ''Dorothy Fontana, who was a writer on the series, said, 'I'm
gonna write a love story for Spock.' I objected. I said, 'I think it's
a mistake; I think it will destroy a major element of the character.
We can never be believable again saying that Spock controls his
emotions if he plays a love story.'
    ''She went ahead and wrote it, and we did it. It was called 'This
Side of Paradise.' It's still one of my favorite episodes. It was a
wonderful story, very well done, very touching, a poignant love story
that made sense for the character. Instead of destroying the
character, it enhanced it. What it did was redevelop that repressed
side of Spock, exposed it.
    ''It taught me a big lesson - and that is that if you don't take
chances, then you're limiting yourself to predictable behavior. And if
it's all predictable, why should anybody pay to see it?''
    Relaxing in his Beverly Hills hotel room, Nimoy was explaining how
the chances taken within ''Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan'' had him
excited about the series all over again. Just the previous evening,
Nimoy had seen the completed movie for the first time, along with an
enthusiastically appreciative crowd of press and film folk, and he
professed to be as moved by its ending as anyone. While the ending has
created quite a stir as the end of Spock - the half-human, half-Vulcan
master of rationality who has long been one of the series' major draws
- Nimoy talked of Spock as a character reborn.
    ''I think what's happened here, amazingly enough, is that by doing
what we've done with Spock, we may have created an entirely new future
for 'Star Trek' and Spock. Now, if we can get some imagination going,
we've got the potential for doing some very exciting stuff in the
future,'' he predicted.
    ''The end, in a sense, may be an entirely new beginning.''
    Nimoy's enthusiasm seems to be shared by everyone connected with
the project. Throughout its peculiar history, ''Star Trek'' has been
beset by problems along the timespace continuum. As a
less-than-successful late '60s TV series, it may have offered too
much, too soon. As a sensation in reruns, it offered its participants
too little, too late. As a belated effort to capitalize on the appeal
of the series, 1979's ''Star Trek: The Motion Picture'' attempted too
much, too late. Finally, with the entertaining and intelligently
crafted ''The Wrath of Khan,'' it appears that ''Star Trek's'' time
has come.
    Let's backtrack a little. ''Star Trek'' debuted as an NBC-TV
series in September, 1966. More ambitious than most television, its
combination of literate scripts, effective ensemble performances, and
science-fiction intrigue won it critical plaudits and a modest but
loyal following. After three years of less than exceptional ratings,
the Starship U.S.S. Enterprise was grounded, apparently for good.
    After its 79 episodes went into syndication, a curious phenomenon
occurred. Year after year, the syndicated reruns attracted larger and
larger audiences, winning a lot more fans than the show had the first
time around. Fanatics, popularly known as ''Trekkies'' (actually, they
consider this a term of disparagement; ''Trekkers'' is the preferred
description), began memorizing everything there was to know about the
series. Conventions where they could share their passion attracted
thousands.
    ''Beam me up, Scotty'' became a common catchphrase; Nimoy's Mr.
Spock and William Shatner's Capt. Kirk were hailed internationally as
heroes. Today, 13 years after its cancellation, the series is
televised in more than 100 American cities and in almost 150
additional markets worldwide. There are more than 350 fan clubs
throughout the world. The series has inspired more than 50 books and
numerous postgraduate dissertations.
    For a while, Shatner and Nimoy considered such belated adulation
less a blessing than an albatross. ''You can imagine, here I was,
working at various and sundry projects,'' explained Shatner. ''And
people would be coming up and saying, 'There's Capt. Kirk.' It got
more and more popular, and the identification became closer and
closer.''
    Nimoy expressed even more resistance, venting his spleen in an
autobiography entitled ''I Am Not Spock'' (leading some to wonder, if
he were not Spock, why anybody would want to read the autobiography of
Leonard Nimoy). As both attempted to push forward, being tied to a
long-dead television series was holding them back.
    Still, neither man resented the typecasting enough to reject the
offer for ''Star Trek: The Motion Picture.'' The continued popularity
of the series and the overwhelming success of the ''Star
Trek''-influenced ''Star Wars'' convinced everyone concerned that the
film couldn't help but be a smash.
    ''It didn't take me long to make the decision to do Capt. Kirk
(again),'' said Shatner. ''It was hard not to be a part of a
large-budget motion picture. The script hadn't been written, but I was
thinking if the people who had written the series were going to be
part of the film, I was expecting the best.''
    With Gene Roddenberry, the man who had created ''Star Trek,'' in
charge of the production, there was every reason to assume that the
film would build on the values that gave the series its appeal. Where
the series had depended on the interaction of well-rounded,
well-defined characters, however, the film seemed both more ambitious
and more hollow - an expensive special-effects demonstration. Costing
almost $50 million, it more than doubled its money, but it didn't have
quite the impact expected.
    Did the film somehow get off the track?
    ''I think it was set down that track intentionally,'' said Nimoy.
''I wasn't there, but some people decided that to do 'Star Trek' as a
motion picture, it had to be different (from the television series).
I got the feeling that someone had seen an awful lot of '2001.'''
    According to Shatner, the project was plagued by problems: ''The
filming took a lot longer than expected. The film had been promised to
distributors for a particular date, and through accidents of
production and post-production, that time slipped away. There was no
preview time.
    ''Essentially, there were two films being made: one in the
special-effects houses under Doug Trumbull and one in the studios
under Bob Wise. The two (films) were married, but it was a shotgun
marriage.''
    When the principal actors returned for the new ''Star Trek'' film,
there was a new team at the helm. Gone were Wise, Trumbull, and
Roddenberry (who's listed as ''executive consultant'' for the film,
but whose participation on the project was minimal). In their places
were people who had proven that they could deliver quality work within
strict time and budget limitations.
    Executive producer Harve Bennett, who exerted most of the control
over ''The Wrath of Khan,'' came from a strong television background
(''Mod Squad,'' ''Rich Man, Poor Man,'' et al.), and was originally
offered the project as a made-for-TV film. Producer Robert Sallin was
an award-winning producerdirector of television commercials. Director
Nicholas Meyer, something of a 36-year-old whiz kid, penned the
best-selling ''The Seven Per-Cent Solution'' and wrote and directed
''Time After Time.''
    ''They showed me the (first) movie, and I thought it would be
impossible to make a movie as boring as this one,'' said Meyer, when
asked whether the task of making a successful sequel had intimidated
him. Made for a quarter of the budget, ''The Wrath of Khan'' is not
only better entertainment than its predecessor, but it's expected to
do better at the box office as well.
    ''There was obviously a very conscious attempt to go back to the
best qualities of the series,'' said Shatner, ''and to use the special
effects as an escape valve, to keep the audience on the edge of its
seats, but never to forget that relationships were what made the
series popular.''
    Beyond such superficialities, neither Shatner nor Nimoy is much
for analyzing what specific qualities have given ''Star Trek''
longevity.  ''It's so hard to answer the question,'' responded Nimoy.
''You put an actor together with the role and you hope it'll work.
What is the appeal of Sylvester Stallone in 'Rocky'? Can you put
somebody else into the role and make it work? Is it the role? Is it
the man? A combination of both?
    ''It's chemistry. At the same time, it's not scientific. If it
were scientific, you could repeat it.''
    Both agree, however, that ''Star Trek'' aims a little higher than
most space-adventure fare.
    ''I think that science-fiction films as a rule, for example the
Lucas films - 'Star Wars,' 'Raiders of the Lost Ark,' even - are pure,
wonderful, fantasy entertainment,'' said Shatner. '''Star Trek' treads
both categories: It is a film about the human condition, mixed with
pop villians and science-fiction paraphernalia. But the reason people
cried in that theater last night is because it touches something
universal in them.''
    Added Nimoy, ''I think that when 'Star Trek' is at its best, there
are some ideas involved. They're not pretentious, they're not pounded
into your head, but there are ideas that resonate. As long as we have
that, it sets us apart.''
    Sixteen years after the original series began, Shatner and Nimoy
are busier than ever. Shatner is starring in the ''T.J. Hooker''
television series, and continues to act in and direct a variety of
theatrical projects. With featured roles in ''Marco Polo'' and
''Golda,'' and as host of ''In Search of...,'' Nimoy has recently been
all over the tube.
    As busy as both are, each indicated that he'd be eager to
participate in further ''Star Trek'' sequels, especially after the
creative resurgence evinced by ''The Wrath of Khan.'' While no one has
signed anything yet (and director Meyer has already indicated he's
done with ''Star Trek''), there's little doubt that a new ''Star
Trek'' film will be made.
    How long can the series continue?
    ''If you had said to me in 1970 that we'd still be dealing with
this in 1982, I'd have said you're crazy,'' said Nimoy. ''So now, if
you say to me in 1994 we'll meet again and have a discussion about the
new 'Star Trek' movie, I'm not gonna laugh.''

