I liked the story for the internal conflict of the narrator.
If there were a few jokes or more sarcasm it would sound a bit like a Douglas Adams work.
If there were a few jokes or more sarcasm it would sound a bit like a Douglas Adams work.
it had plenty of conflict, I think Simon's point was there was no conflict resolution.
Ew, Douglas Adams and Sarcasm aren't really a mix I'd like to see.
not really, Douglas Adams' style of humour wasn't sarcastic. I might describe it as Glib, Sardonic or just Witty, but not Sarcastic.I think you nailed it! His works were...they were just art, every word where it needed to be to deliver maximum impact.
not really, Douglas Adams' style of humour wasn't sarcastic. I might describe it as Glib, Sardonic or just Witty, but not Sarcastic.
I'm probably not explaining myself very well, does any of this make sense? It's so late it's become early over here, and I need to get to bed :-p
Simon Painter
Shropshire, UK
As for this work, I liked it. It highlights a problem I noticed myself while honeymooning in St. Lucia. We drove through such utter poverty to the resort that it was unsettling; the utter dichotomy between the opulence of the Sandals. At the end, against resort rules, I tipped our concierge $200.00, what I later learned was equivalent to four months salary for him.
I see what you mean, but I think that, while maybe not his writing as a whole, some of Douglas Adams' characters are very sarcastic. For example, the first to come to mind, Marvin from the Hitchhiker's Guide, now there is a character that Adams let his satirical and sarcastic humor flow out of.
Again, I don't really agree, but I can see myself causing an argument here, and of all the things we could argue about the precise way in which Douglas Adams is cool shouldn't be one of them ;) I may start another thread about this some day.
As for this work, I liked it. It highlights a problem I noticed myself while honeymooning in St. Lucia. We drove through such utter poverty to the resort that it was unsettling; the utter dichotomy between the opulence of the Sandals. At the end, against resort rules, I tipped our concierge $200.00, what I later learned was equivalent to four months salary for him.
madSimonJ pretty much read my mind on this - but he was much more forgiving than me. I can only imagine that this story won a Hugo out of guilt.
I found the idea and characters to be cliche, the sci-fi element unnecessary to the plot, the story too long, and in one part, a ludicrous event threw me right out of the story (when one Earth ship drops one bomb and annihilates 300,000 Antareans - seriously, they never invented bombs? They are contacted by an alien spacefaring race and never thought that the aliens might have advanced technology? I get that this is some kind of analogy to how the English took out the Zulu or any other race with massively advanced tech took out another, but it just seemed dopey, and besides, why mass all your troops in one spot when the attacker could land anywhere?).
And it is entirely possible than weapons of mass destruction were outside their cultural knowledge. (This is not ancient and archaic thinking. Recollect Hiroshima, and that the Japanese were busy preparing for a ground invasion.)And were no doubt also preparing for the "standard" aeriel bombing. In this particular case, though, it was a paradigm shift - the idea that a single bomb (or even two or three for that matter) could decimate an entire city was beyond reason.
again I agree with Simon. I did find it somewhat hard to follow at times, as it seemed as if there were almost two storylines going on. 1 with the tourists, and another like a guide giving a tour in the future, where the Antarean Dynasties had been reestablished. The second being given in a slightly different voice, using some sort of vocal effect from the sound of it. An okay story, but not among my favorites.
I think by the time we roll up on the Antarean homeworld, we might just be far removed from the flash-bulb, flower-print shirt tourism that feeds billions of evil American dollars into the global economy.
Ultimately, my main problem with this tale is logic. Go forward three hundred years from the height of Expansionism, and we Terrans have already advanced far beyond slavery (at least in our most-free societies). Yes, we haven't yet fully realized the whole "Good will to men" mantra, but for a Social Darwinist like myself, I see it as inevitability. I think by the time we roll up on the Antarean homeworld, we might just be far removed from the flash-bulb, flower-print shirt tourism that feeds billions of evil American dollars into the global economy.
