EP165: Those Eyes

[Sandikal]

I really, really liked this story.  Of course, I'm a big David Brin fan.  He's got such great ideas.

That said, I think I actually thought of this idea (space aliens and fae folk being the same thing) myself about 20 years ago.  Now, this story was published in 1994, so I could have read it and forgotten I read it, but I don't think so.  It's not told in any way I would remember.

BTW, is David Brin EVER going to write another book?  He hasn't had a new novel out since "Kiln People."  I think that was in 2001 or 2002.

[ajames]

...and still another to tell him that he needs to think just like you do, or he is an idiot.

Fixed that for you.

Heh - good one. Made me laugh. 

[stePH]

Oh, and I've wondered about that movie The Postman by Kevin Costner, that Brin got paid for. 

Somebody once told me "it's like Waterworld on land ... Landworld."

[Darwinist]

Oh, and I've wondered about that movie The Postman by Kevin Costner, that Brin got paid for. 

Somebody once told me "it's like Waterworld on land ... Landworld."

I seem to recall that Brin gave a positive review of the movie after attending the premier.  I loved the book and was excited to see the movie, I saw it on opening night.  I was pissed that the movie strayed from the book and it turned in to a Costner pukefest.   Landworld, indeed.   

[Darwinist]

Oh, and I've wondered about that movie The Postman by Kevin Costner, that Brin got paid for. 

Somebody once told me "it's like Waterworld on land ... Landworld."

From Wikipedia:

The Postman (1985) Originally appeared, in substantially different form, as a three-part novella in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine. (Filmed by Kevin Costner as a major motion picture with disappointing box-office numbers; Brin has spoken kindly of the film, a generosity shown by few of his fans, who found it deeply disappointing.)

and...

The Postman received generally negative reviews, faring only 10% on RottenTomatoes.com. The New York Times gave a scathing review criticizing the movie for its "bogus sentimentality" and "mawkish jingoism".[3] Roger Ebert described The Postman as "good-hearted" yet "goofy... and pretentious". However, Ebert recognized the movie as a failed parable, for which he said the viewers "shouldn't blame them for trying".

[Talia]

I have to confess, I liked Waterworld. me and about 2 other people in the world, I think. Heh heh.

In regards to David Brin, it looks like he released a young adult novel called Sky Horizon last year, and per a post he made on Amazon this past April, "Yes, I've been slow producing, lately.  Hoping that... and civilization... will change. Meanwhile... coming this summer... there will be a small "Brin book."  An idiosyncratic, self-indulgent little thing."

so there's your Brin update

[Void Munashii]

I have to confess, I liked Waterworld. me and about 2 other people in the world, I think. Heh heh.

  I wouldn't say I liked it, but it was fun in the way bad movies like "Drive-Thru" and "Count Yorga, Vampire" are.

[Russell Nash]

I have to confess, I liked Waterworld. me and about 2 other people in the world, I think. Heh heh.

  I wouldn't say I liked it, but it was fun in the way bad movies like "Drive-Thru" and "Count Yorga, Vampire" are.

I wasn't too annoyed until the end.  Up to that point I was OK with it.

[birdless]

I have to confess, I liked Waterworld. me and about 2 other people in the world, I think. Heh heh.

I enjoyed it, too, Talia. I may have not cast Kevin Costner, but i enjoyed the story, but i'm kind of a sucker for postapocalyptic stuff. I didn't even hate the Postman, though i only remember seeing it once and i don't really recall anything about it.

[DKT]

I've never quite gotten the hate for Costner.  I thought Waterworld was fun.  I didn't like the Postman, but I have seen worse movies.  And Costner's done some really good work.  The Untouchables, Dances with Wolves, Field of Dreams are all top-notch in my book.  (Although, admittedly, it's been a while. The last good thing I can think of that he was in was The Upside of Anger...)

[birdless]

I've never quite gotten the hate for Costner.  I thought Waterworld was fun.  I didn't like the Postman, but I have seen worse movies.  And Costner's done some really good work.  The Untouchables, Dances with Wolves, Field of Dreams are all top-notch in my book.  (Although, admittedly, it's been a while. The last good thing I can think of that he was in was The Upside of Anger...)

True, those three are all great movies. But i felt you could have switched Costner and Keanu Reeves in Waterworld and not been able to tell a difference, but maybe that was just the way the character in the movie was supposed to be. He didn't ruin it for me by any means, though.