------------------------------

Date: 14-Jun-82 10:51:55 PDT (Monday)
From: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #65

I have about had it with misspellings:

  Star Trek: The WRATH of KHAN.

"The Rath of Kahn" (Dolata at SUMEX-AIM). What is this, 'Morning for
Jews'?

The misspelling 'Kahn' is very widespread - I've seen it in a
newspaper review, and even on the billboard of a local theatre, not to
mention almost every SF-Lovers submission on the subject for the last
10 digests. (It is to JPM's credit that he didn't pass these
misspellings on in the digest titles.) Come on, folks - you are
willing to nitpick the details like "Chekov wasn't in 'Space Seed'"
but you can't even remember the spelling correctly from the movie
title and the ads?

As to David Miller's comment about Khan's foolishness - he suffers
from two problems which conflict with his superior intelligence. First
and foremost, EGO. It is his ego which subverts his intelligence over
and over again. But in the end, it is ignorance which does him in. No
amount of superior intelligence could prepare him for the results of
his ignorance, initially with respect to the operation of the Reliant,
and subsequently with respect to the properties of the nebula.

In any case, the point here is that superior intelligence is nothing
if it isn't backed by a clear head and accurate knowledge.
As for the return of Spock - all they have to do is show an episode
from the past. Spock's final log comment at the end is an indication
of this.

Re: movie theatre commercials. I have been seeing LA Times ads in the
movies for the last year. Disgusting, but at least they don't break
the movie in half like they apparently do in Switzerland. Even "Reds",
which had an intermission, did not have commercials in the midst of
the movie. Remember when they used to show cartoons and newsreels?

Many comments seem to imply that particular commercials go with
particular movies. I have not noticed this to be the case - they seem
to be entirely independent as far as I can tell.

------------------------------

Date: 14-Jun-82 2:27PM-EDT (Mon)
From: B.J. Herbison <Herbison at YALE>
Reply-to: Ben Lotto <C.472.Lotto>
Subject: Commercials at the movies

    Date: 10 June 1982 18:11-EDT
    From: Thomas L. Davenport <TLD at MIT-MC>
    Subject: Commercials at the movies!

    And what about commercials IN the movies?  I hear that E.T.
    features Star Wars "action figures" and a national pizza chain.

A while ago Richard Dreyfuss came to Yale.  This was fairly soon after
Close Encounters was released, so naturally I asked him about the film
and about Spielberg.  He said that "...Spielberg is in love with the
middle class..."  and pointed out the home scenes from Close
Encounters as an example.  If you recall, there are coke cans
scattered around, kids watching television all day, all the things
that one would consider Modern American Decedent Middle Class.  I
don't recall whether he said that any of these companies paid for
these items showing up, (that was the basis for my question, but we
got sidetracked), but their appearance is attributable more to
Spielberg than to the Coca Cola Corp.

                                        -Ben Lotto
                                        (lotto@yale-comix)

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 27-Jun                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #71
*** EOOH ***
Date: Sunday, June 27, 1982 6:00AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #71
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest        Saturday, 26 Jun 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 71

Today's Topics:
                  Administrivia - Hardware Failure,
             SF Movies - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,
             SF Books - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,
              Spoiler - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sunday, June 27, 1982 6:00AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS-REQUEST at MIT-AI
Subject: Hardware Failure

Hardware failures at sites needed to prepare and distribute the digest
have interfered with the transmission schedule.  All these
difficulties should be finally resolved for now.

Jim

------------------------------

Date: Sunday, June 27, 1982 6:00AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

All of the messages in this digest discuss some plot details in both
the movie and the book Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.  Some readers
may not wish to read on.

------------------------------

Date: 11-Jun-1982
From: PAUL KARGER AT RDVAX
Reply-to: "PAUL KARGER AT RDVAX c/o" <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: ST-TWOK - Spoiler Warning

This message reveals how Spock is killed off and therefore deserves a
spoiler warning.

I very much enjoyed Star Trek II, until they came to the actual
killing off of Spock.  Then they reverted to the usual TV show habit
of defining an impossible problem and promptly ignoring a trivial
solution.

When Spock went into the radiation chamber, why didn't he wear a
protective suit?  Such suits have existed since the 1940's, and surely
would have been made better by the 23rd century.  Why wasn't such a
suit kept for emergency purposes.  Alternately, why weren't there
waldoes available?  Again - 1940's technology.

Aside from this one stupidity, the movie was quite well done - much
better than the previous movie.

------------------------------

Date: 14-Jun-82  9:41:19 PDT (Monday)
From: Pettit at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: Kahn knowing Chekhov "blooper"

I'll bet the movie-makers knew all along that Chekhov didn't come on
board until after the Kahn episode.  They studied all the Star Trek
episodes carefully for atmosphere, characterization, etc., and
something like that is just too obvious.  They probably just decided
that the dramatic potential in having Chekhov know all about Khan and
the Botany Bay, and having Khan recognize Chekhov as part of Kirk's
old crew, etc., was important enough that it was worth the
inconsistency with the TV show.  So I wouldn't really classify this as
a blooper.

I was more struck by the oddity of Khan's quoting an old Klingon
proverb.  Just where did he pick up a repertoire of Klingon proverbs
when he was plucked out of the 20th century and almost immediately
marooned on an isolated planet?  Someone has suggested that maybe it
was somewhere in the stuff from the Enterprise's library which he
scanned at superspeed, but that seems a little far-fetched to me.

Two other oddities were (1) from the TV show, it seems that Star Fleet
computers generally volunteer all the historical data on record about
a planetary system whenever the ship approaches it, so that it is hard
to believe that it wouldn't have notified them that Khan had been
exiled in that system, or that Kirk wouldn't have remembered it
sooner, for all that goes.  And (2) since when does a scorpion-like
indigenous life form infesting a planet, along with a dozen or so
human beings, register on a scanner as "a particle of pre-animate
matter caught in the matrix?"  That ought to be enough life to cause a
healthy unambiguous blip on the instruments.  But, as has been
remarked before, watching Star Trek does require a large capacity for
suspension of disbelief.

--Teri Pettit (at Xerox SDD in Palo Alto)

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 1982 1418-MDT
From: Evelyn Mathey <MATHEY at SANDIA>
Subject: STAR TREK : TWOK

We have a saying in the theatre that one must induce in the audience a
"willing suspense of disbelief".  No matter how hard the actors work,
how expensive the special effects or how bug-free the writing there
will always be errors in a production.  In some they are minor, in
others, alas we, the audience, can no longer believe that pixie dust
can make you fly, that Frodo can walk undetected into Mordor, or that
Kirk can have a grown son who is proud of his father.  Sometimes this
mismatching of production and audience is the fault of the production,
sometimes the audience; most often of both.  While I too have some
critisms of TWOK, I am sorry that the problems really seemed to get to
some of you.

If I may be allowed a few comments of my own:

1.  Although the "critters" moved the plot forward, I could have done
without the one crawling out of Chekov's ear.  I felt the need for an
explanation there.  Why did it leave its nice warm home?? (ugh)

2.  I believe Spock telling McCoy to "remember" is laying the
groundwork for ST III.  Obviously the genesis action will use Spock's
body to create another.  One would assume that body to be without
"soul" (substitute mind,essence or whatever you prefer).  In previous
Star Trek episodes, Spock's personality has been impressed onto
another for a time.  I believe that McCoy now carries Spock's soul and
will reunite soul and body in the next movie.

3.  I also noticed Khan's "RHM" and would like more information.
Also, is the Phoenix still making it anywhere?  It disappeared around
here after about three shows, which was a shame, as I thought it had
promise.

4.  I disagree with the statement the Khan's superior intelligence was
defeated by his lack of knowledge.  That played a part, as did his
egomania.  But he was ultimately defeated (if you accept Kirk's getting
away from him as his defeat) by Spock's love.


All in all, I liked the movie.  Whether it was logical or not I
thought the nebula effects spectacular.  I also think it is a good idea
to start introducing a "second generation" of Star Trek characters.

Evelyn

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 82 21:07:55-EDT (Tue)
From: Michael Muuss <mike@BRL>
Subject: Vulcan "Remember!"  (SPOILER?)

The Mind Melded "REMEMBER!" that Spock gives McCoy seemed (to me) to
forshaddow McCoy's line "He isn't really dead as long as we remember
him..." (or thereabouts) in the bridge scene at the end.

Whether this is a "hook" into the sequel ("In Search of Spock"), or
just a leftover shard that the cutting room missed, I don't know.  I
was rather disappointed that several of the scenes I saw in the promo
at Balticon didn't actually make it into the movie....  Looks like
they actually TOOK OUT some of the character development.  Sigh.