There is a resolution, though narrators may not say so explicitly, the Antareans are doomed to fade away like the lost diamond.
For the third point, I disagree that labelling this a science fiction story adds any insight to the situation it puts forward. If anything it might have been more effective if it had retained its original Cairo setting, as that would make everything so much closer to home. It reminds me of something Jon Pertwee used to say, that the scariest monsters are those you find in your own home, rather than going to other worlds to find them. I think this might be the case here, that these "monsters," the tourists, might be scarier if they they were shown existing in the real world, and that the guide was one of a number of real people.
I've been debating whether I should make a response to Mr Resnick's comments. I've finally decided to do so, though purely in an effort to clarify my own opinion. Out of respect to our host, I've no wish to start an argument. I know subjects like this can be touchy, so I'll do my best to tred gently.First I would say that if there is one universal truth about good literature, it is that it exists to make people think, challenge preconceived notions and spark debate; it is only through discussion that we can grow as individuals.
First off, I whole-heartedly agree that the situation in Egypt Mr Resnick described is a genuine problem, and an issue that is worthy attention. I agree also that we have a big problem in the West with ignorance of other cultures. My critisisms of Mr Resnick's story are purely literary. My main points, which I stand by, are these: 1) that it has little or no plot, 2) that the characters are poorly developed, and 3) that it contains no science fiction elements.I disagree with you here. I think the story definitely had a plot; although maybe not one as concrete as some. I viewed the plot to be the internal conflict of the narrator between his extensive education and self worth and taking the easy way out by telling lies here and there because they're easier. A battle not to become a total and complete sell out.
For the first, I do not require any plot twists or tagged-on happy endings to satisfy me. I agree with Mr Resnick's comment about the cheapness of surprise endings: they are something that rarely works. I've no problem at all with an ending that's predictable or inherent, just so long as the plot develops.
The second point I can overlook. This is a short story, and detailed characterisation is very hard in such a short space of words.Again I believe the narrator was really the only character that mattered. He was the center of the story and the others only served as sources of conflict to move his internal struggle along.
For the third point, I disagree that labelling this a science fiction story adds any insight to the situation it puts forward. If anything it might have been more effective if it had retained its original Cairo setting, as that would make everything so much closer to home. It reminds me of something Jon Pertwee used to say, that the scariest monsters are those you find in your own home, rather than going to other worlds to find them. I think this might be the case here, that these "monsters," the tourists, might be scarier if they they were shown existing in the real world, and that the guide was one of a number of real people.I once heard it said that a work should be considered science fiction if the science fiction elements are integral to the plot. Such that if you can remove those elements and the work stands on it's own then it is just a mystery or war novel dressed up in science fiction garb, etcetera. Issac Asimov's R. Daneel Olivaw novels I believe are a good example of this. At their core they are murder mysteries, while Neil Stephen's Snowcrash or Diamon Age are fundamentally about technology and it's impact on society and as such couldn't be separated out. This is not to say that Caves of Steel wasn't a good novel, and as such I enjoy many science fiction works that are just other novels wrapped in science fiction trappings. Mr. Reznic's piece is one such work.
I'm not saying that "This is not science-fictiony enough, therefore it's rubbish," just that I feel it's been written in the wrong Genre. Should Mr Resnick ever rewrite this as a mainstream or even an autobiographical piece, I genuinly would be interested to read it.
To be honest, I was rather taken aback by Mr Resnick's argumentum ad numeram view, that the number of awards it has won proves the story's merits. The fact that many people hold an opinion does not make it more valid than any other.While not absolute public opinion is often a good marker of merit. Numerous awards would seem to indicate that this work was well received by a body of his peers and his target audience. Though I will agree with you that it alone does not refute your opinion.
If I've caused any offense by this post, I sincerly apologise. It's not my intention to offend, just to properly explain my opinions.Again I enjoy well thought out and expressed debate. When it is done intelligently, as has yours, and not emotionally I believe there is a lot to be gained. Thanks for making me think.