[Nobilis]

The story didn't really jazz me, but I *really* liked Steve's commentary at the end.

[ChiliFan]

I really liked the tag team reading, especially the alien voice. I think the story had great potential, but fizzled out at the end. I'd have liked the ending to be the aliens proving they existed, but taking some kind of revenge for the radio talkshow host who didn't believe in them. It should be obvious to everyone that aliens exist, even if they look nothing like us. They could be like hot air balloons floating in gas giant planets, feeding off the atmosphere.

[Russell Nash]

It should be obvious to everyone that aliens exist, even if they look nothing like us. They could be like hot air balloons floating in gas giant planets, feeding off the atmosphere.

2001 or 2010?

[wintermute]

I'd have liked the ending to be the aliens proving they existed, but taking some kind of revenge for the radio talkshow host who didn't believe in them. It should be obvious to everyone that aliens exist, even if they look nothing like us. They could be like hot air balloons floating in gas giant planets, feeding off the atmosphere.

But the talkshow host admitted that he believed that aliens exist! He just didn't believe that they were visiting Earth. Plus, the "aliens" weren't actually alien, so I'm not sure what your point is.

[stePH]

I'd have liked the ending to be the aliens proving they existed, but taking some kind of revenge for the radio talkshow host who didn't believe in them. It should be obvious to everyone that aliens exist, even if they look nothing like us. They could be like hot air balloons floating in gas giant planets, feeding off the atmosphere.

But the talkshow host admitted that he believed that aliens exist!

Could exist.  He was willing to believe, if shown convincing evidence.

[wintermute]

I'd have to re-listen to it to be sure, but I'm pretty sure he accepted life on other planets as a given. Maybe I'm misremembering.

[Listener]

I have to confess, I liked Waterworld. me and about 2 other people in the world, I think. Heh heh.

I didn't hate it.

[Planish]

I think I would have liked this story, but the effects on Anna's voice made me miss half of what she was saying, even after a second listen.
That being said, I didn't get the explanations of why they wanted to leave signs but not "land on the White House lawn"; I didn't get the business with heat; and there seemed to be a reference to iron, which I took to mean something to do with the notion that Faerie Folk cannot abide "cold iron".

btw, is a clicker used to mark cut points? there's a repeated half sentence with a click-clack around minute 27.

That is a popular practise with reader for librivox.org. Not only does the sound stand out when you listen to it, but it also makes a pair of easily-recognised visual spikes in the waveform when you edit the sound file.

About Costner movies: I find that I usually like all the other characters in them, but not Costner's. (Graham Greene and Maury Chaykin in Dances With Wolves, Dennis Quaid as Doc Holliday in Wyatt Earp, Alan Rickman and Morgan Freeman in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves).

[ajames]

I've never quite gotten the hate for Costner.  I thought Waterworld was fun.  I didn't like the Postman, but I have seen worse movies.  And Costner's done some really good work.  The Untouchables, Dances with Wolves, Field of Dreams are all top-notch in my book.  (Although, admittedly, it's been a while. The last good thing I can think of that he was in was The Upside of Anger...)

.

I think the hate comes from his off-screen image. A couple of other good movies he's been in are Bull Durham and No Way Out. I haven't seen The Postman or Waterworld, and probably never will. Same goes for Tin Cup.

[eytanz]

So, I'm a bit late with the feedback this week - I'm on holiday and my internet connection is spotty at best - but here goes:

I liked this story, but didn't love it. I liked the dual reading, and I liked the premise - that UFO "aliens" are really not aliens at all in any real sense, but deeply familiar, just a new form of the same creatures that have always lived at the edge of our existence - and that, indeed, living at the edge of our existence is their nature. And I liked the interplay between the two views on the same topic. But on the other hand, as some others in this forum occasionally bring up, it's best to show, not tell, and in this story, not only were we being continuously told stuff, we were continuously being told the same stuff twice. From two different perspectives, but still. I know this story was designed that way, and it worked, but it just wasn't entirely engaging.

[Planish]

Oh yeah. there was something in the story about engineers working in Area 51 not blurting out "the Truth" about UFO technology.

That is what Bob Lazar claimed to be involved in - reverse engineering stuff found in recovered disc-shaft crafts from Zeta-Reticuli.

[errant371]

The thing that has really pissed me off is Steve's argument of tolerance for idiocy. Yes, we should always treat people with respect. But that doesn't mean that their ideas are worthy of respect. I shouldn't have to respect the governor of Louisiana with respect when he says that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. I don't need to tolerate scam artists who say that can cure diabetes with cane sugar. People like Carl Sagan and James Randi can be abrasive at times, but they know what they're talking about.