Countably infinite technical inaccuracies and all, I still loved it!
                                More!  More!
                                  -Mike

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 1982 1003-PDT
From: Jirak at SRI-AI (Greg Mike Ken)
Subject: Spoiler: Spock's "Remember"


        One of the last scenes on the bridge is Kirk and McCoy,
watching the planet, thinking about Spock.  McCoy says "He isn't
really dead as long as we remember him", or words to that effect.  I
imagine Spock's remember may have something to do with this, and the
sequel.  A thought, anyway.

I second McClure's comment on Foster!

/Mike Achenbach

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 82 20:42:32 EDT  (Mon)
From: Steve Bellovin <smb.unc@UDel-Relay>
Subject: Star Trek II -- "Remember"

My *strong* suspicion is that it has something to do with Spock's
return/resurrect/reincarnation.  Perhaps he's taking a backup dump of
his memories...

------------------------------

Date: Monday, 14 Jun 1982 13:59-PDT
From: jim at RAND-UNIX
Subject: Remember - ST:TWoK (spoiler)

I think it's possible that the "remember" command to McCoy is a
lead-in to when Spock's Genesis-reanimated body is found, but the
brain cells, having been decomposed at one time, have forgotten
everything they know.  Saavik or some other telepathically-trained
person sucks the carefully stored Spock mentality out of McCoy, and
we're back in business.

There is some precedent for storing peoples' minds in others':  seems
to me Spock and Nurse Chapel shared her brain when the disembodied
intelligence Sargon (I think it was), who lived in a lighted globe,
took over Spock's body and Spock's globe was destroyed.

Of course, the "Remember" was used legitimately in the last scene,
where McCoy says Spock is alive as long as we remember him, so we
don't need to reach this far...

------------------------------

Date: 14 June 1982 6:10 pm PDT (Monday)
From: Thomka.ES
Reply-to: Thomka.es
Subject: ST2 (spoiler warning)

After seeing the movie in question (which I throughly enjoyed, and
think it's the best ST going) I feel that the possibility of Spock's
re-birth is very likely BUT because of the Genesis device, and the
eventual reincarnation, the new Spock will be much younger.  This, of
course, leaves great gobs of people who can now portray Spock since he
(the eventual selected actor) would then only have to slighty resemble
Nimoy.

Clever.  Of course if Nimoy can be persuaded (money-wise I'm sure) to
don the ears one more time then all of the above is held in abeyance
until the next possible death.

        Chuck

Note: I did not notice the capsule "doors" ajar.

------------------------------

Date: 14 June 1982  19:35-EDT (Monday)
From: Mijjil (Matthew J. Lecin) <LECIN at GREEN>
Reply-to: Lecin at RUTGERS
Subject: Spoiler for ST:TWoK


Remember what?  It is obvious to the most casual of observers!

Seriously, I have a theory...

When they return to Genesis Alpha or whatever the planet gets called,
they will find an animate "Spock body" which is they now alive
"regenerated" body - and a BLANK mind.  The body will physically be
PERFECT but there won't be any memories!  There won't be any Spock in
the body!

McCoy is STORING Spock's memories until they are needed to be fed back
into the empty Spock brain...

Are we worried that Leonard McCoy will run out of room in his brain?
The average person uses about 6% of brain right?  That means Bones
uses about 4%!

<Mijjil>

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 27-Jun                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #72
*** EOOH ***
Date: Sunday, June 27, 1982 4:34PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #72
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Sunday, 27 Jun 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 72

Today's Topics:
             SF Movies - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,
             SF Books - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,
              Spoiler - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 1982 02:58:54-PDT
From: ihuxi!otto at Berkeley
Subject: Commentary on Mister Saavik

One of the more intriguing aspects of STAR TREK II, for me at least,
was the new character Mister Saavik, particularly in light of some
Trekiana.  In the original TV episode of Star Trek (or was it in the
pilot that was turned into the two-episode show: Menagerie) the
science officer was a woman identified as "Number One."  Audience
reaction to this character was not positive. She was a hard, efficient
person; just right for a science officer, but not easy for the
audience to take.  As a result there was a quick shifting of roles,
with Spock becoming the science officer and Number One becoming Nurse
Chapel.

Now, in ST II, we have the character of Mister Saavik, a half-Vulcan
woman Star Fleet Cadet.  In her we see the same sort of conflict we
have seen often enough in Spock between emotions and logic, although
in her case it seems to be more conflict between correct
professionalism on the one hand and human relationships on the other.
This conflict is understated in the film, but is evident precisely
*because* we have seen the same sort of conflict many times within
Spock.

What I find intriguing is that the character of Mister Saavik--doesn't
this very name help sharpen the feeling of conflict?-- works very
well.  What accounts for this? and why did Roddenberry & Company
choose to try a character type that proved to be a mistake when Star
Trek began?  I think there are two answers to these questions.  The
first is that over time Spock has clearly become the sentimental
favorite of Trekkies.  When Leonard Nimoy's name appears at the
beginning of the film, it gets the biggest audience reaction.  Of all
the characters in Star Trek, Spock seems to most nearly represent
those conflicts and tensions we all experience within ourselves.  As a
result there is a transfer of audience sympathy to a character that is
so clearly *like* Spock.  Saavik immediately benefits from our knowing
Spock so well.

The second reason this character works so well, I feel, is that Saavik
is truely a modern character.  The role of women today (or should I
say roles?) is much less clear cut today than it was perceived to be
20 years ago.  The question of "how much should women give up of
themselves in order to succeed in male-dominated activities" seems to
be a pervasive question these days.  Saavik, for genetic rather than
historical reasons, finds herself dealing with the same or similar
conflicts. Thus, audiences today have more sympathy and understanding
for Saavik than they evidently had for Number One.

I have to admit that of all the elements of ST II, I was most
surprised by the introduction of Saavik as a character and my reaction
to her. I find myself truely interested in how she will figure in
future ST films, and commend Roddenberry & Company for seeking to
improve Star Trek by expanding the number of continuing characters we
care about.

George Otto
Bell Labs, Indian Hill
ihnss!ihuxi!otto@Berkeley

------------------------------

Date: Sunday, June 27, 1982 4:34PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

All of the remaining messages in this digest discuss some plot details
in both the movie and the book Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.  Some
readers may not wish to read on.

------------------------------

Date: Monday, 14 Jun 1982 13:52-PDT
From: jim at RAND-UNIX
Subject: Khan's RHM

Khan addressed his Right-Hand-Man by name as he (the RHM) was dying.
I heard it as "Joachim", but didn't spot the name in the credits.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 82 1:41:43-EDT (Tue)
From: Sue Pohl <sue@BRL>
Subject: Kahn's Right Hand Man

Kahn's second in command is called Joachim.  The name is mentioned a
couple of times throughout the film.  Unfortunately I do not recall
who the actor is, but unless I'm mistaken, he's supposed to be a
relatively unknown person.
                        Sue

------------------------------

Date: 15 June 1982 1108-EDT (Tuesday)
From: David.Lamb at CMU-10A
Subject: ST:TWoK nits (spoiler)

Some questions/objections to ST:TWoK can be found in the novelization.

1) Khan's right-hand man was called "Joachim".

2) Ceti Alpha 5 and Ceti Alpha 6 were a planet/moon of about equal
size.  The Reliant noticed anomalies in the system but attributed them
to error in the records from the single probe of the system, from 60
or so years before.  Kirk had deliberately hidden the fact that Khan
and company were marooned there.  I confess to not understanding why
they thought they were examining the 6th planet.

3) The need for the lifeless planet wasn't technical, but moral.  The
magic Genesis device rearranges any sort of matter, such as for
instance the material in the nebula.  Admittedly Genesis is magic, but
remember Clarke's third law.

4) Checkov didn't immediately beam up when he noticed "Botany Bay"
because they had to be in the open; conditions on the planet were so
bad that being inside something made beaming up impossible, instead of
marginal as in the open.  As to panicking, Chekov always was excitable
- the book has the amusing touch of him "loosing his Standard" and
reverting to Russian when excited.

5) Chekov essentially has a bad concussion at the point where he mans
the weapons console.  He's not functioning very well, but much of
Kirk's bridge crew is hurt, so even in this state he's useful.

6) The device Spock is launched in is indeed a photon torpedo casing;
in the book Saavik carefully reprograms it, for unstated reasons.
This might have something to do with why it re-enters (aside from the
meta-reason that they're obviously aiming for a way to bring Spock
back).

7) Kirk reprogrammed the simulator, not from "inside", but in a
midnight raid just before he took the test for the third time.