Simon Painter
Shropshire, UK
...but once in a while someone’s going to get hit where it counts and they’ll be motivated to change the world.This is a very true statement, but keep in mind it applies to all things. You could say the same thing if Mr. Resnick wrote this for a travel magazine or submitted it to Reader's Digest. Someone in a Doctor's office somewhere (for many years to come, considering how often they update the mags) could read that and be just as affected.
For the third point, I disagree that labelling this a science fiction story adds any insight to the situation it puts forward. If anything it might have been more effective if it had retained its original Cairo setting, as that would make everything so much closer to home.
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: 'Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.'
Yes, that's a principal of my point.Quote from: Thaurismunths...but once in a while someone’s going to get hit where it counts and they’ll be motivated to change the world.This is a very true statement, but keep in mind it applies to all things. You could say the same thing if Mr. Resnick wrote this for a travel magazine or submitted it to Reader's Digest. Someone in a Doctor's office somewhere (for many years to come, considering how often they update the mags) could read that and be just as affected.
I'm not going to try and guess on how Mr. Resnick decides a market for a story, but considering he's "the most-awarded short fiction author, living or dead, in science fiction history" (according to Locus, I'm told) it's not really surprising that he didn't submit a less sci-fi version to Reader's Digest - and for all I know he did, butI think you get my point.Yes, that's a principal of my point.Quote from: Thaurismunths...but once in a while someone’s going to get hit where it counts and they’ll be motivated to change the world.This is a very true statement, but keep in mind it applies to all things. You could say the same thing if Mr. Resnick wrote this for a travel magazine or submitted it to Reader's Digest. Someone in a Doctor's office somewhere (for many years to come, considering how often they update the mags) could read that and be just as affected.
The story could be written (gun could be aimed at) anyone. Mike decided to write (point) it at SF fans.
First off, I'm genuinely amazed by the intelligent and reasonable responses I've had. On many forums offering an opinion contrary to the Host's would kick off some fairly nasty lines of conversation. Since posting that last comment I was half-expecting to be banned faster than L. Ron Hubbard can type after a night of drinking caffeine! That or an attack by a vengeful quill-wielding writer :-p
Pshaw, no.
madSimon --I'll be interested in what you have to say about the limits of the genre. After all, the idea of genre itself seems to imply limits, or at least a strong tradition. If not for limits, then how could you ever distinguish science fiction as something discrete that could recognizably "break out and gain new high ground"? Even though there are, of course, numerous definitions of what actually constitutes the genre, it seems like almost all of sf's allies want to distinguish it as somehow "special." So maybe it's not a question of genre definitions as a *limit* to what science fiction must be. Instead, "genre" is what distinguishes it, makes it special and different from mainstream fiction (and from other genres).
Works of fiction never changed anyone's mind? Any student of
American history can refute that with just three words: UNCLE
TOM'S CABIN.
I suspect we will never agree on what science fiction is, and as far
as I am concerned that is a Good Thing, because you have just given
me my editorial for the next issue of Jim Baen's Universe. It will be
an historical survey of all the critics (and others) who tried to put
science fiction in a straitjacket, and how it has broken out and gained
new high ground every time.
So please accept my (sincere) thanks. Editorials are a lot harder to
come by than science fiction stories (my definition -or- yours).
-- Mike Resnick
I much prefer stories that go further away from things I have heard in history class yesterday.
Simon explained well what I meant about "I can only imagine that this story won a Hugo out of guilt." To add to Simon's points, the Hugo is voted on by Con attendees, a good part of whom travel, and his comment "it's an arrow pointed straight at middle class guilt" is exactly how I should have written my first post. And, as such, I think Roney's point is backwards - that mostly this is the choir who is reading the story - which in turn, hopefully, further clarifies my "guilt" comment.
