SF-LOVERS Digest           Tuesday, 12 Jan 1993        Volume 18 : Issue 26
 
Today's Topics:
 
                   Books - The Gripping Hand (9 msgs) &
                           Wild Cards (3 msgs)
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:31:27 GMT
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: The Gripping Hand
 
kasprj@isaac.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak):
> Horace Hussein Bury was a slimy individual who just happened to be an
> Arab.
 
...who just happens to be the only prominent Arab in the book (do I err
here?) and certainly is the most slimy individual in it.  You're missing
the point here.
 
> Hey, welcome to the world of multiculturalism! If he'd been Greek, would
> you argue that the book was offensive and demeaning to Greeks?
 
Actually, why not?  If there is one character of type X in a book, and that
character is described as thoroughly Y, whereas no others in the book
behave like Y, then, yes, the assumption that their being non-X has bearing
on the matter will be there in the background, whether you are aware or
not.  It does not even mean the author was aware of it - he may have just
thought he created a well-rounded, complete character that "fitted".
 
Actually, I realize the problem that every time you portray some fictional
person as particularly bad, some reader will recognize traits of *some*
group in that person and assume that group is being targeted.  But this
will happen easier if the association between those traits and the group,
wrong or not, is or was widely held.  And the notion of Arabs as slimy
individuals is not all that alien to western literature (no, dammit, I'm
not being PC here.  I'm completely convinced that every culture on Earth
has the same kind of problem, if not much worse).  It's a sad fact that if
a topic is sensitive, a small stimulus will suffice to bring it up.  But
it's also true that if the trend exists, a small indication may indeed
indicate something.  First prove that Niven and Pournelle can really deal
with "multiculturalism" before you rule that possibility out.  Personally,
if I look at Oath of Fealty or Lucifer's Hammer, I'm not convinced.  I
don't know the rest of their common works except for Inferno, which
certainly doesn't fit.
 
(I can't believe that I'm here, looking as if I argued that Niven and
Pournelle are a pair of Arab-or-whatever-degrading misogynists - I'm not.
But those counterarguments just don't cut it.)
 
Markus Stumptner
University of Technology Vienna
Paniglg. 16, A-1040
Vienna, Austria
mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
...mcsun!vexpert!mst
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:58:03 GMT
From: kasprj@vccnw03.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: The Gripping Hand
 
jroberts@morpheus.UWaterloo.ca (J. P. Robertson) writes:
> O.K.  The obvious species to consider are the Kzinti and the Puppeteers.
> The Kzinti evolved with both species sentient, however the males of the
> species chose to breed in such a fashion that the females became
> unintelligent.  [I can't recall where this tidbit came from, though it
> might be from Man-Kzin Wars, which might not be canon.]
 
 Niven has given Man-Kzin Wars his stamp of approval, so we can consider
them to be canon. He does check them for any obvious inconsistencies with
the established "Laws of Known Space".
 
 Also, there are hints in that series that the Kzinti breeding patterns
have actually produced females who are good at hiding their intelligence,
or who use it for different things, rather than being nonsentient. Of
course the Kzinti males would never bring themselves to admit this...
 
Jim Kasprzak
RPI
Troy, NY, USA
kasprj@rpi.edu
kasprzak@mts.rpi.edu
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 9 Jan 93 17:36:44 GMT
From: sa121@cl.cam.ac.uk (S. Arrowsmith)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: The Gripping Hand
 
mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>jroberts@morpheus.UWaterloo.ca (J. P. Robertson):
>> Puppeteers repropduce in a rather complex fashion, as I recall.  I think
>> it was in Ringworld Engineers we learn that there are three sexes, one
>> of which is non-sentient.  Call the two sentients male and female.
>
>Wasn't the hindmost female?
 
The sentient puppeteers describe themselves as "male," referring to the
non-sentient hosts as "female," hence have egg-producing and
sperm-producing males (I'm not at all convinced by the biological
likelihhood of this, but never mind).  If I remember rightly, Nessus was of
the latter and the Hindmost the former.  Possibly they adopted this
terminology to make them more understandable to all non-human races, which
have this non-sentient female/sentient male divide (Ringworld Engineers is
the best reference on this, I think.)
 
SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 9 Jan 93 22:02:33 GMT
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: The Gripping Hand
 
SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk writes:
 
>The sentient puppeteers describe themselves as "male," referring to the
>non-sentient hosts as "female," hence have egg-producing and
>sperm-producing males (I'm not at all convinced by the biological
>likelihhood of this, but never mind).
 
Not at all implausible. Remember, the Hindmost says that the "females"
contribute nothing genetically to the offspring, and that "females"
actually mate among themselves to produce other "females". This means that
the "females" must be considered another species altogether. The sentient
puppeteers implant an embryo in the "female", which grows there as a
parasite. This is done by many species on Earth (e.g. many wasps lay eggs
in living animals, which act as a food source for the baby wasps). Perhaps
the puppeteers just have a more refined version of this, where they implant
the embryo in the "female"'s womb.
 