A lot of the nits I've seen people pick are either institutionalized
Star Fleet idiocies (ranking officers on landing parties, consoles
blowing up when the ship is hit, wimpy photon torpedoes) or are little
things that it's real hard to explain in a motion picture - either it
would slow things down, or you'd have to be reading some character's
mind.  The novelization is a good source of answers to small
questions. As others have noted, it also makes Saavik a far more
interesting character.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 1982 2303-EDT
From: Thomas Galloway <Galloway at YALE>
Subject: Star Trek II- The Rationalizations

Quite a few of the inconsistencies mentioned so far can be cleared up
by either reading the book, or using some imagination/common sense.
Such as:

The book tells you that C A VI was a moon of V, so the orbit problem
is not too bad.  I could see the explosion of a planet causing the
moon's axial tilt to be changed, thus affecting the climate.  Also,
its noted that Kirk either didn't record the planet where he dropped
Khan, or it was marked top secret (i forget which), and since Chekov
was not bridge crew at the time, its amazing he even remembered the
Botany Bay after 15 years.  Finally, since the planet was at one time
human habitable, the parasite is not that great a suspension of
disbelief.

As for the genesis bomb needing a planet, well, my understanding is
that it just needed mass.  Either they didn't think of a nebula,
didn't want to use it for the first test, or the galactic equivalent
of the Sierra Club stopped them from using a nebula in the first
place.  As for the genesis wave being picked up on sensors, since the
thing will be affecting the matter its in contact with, the wave
propagated through the gas, and when the wave was close enough to the
Enterprise, it was picked up on the sensors.

Chekov returning to duty was a bit forced.  In the book, he is dizzy,
and gives some indication that his inner ear is wrecked (in which case
you really have to wonder why he's aiming anything!), but this is
suppose to be the 23rd century, so assume that McCoy healed him *real*
fast.

As for photon torpedos being less powerful than an h-bomb, so what if
they are?  A bomb and a torpedo are two entirely different classes of
weapons.  Particularly since a photon torp always struck me as being
closer to a phaser type ray than a missile.  Torps should be designed
to hit things going at warp speed, which I don't think a physical
object that small could do.  Photon torps are probably tachyon based,
come to think of it.

Any other rationalizations out there?

tom

------------------------------

Date: 12 June 1982 08:26-EDT
From: Jonathan M. Levine <CAIN at MIT-AI>
Subject: Star Trek II: Comments on "Trek-ness"

Being a hardcore Trekkie, there is very little Gene Roddenberry could
do (other than Star Trek I) that would disappoint me.

I enjoyed Star Trek II alot, and in discussing some of the plot
materials with other Trekkies in the area, we decided the following
(without reading the book...  just using logic)

1) The reason the beasties didn't kill Chekov or the Captain of the
   Reliant was because they had tremendous conflicts, causing alot of
   electrical impulses down the cerebral cortex, and making it
   uncomfortable for the creatures.  Or Khan was lying (about a 50:50
   split here)

2) Perhaps "Mr." is a title for any COMMAND officer (officer able to
   replace the captain in an emergency).  As far as we remember, Uhura
   was never referred to as Mr., but Chekov was, as were some of the
   other male officers.  There were never any female command officers
   before.
3) According to official Starfleet lines, Romulons are enemies.  We
   Thought Saavik was half-Vulcan half-human.  If she was brought up
   as a human or Romulon, she would have been MUCH more emotional (the
   Romulons split from the Vulcans before the mysterious event which
   gave Vulcans their logic) Hmmm...What is she doing on a federation
   starship acting like a vulcan?

4) I expected Spock's death (it's been going around that he would die
   for quite a while) but it still hit me a bit harder than I
   expected...  although I admit it was (as usual) a bit melodramatic.
   I am torn between my feelings that Spock made the series, and that
   if he's dead he should STAY dead.

Is there any truth to the rumor that Leonard Nimoy is not coming back?
He's been threatening this for quite awhile...

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 1982 1618-EDT
From: John R. Covert <RSX-DEV at DEC-MARLBORO>
Subject: Mister Saavik

Cadets at military academies are call Mister.

------------------------------

Date: 06/15/82 11:40:49
From: RP@MIT-MC
Subject: Saavik

I question whether Saavik is a true Vulcan. During Spock's funeral I
am sure I noticed a tear under an eye. Did anyone else notice this?

------------------------------

Date: 11 June 1982  19:11-EDT (Friday)
From: Mijjil (Matthew J. Lecin) <LECIN at GREEN>
Reply-to: Lecin at RUTGERS
Subject: SPOILER fer shure


Saavik - we are led to believe that she is half-Vulcan, half-Romulan.

Now, how many Vulcans have we seen hanging around female Romulans?
Anyone care to REMEMBER that at the end of "Enterprise Incident", when
they have finally located SPOCK on the Romulan flagship using sensors
(damn Romulans are SO hard to tell from them Vulcans!)  and they beam
him back to the Enterprise, they have a little surprise in the form of
the ROMULAN COMMANDER HERSELF!

And she DID try to subvert him with DINNER (she had her personal chef
make him a few VULCAN delicacies) and whatever comes AFTER dinner.

Saavik ***  IS  SPOCK'S  DAUGHTER  !!!  ***

Which would definitely explain why she was *SO* attached to Spock
(aside from the fact that she must be "sorta lonely" away from other
Vulcans) and CRIES at his funeral.

<Mijjil>

Run that one up your Jeffries Tube and see what happens!


[  Actually, such a possibility is denied in the book - it appears they
   the standard operating procedure to facilitate such an union is akin
   to violent rape.  -- Jim ]


------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 1982 21:28:53-PDT
From: CSVAX.wss at Berkeley
Subject: Khan `eavesdropping' on Enterprise communicators

It does not seem unreasonable to me that Khan should be able to
eavesdrop on Kirk's communication with the Enterprise.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 1982 21:38:14-PDT
From: CSVAX.wss at Berkeley
Subject: Khan `eavesdropping' on Enterprise communicators

I can think of several reasons as to why Khan should be able to
eavesdrop on the Kirk's conversation with the Enterprise.

    1. The communicators all over starfleet may use the same code.
       Not unreasonable, as surely there must be occasions when a
       landing party wants to contact a starship other than their own.

    2. Kirk could have "absent-mindedly" used an open channel.  It is
       possible that this could sneak past Kahn's colossal ego.

    2' Kirk could have been using a channel that had been preassigned
       to communications involving the space station.  I can't think
       of any good reason for this, other than as a somewhat more
       subtle form of 2.

    3. Given the information that the Enterprise could take control of
       the command console of the Reliant by supplying the proper
       prefix code, maybe one of Kahn's followers managed to figure
       out or find a key for deciphering Enterprise communication.
       (If so, Starfleet is not too bright; it is never a good idea to
       leave plaintext passwords lying around!).  However, this
       explanation relies on Kirk's being aware that communications
       security was being compromised.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 28-Jun                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #73
*** EOOH ***
Date: Monday, June 28, 1982 11:21AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #73
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Monday, 28 Jun 1982       Volume 5 : Issue 73

Today's Topics:
        SF Books - "Shortstack" & Blue Adept & Foundation IV &
  Series & John Brunner,  SF Movies - Saturday the 14th & Spielberg,
            Random Topics - ISIRTA & Genderless Pronouns,
                    Humor - Genderless Video Games
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 1982 11:47:40-CDT
From: mdpl at uwisc
Subject: Shortstack

This story was by Walt and Leigh Richmond and appeared in the Dec.
1964 issue of Analog.  I don't know if it has been anthologized
anywhere.
                        Mary Palmer Leland

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 82 12:03:34-EST (Mon)
From: Bratman.ucf-cs at UDel-Relay
Subject: Blue Adept ** non-spoiler **


        Just a word about "Blue Adept" by Piers Anthony. This book
just came out in paperback, and it's terrific. The book is a sequel to
an earlier one called "Split Infinity".
        Without giving anything away, the story concerns the
adventures of Stile, a serf on the planet Proton, whose main ambition
is to attain the status of Citizen through a world-wide tournament
known as the Game.
        The fun begins when he finds that Proton has a parallel
counterpart named Phaze, which one can travel to simply by finding one
of many entrances on the planet's surface.What possibilities when
Stile discovers that as evolved as Proton is with scientific
technology, Phaze is with magic.
        Anyone who enjoys duel sub-plots, and especially anyone who,
like me, knows that Unicorns DO exist, will love these two books.
        The only miserable part in "Blue Adept" was finding the number
of pages in my right hand dwindling to nothing, while realizing that
there wasn't enough time for Anthony to tie up all the loose ends.
Yes, obviously there is to be a third book, and it's excruciating to
find out at the end of what you thought was a concluding sequel.
        In any event, most who subscribe to sf-lovers will be
intrigued by Anthony's blend of pure S.F. and pure Fantasy into one
book.


                                        Steve Bratman

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 1982 1830-PDT
From: Brent Hailpern <SSO.BTH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Foundation IV?