I really doubt Mike was after guilt as an emotion when he wrote this. Heck I really didn't feel guilty after reading this. To me I was more struck by the absurdity of such a highly educated individual having to choose between an academic career and that of a tour guide. It also highlights nicely how little we value higher education and knowledge without any immediate practical application.Simon explained well what I meant about "I can only imagine that this story won a Hugo out of guilt." To add to Simon's points, the Hugo is voted on by Con attendees, a good part of whom travel, and his comment "it's an arrow pointed straight at middle class guilt" is exactly how I should have written my first post. And, as such, I think Roney's point is backwards - that mostly this is the choir who is reading the story - which in turn, hopefully, further clarifies my "guilt" comment.
Was Mike preying on guilt, or did he strike a nerve?
I can be difficult to tell the difference some times.
But I -will- defend my notion (which I think I have made clear is a majority opinion) of science fiction. There are certain stories and novels that screw up definitions. Back when I was a kid and the glaciers were still in California, Damon Knight and Jim Blish and Ajay Budrys called it the "Arrowsmith problem"...which is to say, it was just about impossible to come up with a definition of science fiction that disqualified Sinclair Lewis's ARROWSMITH, yet not a person alive considered it science fiction. Okay, this generation can call it the "Cold Comfort Farm problem" if you wish (I haven't read it; I'm trusting to your brief synopsis). There will be books and stories like that. But it proves nothing except that COLD COMFORT FARM isn't science fiction despite being set in the future (when written). You can probably name two or three others as well.
-- Mike Resnick
-- Mike Resnick, who seems to have to point this out every time Steve runs one of my stories for grown-ups
-- Mike Resnick, who seems to have to point this out every time Steve runs one of my stories for grown-ups
I am one of that multitude of writers whoWell, sir, since you have made it clear that you consider anything this side of Plato's Dialogues to be science fiction, your comment is no surprise. However, you may be surprised to find the majority of discerning public opinion on my side in this case - this story is definitely sci-fi, up there with Star Wars and the Honor Harrington series.
equates "sci-fi" with bug-eyed monsters, brass bras, and very bad
movies.
I write science fiction.
.
Being an American living in a foreign land will give you a different insight on not only other cultures, but your own people. I felt that this story portrayed both the tourist and local very accurately. I found myself nodding my head & smirking when the Antarean gave his educational background as this is kind of over qualification is rampant in other countries due to the severe lack of jobs.
Also, the family's reactions to the various landmarks and local street urchins was spot-on as well.
Though having said that, I found the characters of the Americans more sympathetic. Maybe it's because I was on the defensive. The mother was open-minded and curious, the boy knowledgeable and intelligent, the father realistic and skeptical -- rightfully so, we discover. These are traits not all cultures admire, but the West does, and I think all of us do, too. The tour guide was arrogant, racist, overly religious (IMHO), and deceitful. So now I've talked my way from "stereotypical" to "nuanced." But there was still a heavy enough dose of ugly American to put me off.
The mother was curious, but short-sited, ignorant, and a little dim. She at least gets points for asking questions, even if the answers go whizzing right over her head.Obviously, that is true, and that is the part I found personally insulting and uninteresting.
The son only demonstrated an 8th grade education, was rude, whiny, and terribly disrespectful to everyone. His only interest in speaking up was to correct his father and listen to stories of carnage.
The father was arrogant, ignorant, pompous, and a jackass. He didn't give a rat's ass about being there or seeing anything. My guess is he would have been a whole lot happier back at the hotel bar hitting on the Venusian waitresses, but his dim-bulb wife whined until he capitulated.
I really don't see how those are positive traits in any culture.
In America there is a growing persecution of anyone who exhibits any kind of religion. The tour guide wasn't overly religious; in fact he was barely religious. Mistaking "religious" for "overly religious" happens a lot and is something I imagine a lot of the Christians on this board can relate to. Though not a Christian myself, I have several friends who are and often get thwacked about the head and neck whenever they stand firm on any kind of religious issue.