Now I understand that some atheists and skeptics can be assholes, but that doesn't mean that most paranormal believers aren't idiots.

Well put.

As Aliester Crowley stated, you can't teach calculus to pygmies.

That's just plain wrong. Although hunter-gatherer lifestyles often preclude abstract pursuits,...

I think that's more what Mad Aleister was getting at, but it could have been put better.

With all the nested quotes it is hard to tell you made the comment I put into bold, and it is that comment that I would like to comment on (wow, whole lot o' comments there). 

Actually, hunter/gatherer lifestyles to not preclude abstract pursuits, infact, they encourage them.  The amount of time needed to find and prepare food, even in marginal environments, is much, much less strenuous than early argiculture, pastoral or herding was.  Studies (sadly I have no sources to cite for you, they are buried in my boxes and boxes of books) with the remaining stone age and hunter/gatherer peoples (mostly in places like equitorial Africa, New Guineia, the Amazon) show that on average the tribespeople had anywhere from 8-15 hours of free (as defined by hours that were not spent sleeping, preparing/gathering food/camp maintenance etc) time on any particular day.  And these are harsh environments.  Subsistance farming tribes on the other hand, has only 3-5 hours of free time in more friendly environments.  There are several arguments that it was the hunter/gatherer lifestyle that allowed early humans to create things like art, religion, storytelling (language), complex mythologies and rituals.  What we think of as complex society was only accomplished after the division of labour allowed different castes to form (where you would have farmers toiling for 16-18 hours a day to produce food for priestly castes etc).  In comparison to modern Westernized humans, the hunter/gatherer lifestyle allows for much greater amounts of free time.

[wintermute]

anywhere from 8-15 hours of free(as defined by hours that were not spent sleeping, preparing/gathering food/camp maintenance etc) time on any particular day.

By that definition "15 hours of free time per day" means that you're doing absolutely nothing except sleeping and eating. Which is nice work if you can get it. On the other hand, having 8 hours free a day (assuming 8 hours of sleep) works out to a 55 hour work week. Better than subsistence farmers, but worse than most people in the developed world. So that's quite a variance.

Again, I have no cites off the top of my head, but I was under the impression that the studies showing something like a 20-hour work week for hunter-gatherers only counted time spent hunting, preparing food, and other things that were directly related to survival; ad that when they added in the time people spent creating and maintaining tools, weapons and clothing, they had closer to a 40- or 50-hour work week. So about as much free time as the middle classes have always tended to have.

Of course, if anyone can cite real numbers, rather than half-remembered guesses, that would probably help a lot.

[errant371]

anywhere from 8-15 hours of free(as defined by hours that were not spent sleeping, preparing/gathering food/camp maintenance etc) time on any particular day.

By that definition "15 hours of free time per day" means that you're doing absolutely nothing except sleeping and eating. Which is nice work if you can get it. On the other hand, having 8 hours free a day (assuming 8 hours of sleep) works out to a 55 hour work week. Better than subsistence farmers, but worse than most people in the developed world. So that's quite a variance.

Again, I have no cites off the top of my head, but I was under the impression that the studies showing something like a 20-hour work week for hunter-gatherers only counted time spent hunting, preparing food, and other things that were directly related to survival; ad that when they added in the time people spent creating and maintaining tools, weapons and clothing, they had closer to a 40- or 50-hour work week. So about as much free time as the middle classes have always tended to have.

Of course, if anyone can cite real numbers, rather than half-remembered guesses, that would probably help a lot.

Fair enough.  The middle class does have a fairly high porportion of free time, hence things like discussion forums, video game industries, movies etc!  Increased automation in our lives has freed up more time as well (although, strangely enough, working hours for the middle class are again shrinking due to external economic pressures).  All I had really meant to do was point out that hunter/gatherers have much more free time than most people expect, enough at least to originate art, burial practices, complex mythologies etc.  I would peg your estimate of 40-50 hour work week a bit lower, since a lot of the tasks are accomplished communally (like scraping hides, preparing thatched roofs, etc) and benefit from the "many hands, less work" principle.  Tools and weapons tend to be fairly simple, however, and take less time than we expect for that.  Perhaps I used to many "much"s. 

They certainly had more free time than agriculturalists, though.  I think we can agree on that.