After being out of touch with the real (?) world for a couple of
years, I've been getting caught up on SF-LOVERS.  I noticed a
reference, a few issues back, to Foundation IV.  I've been unable to
locate any new Foundation book by Asimov in the local bookstores.  Am
I missing the boat?  If not could someone give me a more complete
reference?

Brent Hailpern
(csl.sso.bth@su-score)
(BTH at YKTVMX - IBM Yorktown)

[ Foundation IV is a sequel to the trilogy that Asimov has been
  contracted to write.  It has not appeared in print yet.  -- Jim ]

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 1982 05:05:27-PDT
From: decvax!duke!uok!mwm at Berkeley
Subject: State of the Art

A short while back, somebody mentioned that the contest for the hugo
(novel) could well be between "Friday", "Foundation IV", and "2010".
In other words, a pair of sequels to 10+ year old stories, and
something based around equally old characters/universes.  This seems
to say BAD things about the state of SF to me.

        mike

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 1982 1525-EDT
From: Thomas Galloway <Galloway at YALE>
Subject: John Brunner

Going back to the "Does John Brunner exist?" discussion of a few weeks
ago, there is what purports to be a photo of him on p.15 of the July
SFChronicle.

tom

------------------------------

Date: 13 June 1982 22:02-EDT
From: Charles F. Von Rospach <CHUQUI at MIT-AI>
Subject: review: Saturday the 14th

Movie: Saturday the 14th
       Richard Benjamin, Paula Prentiss
       (not exactly a new release, but it didn't stay in theaters long
        enough to see, and it is now making the pay tv rounds)

Pico Review: Hilariously bad. Another Golden Turkey award winner for
sure!

micro review: This movie is a supposed sendup of all the horror movies
that have already shown up at the theaters. What the writers seem to
have decided to do is take every good, bad, or indifferent monster
movie ever made and write a joke about it. Then they try to figure out
some way to stick that joke in the movie. Some of them work. Most of
them do not. I spent most of the movie laughing hysterically, not
because the movie was funny, but because it was BAD. It did bring back
a lot of memories about some of the really good movies I have seen,
and the movie will probably be much less appreciated by those who
don't stay up until 4AM to see 'Bride of Frankenstein' for the 99th
time.... If you have a favorite monster, keep your eyes open, for it
will be there somewhere.

As a good example of the quality of the film, Val Helsing (from the
'Major Exterminator Company sent out to rid their belfry of bats) says
at one point "Selling the house now would be like closing the barn
door after the horses have eaten your children." If you like that, you
will love this movie.

Rating: If you can get access to it on pay tv, and you don't have to
pay any more to see it, it'll make a good chuckle. If you love
turkeys, or monsters, its worth a bit more.

chuq chuqui@mit-ai

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 82 5:33-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: brief Spielberg interview

           Star Watch: Steven Spielberg Makes Two More Hits
                            By FRED YAGER
                       Associated Press Writer

    NEW YORK (AP) - Last year, director Steven Spielberg was
responsible for the top grossing film of 1981, ''Raiders of the Lost
Ark.''
    This year, Spielberg could be responsible for two top-grossing
films, ''ET, The Extra-Terrestrial'' and ''Poltergiest.''
    And the two movies, although virtually made at the same time, are
like day and night.
    ''One's a boy and one's a girl,'' the 34-year-old director said
over a cup of cold borscht during an interview.
    '' 'Poltergiest' is a real scary ghost story,'' he said, ''while
'ET' is a love story about friendship.''
    In ' ET,' that friendship is between a boy and a creature from
another planet who gets stranded on earth when his spaceship abandons
him.
    '' 'ET' means more to me than any movie I ever made,'' Spielberg
said.
    ''When I was young, my father would move us from one town to the
other every time he found a better job,'' he said. ''I'd be on the
brink of making a best friend and suddenly I'm somewhere else having
to start from scratch. 'ET' is about a friendship that will never be
disrupted.''
    ''Poltergiest,'' one the other hand, is a horror story about a
typical suburban family being terrorized by a force that exists
somewhere between life and death. For Spielberg, it represents all his
childhood fears.
    ''All my fears were normal,'' Spielberg says. ''I was afraid of my
closet. Under my bed. Dark shadows. I never got over that.
    ''It usually takes making a movie to get over a fear for me,'' he
said, ''and it usually costs the studio between $10 and $15 million
before I'm cured.''
    If making movies is therapy for Spielberg's phobias, film
companies are lining up to pay for his treatment.
    So far, his pictures, which include ''Jaws,'' ''Close Encounters
of the Third Kind'' and ''Raiders of the Lost Ark,'' have generated
more than $1 billioin box office grosses.
    ''I love making movies about things I don't know anything about,''
Spielberg says. ''My films are usually about things that you just
can't go out and experience outside of a movie theater.''
    ''Poltergiest'' developed out of his interest in people who had
life after death experiences.
    ''Many of them,'' he said, ''report seeing a glorious light that
seems to want them and they seem to want it, but something either
holds them back or rejects them from the light, or something brings
them back to wherever they were when they almost died.
    ''Some parapsychologists believe that people who die linger before
they're shepherded to higher destinies.''
    Spielberg believes that creative ideas roam freely. ''There are
certain people who are good receivers and they can reach up and get an
idea and realize it. There are other people who can't.
    ''The idea visits them, but they don't have the wherewithal to do
anything about it,'' he says. ''But I think good ideas visit everyone.
I think there's a band of creativity that like air goes through
everyone. It takes with certain people and it doesn't stick with
others.''
    Half the battle is separating the good ideas from the bad, he
says.
    ''When 'ET' first hit me, I threw it off,'' he said. ''I kept
saying 'Go away. I'm into Raiders II. I'm not ready to make my
personal movie about love.' But 'ET' kept bouncing back until I
finally said okay I get the message.''
    Spielberg will continue making films, he said. ''I don't want to
stop, or rest on any laurels. The thing that makes you want to stop is
failure. I can't stop now.''

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 1982 11:38 EDT
From: Denber.WBST at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: ISIRTA

I've just plowed through a week's backlog of SFL and was disappointed
that no one picked up on John Francis' comments on "I'm Sorry, I'll
Read That Again".  It ran here seven years ago on our public radio
station (all of NPR?).  It was, if anything, even funnier than Monty
Python.  In addition to ferrets, prunes and rhubarb tart featured
prominently each week.  The show's theme song was the "Angus Prune
Tune".  There were plenty of jokes like "By noon plans were afoot, and
by evening they were eighteen inches."

Typical was their serial "The Curse of the Flying Wombat", one episode
of which started something like:


"As you may remember, our hero Tim Browne-Windsor has set out after
the Green Eye of the Little Yellow Dog, hotly pursued by the evil
Casey O'Sullivan and his henchman Masher Wilkins.  [offstage: "Get on
with it!"]  No sooner has the mysterious cabin boy Jim-Lad revealed
himself as Tim's mysterious fiancee Fiona Rabbitt-Vacuum than the
Flying Wombat strikes a submerged reef..."

"We're sinking, captain, give us an order!"

"Well, I'll start with the prune cocktail, and then lobster ice cream
and a cherry with a mouse in it."

"After the meal, it was but the work of a moment for the captain to
issue the critical order."

"Full speed ahead - upwards!"

"...A party of men was sent over the side to repair the damage and
soon the reef was good as new."


        ..."That night, two men rose silently up to the ship."

Casey O'Sullivan: "Ha ha, ha ha."

Masher Wilkins: [dopey Cockney accent] "Yeah yeah boss, this looks
                like the shop."
COS: "No no, the ship, Masher, the ship you twit, not the shop."

MW: "Oh, so I needn't have brought along my shopping biscuit."

"No no, your basket, basket."

"Oh, basket, yeah basket, yeah yeah."

"Alright, Masher, do you know what you got to do?"

"Yeah yeah, I'll climb aboard and I'll creep up behind the 'elmsman as
quiet as a house"

"No, a mouse!"

"Mouse, yeah, so 'e does not hear my approach, and then when I am
behind him I beat 'im about the 'ead wi' my luncheon."

"No no no, y' *truncheon*!"

"Yeah yeah, and then I cuddle 'im senseless."
"No no, y' cudgel 'im, cudgel 'im."

"Oh, what a pity."

 ...Tim Browne-Windsor: "Where are you, Fiona?"

Fiona Rabbit-Vacuum: "Yoo hoo, over here, only don't call me Fiona,
                      for I must keep my identity a secret."

TBW: "Then why are you wearing a crinoline?"

FRV: "So no one can see my frilly knickers."

First Mate Hatch: "Good morning, Browne-Windsor!"

TBW: "Good day, Hatch, but you look worried, why?"

FMH: "I'm worried about Jim-Lad."

"Why so?"