Don't think of it as trisexual reproduction; think of it as two sexes, with
the children parasitizing another species.
 
Andrew Solovay
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 9 Jan 93 17:10:16 GMT
From: David.Dyer-bennet@f0.n2492.z0.tdkt.kksys.com (David Dyer-bennet)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Review Of The Gripping Hand
 
The Gripping Hand takes place about 25 years after Mote; 25 years ago in
our society, some people had detected a women's rights problem (and there
had been episodes of it being noticed and worked on back in the 30's that
were quite significant).  We've advanced some today.  On the other hand in
Mote it didn't seem to be promoted as a societal problem; a couple of
individual characters perceived it as a problem, but there was no
indication that it was an issue in society at large.  That attitude seems
(so far) to carry straight through in the next book.  I suspect that that
is also what bothers people; Sure, society could be that way.  But if a few
individual characters have perceived it as a problem, shouldn't it be an
issue in a larger sense in society?  Surely the only two people who notice
aren't the ones we meet in the book?
 
Continuity of culture is one of the big problems with writing a sequel so
long after the original (about 20 years in this case).  Somehow the
computer equipment in AD 3046 seems to be tracking the development of
computer equipment in AD 1993, and that really bothers me.  There's
specific reference to public key signature techniques that's been added in
the second book, for example (as mentioned by others in the threads on the
book here).  Clearly a digital signature technique is needed for the way
they use their pocket computers; but adding it into the second book and
specifying public key and giving some operational details just rubs the
readers' faces in the fact that they're making it up as they go along.
Which is true, of course, it's a novel not a history, but the readers want
to *forget* that as they're reading.  On the other hand, if they *hadn't*
no doubt somebody would complain about that too.  "How come they're not
using public key?  We've got it, and it's obviously the only way to go, so
why aren't they?"
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 9 Jan 93 17:20:23 GMT
From: David.Dyer-bennet@f0.n727.z0.tdkt.kksys.com (David Dyer-bennet)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: The Gripping Hand By Larry Niven And Jerry Pournelle
 
> My problem with Niven/Pournelle, as evidenced in LUCIFER'S HAMMER and
> MOTE IN GOD'S EYE, is that they always manage to torture or
> torture/murder women in these books with a little too much loving detail.
 
Even after you mention it, I can't remember one single example in the books
you mention.  What woman dies, at all, in Mote?  Let alone at all
graphically.  I think I remember some who do in Hammer, but I don't
remember torture in loving detail of anybody, either.  Sounds like you've
got a hot button to me.
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:39:26 GMT
From: dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: Review Of The Gripping Hand
 
David.Dyer-bennet@f0.n2492.z0.tdkt.kksys.com (David Dyer-bennet) writes:
>The Gripping Hand takes place about 25 years after Mote; 25 years ago in
>our society, some people had detected a women's rights problem (and there
>had been episodes of it being noticed and worked on back in the 30's that
>were quite significant).  We've advanced some today.  On the other hand in
>Mote it didn't seem to be promoted as a societal problem; a couple of
>individual characters perceived it as a problem, but there was no
>indication that it was an issue in society at large.  That attitude seems
>(so far) to carry straight through in the next book.  I suspect that that
>is also what bothers people; Sure, society could be that way.  But if a
>few individual characters have perceived it as a problem, shouldn't it be
>an issue in a larger sense in society?  Surely the only two people who
>notice aren't the ones we meet in the book?
 
Twenty-five years?  These are authors who routinely cast their politics
over _millenia_.  You are incorrect in your belief that women's rights as a
concept came into being in 1967, or even 1930.  Individual thinkers, often
powerful women, have attempted to raise it as an issue probably since the
dawn of time.  Certainly it's not difficult to find proto-feminist writings
in the Middle ages.  As a comparison, search for the earliest anti-slavery
writings you can find, and then realize that slavery was in existence in
the West (well Russia) until the 1890's, and exists in parts of the Third
World even today.  Twenty-five years is almost nothing in the history of
the world.
 
Niven and Pournelle are pretty consistent in their belief that societies do
not advance.  They change, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the
worse, but always in response to temporary environmental factors and never
because they are heading for some sort of global optimum.  The Pak and the
Moties are prime examples of this, maintaining stable societal cycles over
geological time spans.  The Kzin were similarly stable until the Puppeteers
found them.  Human societies in N/P's writings also show this stability,
often cycling through forms that those with shorter time scales view as
obsolete.
 
We live in a period of rapid technological change.  It has lasted a little
more than three hundred years.  Unless Vernor Vinge is right, this period
is _temporary_.  To accomodate these changes, we have had to change our
social mores quite rapidly.  This has created the illusion of progress.
Niven and Pournelle seem to like playing with the idea that this illusion
is false.
 