This probably doesn't apply to EP listeners, because I think we're all a little too hip to fall for it, but it's out there. I admit it's pretty sneaky, but anti-religious sentiment is common and becoming more so, but I wasn't aware of it until recently.In America there is a growing persecution of anyone who exhibits any kind of religion. The tour guide wasn't overly religious; in fact he was barely religious. Mistaking "religious" for "overly religious" happens a lot and is something I imagine a lot of the Christians on this board can relate to. Though not a Christian myself, I have several friends who are and often get thwacked about the head and neck whenever they stand firm on any kind of religious issue.I don't see that in real life, but I do see it in SF. It's long been one of my pet peeves that in 90% of SF the only bad guys are ever practicing members of traditional religions. I'm not foaming at the mouth religious myself, but I'm mostly Catholic. I think the almost complete lack of sympathetic people of faith in SF is a distortion of reality.
I think that perception is mostly due to a concerted effort in the media to portray Christians in that light for the last few decades. The mean, hateful "God-hates-fags" people are really a tiny minority, but the cameras always focus on them when they come out.
I think that perception is mostly due to a concerted effort in the media to portray Christians in that light for the last few decades. The mean, hateful "God-hates-fags" people are really a tiny minority, but the cameras always focus on them when they come out. Christians in all fiction (not just sci-fi) have largely played stock roles as ignorant, supersitious fools in need of enlightenment or as crazed fanatics in need of restraint. (Compare that with the concerted media effort to make Islam seem cool since 9/11.)
I'm going to go off on a little tangent here and say that I think all the talk about "tollerance" and "diversity" is really creating a new religion. A religion which embraces both Christ and Buddha is neither Christianity nor Buddhism: It's something else. It is not intelllecually honest to claim both Christ and Buddha, because they offer different routes to salvation. The only way you can claim both is treat both as mere fiction, which is exactly the tennant that this New Religion holds: It's all fiction. You can embrace everything because none of it has any substance anyway.
If I am to respect a person with a different religion then I have to be honest and say that his/her religion is wrong. If I claim that our religions are equal, what I have really done is call his/her religion a fantasy without substance. You can only embrace both if neither is real.
Is it cool to go off-topic? I'm new here. Is that rude?
.
Where I live, people I think of as "blindly religious" are far from a tiny minority.
Now I'm taking it further off-topic.
Maybe we should start another thread.....
I don't think that defining marriage as male-female has anything to do with either intollerance or blind belief. There's a lot more to the argument than that and homophobia need not enter into it.How is denying same sex marriage about anything but homophobia? I would really like to know your arguements.
"The capacity for or the practice of recongizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others."No where does DKT's definition mean that you have to agree either.
Now, when people say it, they usually mean that you must accept other people's belliefs and behviors as right.This is likely just the company you keep.
If I am to respect a person with a different religion then I have to be honest and say that his/her religion is wrong.I'm not exactly sure what you meant by this. Are you saying that you personally can only respect a Buddist if you personally think his is wrong and bound for Hell?
My only answer is, "Yeah? Well, I was talking to God just this afternoon and He didn't say anything about that to me -- and come to think of it, He never mentioned -you- at all."
-- Mike Resnick
...they are asking for the state to formally endorse and sanction their behaviorWe will have to simply disagree about your interpretation of the reason for gay marriage.
Long after listening, I realized that the Tour Guide reminded me of Kif from Futurama - except that his was not funny.
(though I remember laughing out loud at some the idiotic things the father said)
Long after listening, I realized that the Tour Guide reminded me of Kif from Futurama - except that his was not funny.
(though I remember laughing out loud at some the idiotic things the father said)
There was a Kif-esque tone to the narration, wasn't there? In accent and the cadence.
...That vocal choice makes a lot of sense, now that I think about it...
If you all think he resembles Kif of Futurama, then probably he does -- but the author confesses to having no idea who or what Kif and Futurama are.
-- Mike Resnick
But after skimming this topic, what this seems to boil down to is that it's not the story itself that was controversial, but the dominant-culture guilt (or resentment thereof) that it triggered.
That poem [Shelley's "Ozymandias"], and "The 43 Antarean Dynasties," hit a nerve for me. They're about the entropy of history and the universe -- and also about fighting that entropy. To me this is a core of life.