"Well, have ye looked under his crinoline lately?"

 ...FMH: "There's trouble down below."

TBW: "Well, have you taken anything for it?"

"No, I mean stowaways."

"Stowaways!  But this is serious!"

"Aye, I couldn't think of a joke either."


OK, so it doesn't have anything to do with SF, but at least it's not
another two megabyte review of ST/ET/PG.

                        - Michel

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 1982 at 1537-CDT
From: hjjh at UTEXAS-11
Subject: PERSON-NESS

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ PERSON-NESS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In SF-L vol. 5, #67, Bob Clements claimed--

     "'sales-person' discriminates against non-organic
       and non-physical sentients"

Not so!  In the predominant cultures of four of the continents of
Terra the Deity, "God", is not only considered to be a "person" but
generally even to be \3/ "Persons".  God is indubitably "non-organic",
"non-physical", and "sentient".
------------------------------

Date: Monday, 14 June 1982  07:55-PDT
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: My last Pacpun (maybe)

        What do you call that portion of writing a video game program
that calls for extreme attention to detail?


nitPacIng

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

0,unseen,,
Summary-line: 29-Jun                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #74
*** EOOH ***
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 1982 7:05PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #74
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest         Tuesday, 29 Jun 1982      Volume 5 : Issue 74

Today's Topics:
                SF Books - ET: the Extra-Terrestrial,
            SF Movies - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan &
                      ET: the Extra-Terrestrial,
                 Spoiler - ET: the Extra-Terrestrial
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 1982 2131-PDT
From: Mark Feber <FEBER at USC-ISIC>
Subject: E.T. and Star Trek reviews

Having recently seen Star Trek the Wrath of Khan and E.T. I'm afraid I
have to break the trend of glowing reviews for STTWOK.  ST was ok, but
it was basically an expanded TV show (in fact the scenes I liked best
were the standard bits that showed up in almost every episode - like
Spock using his nerve pinch, or whatever it was called).  So, unless
you're a hardcore Trekie, the film, modulo a few of the early battle
scenes, will seem a little flat.  Then again, maybe it just suffers in
comparison to E.T.

E.T. is really great.  I can't imagine anyone who reads this list not
going to see the film before the week is out, so I won't try to spoil
it. Suffice it to say that the film is full of great camera work and
wonderful scenes (E.T.  meets Yoda, E.T. in a wig looking like cousin
IT, E.T. discovers beer, boy shows E.T. the monuments of 20th century
culture, and, of course the great frog escape).  The only real
complaint I have is with some of the special effects.  I presume
Industrial Light and Magic is responsible for the scenes with the
spaceship.  Well, in the climactic lift-off, the spaceship jiggles
slightly and tends to look more like a Xmas tree ornament being lifted
by a wire, than an inter-stellar vehicle.  Quite a let-down from the
quality of effects in Close Encounters.  A small flaw in an otherwise
wonderful film.

I only wish I could believe that humans would act so reasonably in the
face of alien intelligence.
          Mark

------------------------------

Date: 16-JUN-1982 17:11
From: MERLIN::SCHOFIELD
Reply-to: MERLIN::SCHOFIELD <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: <SPOILER> REVIEW OF ET <SPOILER>

          As a new member on the SF-LOVERS list, I just want to express
my appreciation and wonder at being included in this marvelously
outlandish clan of SF and F fandom...I'm happy to be here!

          Now on to bigger and better things...

          I had the unexpected pleasure of viewing E.T. The
Extraterrestrial (and his adventure on Earth) this weekend. This movie
has the unmistakable mark of the movie midas Steven Speilberg.

          This movie adds a corollary to the Close Encounters (We Are
Not Alone) theory: We Are Not Afraid!

          My sister (a subscriber to the notion that if it's
creepy-crawly-slimy then it's bad) came home from the movie and
stated, "After seeing that movie, if a UFO landed in the backyard, I
wouldn't be afraid to go out and meet it."


           THAT, Mr. Speilberg, borders on the magical!


          That is what this film is all about. Speilberg works this
magic with all the subtlety of a Jedi Master. In the first half of the
film he uses his horror-movie experience (Jaws, Poltergeist etc.) to
instill a xenophobic fear of this "thing" that is the ET. Using all
the tricks of scare:  lightning-flash glimpses of something dark and
shiny; suspenseful sequences climaxed by the screams of the actors
(followed closely by the screams of the audience);etc.etc., Speilberg
has us loathing this alien without ever seeing it!

          Then, in the best example of audience manipulation I've ever
witnessed, Speilberg shows us the irrationality of our fear by
revealing the ET for what he (she? it?) really is: a living,
intelligent entity who is very scared, very alone, and very, very far
from home (a feeling many can and do identify with). (ET was
marroooned on Earth when his ship was discovered by local authorities
and forced to escape without ET.)

          The ET makes friends with a local boy named Elliot who
proceeds to enlist the aid of all the neighborhood friends in helping
ET regain his ship In the end one finds oneself cheering for the very
alien that was so 'creepy and evil' before.

          Thus Speilberg uses parlor psychology to show us the folly of
xenophobia and in the process strikes a double blow in favor of both
extraterrstrials and fun movies (without coming out in bold-face and
saying "This film has a message...heed it!").

          If you have always wanted to strike a blow at the Saturday
afternoon "Creature Double Feature", if you considered the Creature
from the Black Lagoon a 'good guy', then this movie will be everything
you wanted to see on the silver screen!

          Hats off to Speilberg, and keep up the good work!

                                                  Rick Schofield

------------------------------
Date: 18 Jun 1982 1025-CDT
From: CS.BROWN at UTEXAS-20
Subject: E.T. personal opinion

        In response to the plea for personal opinions on movies, I can
say that the group of college students I went with all enjoyed the
movie.  In the group were 2 computer scientists, 2 artists, a
mechanical engineer and a PR person.  We all agreed that E.T. is not,
as some may think, "just for kids".  The film had lots of humor, good
special effects, two or three really sad parts (we all cried), and an
exciting "grownups chasing the kids" scene.  Overall a good movie,
maybe not a classic, but definitely worth four bucks.

                                        Share and enjoy
                                        Nelson

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 82 15:14-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: short E.T. review

                     E.T., The Extra-Terrestrial
                            By BOB THOMAS
                       Associated Press Writer

    ''E.T., THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL'' is, quite simply, a great movie.
Note the term ''movie,'' not ''film,'' which is newfangled and
high-toned. This is a real movie, with all those elements that have
proved sure-fire through history: laughter, tears, involvement,
thrills, wonderment. Steven Speilberg also adds a message: human
beings and spacelings should learn to co-exist. Only a Scrooge could
fail to care about E.T., the super-intelligent, homesick little alien
who is left behind during the hasty departure of a spacecraft from a
California suburb. Already the most successful filmmaker of all time,
Speilberg seems likely to exceed the records of his ''Jaws,'' ''Close
Encounters of the Third Kind'' and ''Raiders of the Lost Ark.'' The
cast is perfect, especially the youngsters who befriend the visitor:
Henry Thomas, Robert Macnaughton, Drew Barrymore (carrying on the
family tradition at five). Dee Wallace is compassionate as their
mother, whose husband has run off to Mexico with another woman. The
star is E.T. himself, created by Carlo Rambaldi and brought to
endearing life by a crew of movie wizards. The meeting of E.T. and
Yoda (''The Empire Strikes Back'') during a Halloween march makes a
classic screen confrontation. At the end of the press preview in
Hollywood, the supposedly hardboiled audience erupted in bravos,
something that veterans could not recall happening before. Well,
here's mine: Bravo! Rated PG, because of mild swearing and high
excitement.

------------------------------

Date: 17-Jun-1982
From: DJLONG AT MERLIN
Reply-to: "DJLONG AT MERLIN" <Young at DEC-MARLBORO>
Subject: More on E.T. (for sfl)

Incidentally, this morning on Good Morning America, the President of
the Motion Picture Association of America was on and he made some
comments about all the new great movies that are out.  My favorite:

"E.T., it has to be one of the 2 or 3 best movies ever made."

Look for it at Oscar time next year.

Dave Long

------------------------------

Date: 15-Jun-1982
From: STEVE LIONEL AT STAR
Reply-to: STEVE LIONEL AT STAR <Young at DEC-Marlboro>
Subject: E.T.

I am certain that by now you have been deluged with glowing reviews of
Steven Speilberg's new movie E.T., all saying that it is the best
thing since sliced bagels and that it is a "must see".  I agree.

E.T., the movie, is not the subject of this note.  E.T., the book, is.

I have this odd habit of buying the novelizations of movies which I
have seen.  Sometimes, I'll pick it up before the movie is released
(if possible), so I can get a better idea of what is going on.  In
most cases, the book fills in plot details that got left out of the
film, so I consider the exorbitant prices they charge for these books
well spent.