Dave Griffith
Information Resources
University of Chicago
Department of Surgery
dave@alex.bsd.uchicago.edu
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:07:15 GMT
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: The Gripping Hand By Larry Niven And Jerry Pournelle
 
David.Dyer-bennet@f0.n727.z0.tdkt.kksys.com (David Dyer-bennet) writes:
>Even after you mention it, I can't remember one single example in the
>books you mention.  What woman dies, at all, in Mote?  Let alone at all
>graphically.
 
Well, there's the Motie engineer on board the MacArthur... she *slowly*
wastes away, howling, losing fur in patches... and dies alone and
unmourned. And she was female at the time.
 
Was that it?
 
Andrew Solovay
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:50:04 GMT
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: The Gripping Hand By Larry Niven And Jerry Pournelle
 
solovay@netcom.com writes:
>David.Dyer-bennet@f0.n727.z0.tdkt.kksys.com (David Dyer-bennet) writes:
>>Even after you mention it, I can't remember one single example in the
>>books you mention.  What woman dies, at all, in Mote?  Let alone at all
>>graphically.
 
> Well, there's the Motie engineer on board the MacArthur... she *slowly*
> wastes away, howling, losing fur in patches... and dies alone and
> unmourned. And she was female at the time.
>
> Was that it?
 
  I personally, forgot that one.  Concentrating on the humans again.  I do
recall (finally) a woman murdered by a whacko in the early going of
_Hammer_.  I don't recall much detail given to the actual deed (other than
a notation that it was pretty awful - I will check tonight).  Also in
_Mote_, Sally's friend just...disappears.  No doubt dead and/or tortured,
but they never say another word about it.
 
  I think the original poster has a chip on her shoulder.  Where is her
concern for the dead middies of _Mote_?  The unnamed male whose head was in
the spacesuit?  The slaughtered National Guardsmen in _Footfall_?  The dead
security guard in _Dream Park_?  The reporter in _Footfall_?  The engineer
who died in the live steam in _Hammer_?  The fellow dying from mustard gas
in _Hammer_?
 
  Niven/Pournelle are secretly man-haters!  Isn't it obvious?
 
  Bloody hell.  When it come to death, these guys are equal-opportunity all
the way.
 
Jim Miller
Texas A&M University
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 10 Jan 93 05:57:35 GMT
From: stile@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Howard Wilson)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Wild Cards XI:Dealer's Choice
 
Where the heck is the new Wild Cards book?  According to book ten, it will
be/is/*WAS* due out in November of 1992.  So where is it?  I have seen no
word of it here on the Net (of course, lately I have been too busy to read
ALL news groups but after 2-3 months, one would think I would hear about
it), and haven't seen it in any bookstore (again, time has not exactly
allowed me to hang out in any bookstores).  I've called many times to a
local store where I get most of my reading material (except that which I
get from SFBC...and if you have any comments on SFBC, be kind and change
the subject when you post them), and they say THEY haven't heard a word
about it.  Did Melinda's book (Book Ten) bomb so badly that they all said
to Hell with it?  According to the second GURPS book about Wild Cards,
there are some new story lines that look GOOD!  We might get back to the
OLD Wild Cards (i.e. good writing) now, without Tachy of course.
 
If it isn't yet out, does anyone know the reason for/length of the delay?
 
Howard Wilson II
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 11 Jan 93 22:30:19 GMT
From: albert@chain.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Rick Jones)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: Wild Cards XI:Dealer's Choice
 
stile@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Howard Wilson) writes:
>Where the heck is the new Wild Cards book?
 
   Well, the one after Double Solitaire (Jokertown Shuffle, I think) has
been out since Novemberish.  In fact, the newest one, Turn of the Cards, a
Captain Trips solo novel, just hit the shelves.  And at the end of the
month, another anthology, Card Sharks (the WC folks have a new publisher)
is due out.
 
Rick Jones
Systems Support Center
713-798-7352
albert@bcm.tmc.edu
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:33:10 GMT
From: dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith)
Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu
Subject: Re: Wild Cards XI:Dealer's Choice
 
Dealer's Choice has been out for a while, and was frankly disappointing.
Too much like your standard DC or Marvel fare of people who have powers and
no personality beating up on one another for no adequately explored reason.
At least five now aces, none of them even slightly interesting.  Got rid of
the jumpers finally, though.
 
OTOH, Flip of the Card, a Victor Milan solo effort, was just released, and
is quite good indeed.  Focuses on Captain Trips.  _Lots_ of character
development, _lots_ of world building.  I was seriously thinking of giving
the series a miss after Dealer's Choice, but this has turned it around for
me.  No spoilers, read it yourself.
 
Dave Griffith
Information Resources
University of Chicago,
Department of Surgery
dave@alex.bsd.uchicago.edu
 
------------------------------
 
End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************