So, after having been delighted by E.T., the movie, I purchased the
book.  If you are similarly inclined to lay down your $2.95 (plus
tax), I have one word for you - DON'T!  I know that in many cases the
studios hire real hacks to write novels from the screenplay, and I
know that said hack needs to be able to add words to make up for the
lack of the visual element, but one doesn't need to turn a
straightforward, pleasant story into a Harold Robbins-type potboiler.
This, unfortunately, is what William Kotzwinkle has done with E.T.

I've never heard of William Kotzwinkle, (and I'm sure he's never heard
of me).  Some of the other books listed to his credit are "Doctor
Rat", "Elephant Bangs Train" and "Hermes 3000".  Eh?  Not content with
simply telling the compelling story that the movie does, he injects
sex and silliness.  For example, we get introduced to Elliot's family
by E.T.  talking to the vegetables (and them talking back).  Or how
about E.T.'s having the hots for Elliot's mama?  What?  You don't
believe me?  Listen to this:

           How ironic it was that the willow-creature, the lovely
        Mary, pined for her vanished husband while in a closet, close
        at hand, dwelt one of the finest minds in the cosmos.  He
        gazed down at his large pumpkin stomach, hanging on the floor,
        and for the first time in his very long life he saw it as
        grotesque.  But even if he stopped eating Oreo cookies, it
        would never go away.  It was him.
or this:

           The willow creature was asleep, and he watched her for a
        long time.  She was a goddess, the most beautiful thing he'd
        ever seen.  Her radiant hair, spread out upon the pillow, was
        the moonlight itself; her fine features, so understated in
        their lovlieness, were all that was perfection in nature - her
        closed eyes like the sleeping butterflies upon the
        night-blooming narcissus, her lips the petals of the
        columbine.
           Mary, said his old heart.
           Then, upon paddle feet, he tiptoed [?] over to her bed and
        gazed more closely.
           She was the loveliest creature in the universe, and what
        had he given her?

C'mon now!  We are also shown that Mary (Elliot's mother) has been
without a man for so long, that she might take E.T. up on his offer,
if he ever made one.  Or what about Elliot's school principal, after
finding Elliot floating on the ceiling (a scene which is not in the
film), downing some Quaaludes?

Perhaps the real problem with the book is that the real story gets
crowded out by all the garbage.  It seems like the last hour of the
movie gets compressed into about the last 20 pages of the book.  But
are there any interesting plot elements or details or motivations
revealed?  No.

Please don't waste your money on the novelization.  Spend it to see
E.T., the movie, again.  That's money well spent.
                                        Steve Lionel

------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, June 29, 1982 7:05PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING!  SPOILER WARNING!

The remaining message in this digest discusses some plot details of
the movie ET: the Extra-Terrestrial.  Some readers may not wish to
read on.

------------------------------

Date: 28 June 1982 13:51-EDT
From: John G. Aspinall <JGA at MIT-MC>
Subject: Strange Loop in E.T.   <mild spoiler>

Fans of Douglas Hofstadter (Godel Escher Bach) should notice a
delightful "strange loop" in E.T.  When E.T. is being smuggled out of
the house on Halloween, E.T. (dressed as a ghost, but impersonating
the little girl dressed as a ghost) is attracted to another kid dressed
as Yoda from The Empire Strikes Back.

We often talk about the "willing suspension of disbelief".  I think of
that, often, as pushing down some level in our consciousness - we
ignore the crunch of popcorn beside us, and the person's head in
front, and deal exclusively with the world presented on the screen.

Speilberg gets us to identify with E.T. (the creature) to certain
extent.  Then E.T. is attracted to another similar creature.  We "pop"
up a level - and laugh - Yoda is just a movie character, this is just
a kid on Halloween.  But surprise!  We aren't at "top level" (ie
audience level) yet.  E.T. is still the extra-terrestrial creature
that he always was.  It's this mixing of the levels, or strange loop,
that I found to be one of the best scenes in the movie.

John Aspinall.

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************

1,,
Summary-line: 30-Jun                 JPM@Mit-Ai  #SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #75
Date: Wednesday, June 30, 1982 1:00PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #75
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wednesday, June 30, 1982 1:00PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM@Mit-Ai>
Reply-to: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai
Subject: SF-LOVERS Digest   V5 #75
To: SF-LOVERS at Mit-Ai


SF-LOVERS Digest        Wednesday, 30 Jun 1982     Volume 5 : Issue 75

Today's Topics:
           SF Books - Here's the Plot...What's the Title &
         Foundation IV & Ellison & News from LOCUS & HHGttG,
       SF Movies - Cat People & Conan the Barbarian & Firefox &
       ET: The Extra-Terrestrial & Revenge of the Jedi & Ford,
           SF Topics - Bad Scriptwriters,  SF TV - HHGttG,
                    Humor - Genderless Video Games
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 June 1982 1352-EDT (Tuesday)
From: Mark.Sherman at CMU-10A
Subject: What is title

I have a plot outline but not a title or author.  Can any body help
me?

    Man is evolving both forwards and backwards.  A couple has a baby
    born alive, but they are told it is dead.  The baby is one of the
    "backwards" and is placed on a reservation for Neanderthals.
    Father discovers that baby is alive, searches for and finds baby.
    Father leaves baby on reservation.  Doctor at reservation comments
    "thank god baby is not one of the other ones."

Maybe a short story.  Any clues?  Please send replies to
Sherman@CMU-10A.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 1982 13:59:31-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Foundation IV

   Working title: LIGHTNING ROD
   Pub. title:  FOUNDATION AT RISK
   According to Asimov (during a talk at MIT last April) Doubleday
will be releasing this in December. It's set something over 500 years
through the 1000-year interregnum, but (like most of the stories)
takes only a few months to happen (maybe less?). It will be a
substantial book, probably three times as large as the biggest
previous segment (the second half of SECOND FOUNDATION).

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 82 13:58-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Re: Foundation IV

Yeah. Locus says twice as big as any of the previous books. I think
it's called FOUNDATION'S EDGE. I typed in a big excerpt about this
from a recent LOCUS but Mcgrath hasn't gotten around to distributing
it.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 1982 11:19:28-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Re: Foundation IV

In response to your message of Tue Jun 29 17:55:56 1982:

   Asimov said FOUNDATION AT RISK, and since LOCUS is at the far edge
of the country from him I wouldn't be surprised if they were wrong. At
least LOCUS isn't a yellow journalist's delight like SCIENCE FICTION
CHRONICLE.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 82 18:15-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: July LOCUS extracts

Here are some extracts from the July LOCUS.

 FOUNDATION series sold to Del Rey:
 ----------------------------------

Ballantine/Del Rey has purchased paperback rights not only to Isaac
Asimov's new novel FOUNDATION's EDGE but also to the three earlier
books in the series.  FOUNDATION's EDGE was turned in to Doubleday
recently and will be published in October. Doubleday is billing it as
"the fourth book in the FOUNDATION trilogy". It is 140,000 words --
twice as long as each of the earlier books.  Penthouse and Omni will
both run extracts.

Judy-Lynn del Rey would not reveal the amount paid for the
"Foundation", package but she did not deny it was "very high". (There
was a paperback floor of half a million dollars on FOUNDATION'S EDGE,
according to Publisher's Weekly.) "It feels good to be the publisher
of Heinlein, Asimov, and Clarke," she said.

The three original books will be republished as quickly as possible.

Isaac Asimov had the following comments about the series:

"When I first wrote them, I thought each story would appear in
Astounding then vanish forever except for the few fans that saved
their back issues.  Even after the FOUNDATION trilogy appeared in the
early fifties, my feeling was that it would sell a few thousand copies
and then vanish except for those few fans who would keep their copies.
According to Doubleday, the original books have sold over 5,000,000
copies... and [they] have paid me hundreds of thousands in royalties.

"Doubleday was so pleased with the manuscript when I turned it in that
they promptly set up another contract with a larger advance -- $65,000
--- for an unamed science fiction novel, but I'm trying to write the
third Lije Bailey book [sequel to THE CAVES OF STEEL and THE NAKED
SUN]. For thirty years I said I couldn't write another "Foundation"
book, but I managed it and even enjoyed it, so maybe I can even do the
third robot novel."

 HARLAN ELLISON
 --------------

Harlan Ellison and his secretary, Marty Clark, escaped serious injury
when his car turned over and was demolished on the San Diego Freeway.
He was on his way to the airport and had to take evasive action to
escape running into someone ahead of him. The car, a 1967 Camaro with
170,000 miles on it, hit the divider at 60 mph, flipped over, and was
totally demolished. Ellison got out with a few bruises, pulled out his
secretary, then his typewriter, and went on to a speaking engagement
in Alaska.

 1982 LOCUS POLL RESULTS
 -----------------------

nom = awards nominated for (H = Hugo, N = Nebula), votes = number of
votes, 1sts = number of first place votes, points = total points based
on Carr point system: 1st = 8 pts, 2nd = 7 pts, etc. Thus, a first
place vote counted twice as much as a fifth place one, instead of five
times as much if we had used a five, four, three, two, one, system.

BEST SCIENCE FICTION NOVEL    AUTHOR             nom votes 1sts points

1 THE MANY-COLORED LAND       Julian May          H,N  184   82   1253
2 WINDHAVEN                   George R.R. Martin       159   45   1010
3 DOWNBELOW STATION           C.J. Cherryh        H    139   48    916

BEST FANTASY NOVEL

1 THE CLAW OF THE CONCILIATOR Gene Wolfe          H,N  343  199   2504
2 LITTLE, BIG                 John Crowley        H,N  198   84   1376
3 THE CHANGING LAND           Roger Zelazny            164   42   1049

BEST FIRST NOVEL

1 STARSHIP & HAIKU            Somtow Sucharitkul       149   77   1055
2 AT THE EYE OF THE OCEAN     Hilbert Schneck          129  871    955
3 RADIX                       A.A. Attanasio      N    130   76    947

BEST NOVELLA

1 "Blue Champagne"            John Varley         H    143   60    977
2 "The Saturn Game"           Poul Anderson       H,N  115   43    769
3 "In The Western Tradition"  Phyllis Eisenstein  H,N  114   38    765

BEST NOVELETTE

1 "Guardians"                 George R.R. Martin  H    129   52    886
2 "Unicorn Variation"         Roger Zelazny       H    125   53    855
3 "The THermals of August"    Edward Bryant       H,N   87   33    585

BEST SHORT STORY

1 "The Pusher"                John Varley         H,N  156   55   1051
2 "Serpent's Teeth"           Spider Robinson           54   26    551
3 "The Needle Men"            George R.R. Martin        81   21    524

BEST ANTHOLOGY

1 SHADOWS OF SANCTUARY        Robert Lynn Asprin, ed.  130   75    929
2 UNIVERSE 11                 Terry Carr, ed.          125   57    863
3 THE BEST SCIENCE FICTION    Terry Carr, ed.          109   47    745
   OF THE YEAR #10

BEST SINGLE AUTHOR COLLECTION

1 SANDKINGS                   George R.R. Martin       259   94   1754
2 GENE WOLFE'S BOOK OF DAYS   Gene Wolfe               135   45    881
3 SUNFALL                     C.J. Cherryh             131   46    867

BEST RELATED NON-FICTION BOOK

1 DANSE MACABRE               Stephen King        H    193  112   1405
2 ANATOMY OF WONDER           Neil Barron, ed.    H    125   69    843
3 THE ART OF LEO & DIANE      Byron Preiss, ed.   H     80   29    553
   DILLON

BEST ARTIST                           last year

1 Michael Whelan                          1       H    240  114   1717
2 Don Maitz                               2       H    138   65    949
3 Rowena Morrill                          6       H    114   34    761

BEST MAGAZINE/FANZINE

1 F&SF                                    1            421  250   3043
2 Locus                                   2       H    387  138   2653
3 IASFM                                   5            204   34   1244

BEST BOOK PUBLISHER

1 Pocket/Timescape                        3            417  238   3015
2 Ballantine/Del Rey                      1            307   80   2022
3 DAW                                     4            307   79   2004

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 1982 1612-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.McGrath at SU-SCORE>
Subject: capsule reveiws

                        CAPSULE MOVIE REVIEWS
                    By Chicago Sun-Times Reviewers
           (c) 1982 Chicago Sun-Times (Field News Service)

    Cat People - An imaginative, erotic fantasy-horror film that takes
itself just seriously enough to work, and has just enough fun to be
entertaining. Nastassia Kinski and Malcolm McDowell play the
descendants of a race of created by black leopards mating with humans.
With John Heard, Annette O'Toole and Ruby Dee; Paul Schrader directed.
Rated R. 3 1/2 stars.
    Conan the Barbarian - Arnold Schwarzenegger plays the mythical
hero battling the evil Doom (James Earl Jones - and it is disturbing
to see that fine black actor pitted against a proto-Nordic avenger).
Schwarzenegger and his co-star, lovely Sandahl Bergman, bring humor
and a certain quiet slyness to a movie that is a triumph of production
design, set decoration, special effects and makeup. It's a perfect
fantasy for the alienated pre-adolescent. With Max von Sydow.  Rated
R. 3 stars.
    E.T., The Extra-terrestrial in his Adventure on Earth - E.T., a
wonderful little creature from outer space, is left behind in an
American suburb when its spaceship gets frightened away. After several
close encounters with a search party, it is discovered by a little
boy, and thus begins a story of friendship and love. This Steven
Spielberg production is filled with innocence, hope and good cheer.
It's also wickedly funny and exciting, and is a triumph of special
effects. With Henry Thomas, Dee Wallace, Peter Coyote, Robert
MacNaughton, and Drew Barrymore. Rated PG. 4 stars.
    Firefox - Clint Eastwood's mission in this slick, muscular
thriller is to infiltrate the Soviet Union and steal the Firefox, a
top-secret Russian warplane. The movie combines espionage with science
fiction and works like the well-crafted machine it's about. With
Freddie Jones, David Huffman, Warren Clarke, Ronald Lacey, Kenneth
Colley, Stefan Schnabel. Rated R. 3 1/2 stars.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 82 16:48-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: Firefox

The TV commercials make it appear like a royal ripoff of the Star Wars
Death Star chase scenes. They even appear to have a trench.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 1982 at 2233-CDT
From: ables at UTEXAS-11 (King Ables)
Subject: Star Wars VI

Harrison Ford was interviewed on a local talk show here in Austin
yesterday. He talked mostly about "Bladerunner," but he did mention
that he had been finished with his part of "The Revenge of the Jedi" a
couple of weeks ago. Interesting, either they are right on or ahead of
schedule on filming with the actors or he has a small part (which
considering he could have been frozen for most of the movie, is
possible).  He also said his next project would be the sequel to
Raiders starting sometime next year.

-ka

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 1982 12:53:29-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Re: bad scriptwriters

   I was under the impression that Alan Dean Foster was responsible
only for novelizations, not for shooting scripts---and some of the
stuff that he's written independently is tolerable.
   Glen Larson, on the other hand, is the other side of the Red Shift
coin.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 82 16:22:08-EDT (Tue)
From: Will Martin (DRXAL-FD) <wmartin@BRL>
Subject: HHGTTG News

Pulled this off USENET for your delectation and enlightenment...

        From unc!mcnc!duke!decvax!utzoo!utcsstat!geoff
        Mon Jun 7 02:32:47 1982
        Subject: Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy news (net.humour)
        Newsgroups: net.misc


>From the July Starlog:

 MORE ``HITCH-HIKER'S'' ON THE WAY

 ---------------------------------

During his recent publicity tour to promote the U.S. release of
Restaurant at the End of the Universe (Crown Publishers), Douglas
Adams stopped to chat and tell STARLOG what the future holds for fans
of The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.  Althougn (sic) fans have
hoped that someone would import the six-part BBC-TV series, Adams
announced that ABC-TV will be re-making the series with an American
cast.  ``All things going well,'' Adams reported, ``it should start
going out in the fall.  I met the guy who's directing it, and as far
as it's possible to tell, I thought he seemed to be very, very much in
tune with it-actually more in tune with it than the TV director we had
in England.  There are a lot of good people involved.  The guy who's
doing the design is Ron Cobb who did the famous bar scene in Star
Wars.  He's a cartoonist as well, so he'll have a sense of humor.  I
hadn't heard of him before, but everyone in the business says, `Oh,
great!  Terrific! You're onto a winner there.' ''

Adams is currently finishing off the third Hitch-Hiker's book,
entitled Life, the Universe and Everything, which will be released
first in England this August.

``Probably the next major thing I'd work on will be a
non-science-fiction humorous book, but in the meantime, I'm doing one
or two other bits and pieces.  Curiously enough, I'm going to go and
do a magazine feature on the Coral Reefs in the Red Sea for The
Observer and the Royal Wildlife Fund, which I'm looking forward to
doing.  I'm also probably going to be doing a serious reference book
with John Lloyd, the producer of Not the 9 O'Clock News.''

------------------------------
Date: 29 June 1982 18:07-EDT
From: James M. Turner <JMTURN at MIT-AI>
Subject: Genderless punsters (after I find my trusty knife...)

At LMI, we are seriously considering a PacMan to be written for the
Lisp Machine. It will, of course, be written in PacLisp.

                                        James

------------------------------

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************
