Here's a plug for my 200th movie review, covering a '70s TV adaptation of a classic novella from Astounding. I give a little further discussion of the novella, though I really haven't had the heart to go back to it. One thing I didn't mention, I recall that the backstory puts the origins of a possessing entity millions of years in the past, which in further hindsight is more or less a Lovecraftian touch. Anybody else remember the story or the movie?
https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-rerun-review-first-one-with-killer.html
David N. Brown
Mesa Arizona

In article <671dbbfc-d201-4a59-a41d-eec3d4eb5af8n@googlegroups.com>,
pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 3:45:06 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>> Here's a plug for my 200th movie review, covering a '70s TV adaptation
>of a classic novella from Astounding. I give a little further discussion
>of the novella, though I really haven't had the heart to go back to it.
>One thing I didn't mention, I recall that the backstory puts the origins
>of a possessing entity millions of years in the past, which in further
>hindsight is more or less a Lovecraftian touch. Anybody else remember
>the story or the movie?
>>
>https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-rerun-review-first-one-with-killer.html
>
>The story, yes. Never saw the movie.

Ditto. I have the story somewhere in one of those 3-inch-thick
anthologies by Groff Conklin; have not read in decades and I
don't *think* I liked it.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 12:45:03 -0800 (PST), David Brown
<davidnbrown80@gmail.com> wrote:

>Here's a plug for my 200th movie review, covering a '70s TV adaptation of a classic novella from Astounding. I give a little further discussion of the novella, though I really haven't had the heart to go back to it. One thing I didn't mention, I recall that the backstory puts the origins of a possessing entity millions of years in the past, which in further hindsight is more or less a Lovecraftian touch. Anybody else remember the story or the movie?
>https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-rerun-review-first-one-with-killer.html
>David N. Brown
>Mesa Arizona

For those that want to watch the movie, here it is:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x73k8kj

The book doesn't exactly mention when the mutant thingy was created.
It says:

"Before the race was the deluge, and before the deluge another race,
whose nature it is not for mankind to understand. Not unearthly, not
alien, for this was their earth and their home."

then later we get a mention of "turbulent eons that followed". So lots
and lots of time.

The book is better than the movie but the movie is fun.

On 16/02/2022 14.58, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 04:45:51 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
>>> https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-rerun-review-first-one-with-killer.html
>>>
>>> The story, yes. Never saw the movie.
>>
>> Ditto. I have the story somewhere in one of those 3-inch-thick
>> anthologies by Groff Conklin; have not read in decades and I
>> don't *think* I liked it.
>
> Conklin's anthologies weren't all 3" thick - the first SF book I ever
> bought was one of those and it was paperback (I think 5"x7") and only
> 1" thick. I would have been 12-13 at the time back in the late 60s...

I have nine of his anthologies on my shelf, because I've liked every
one that I've read. Standard MMPB aspect ratio, with a total thickness
of 9 7/8", for an average of 0.54" each.

However, this one:
<http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?4111>
appears to be the one to which Dorothy was referring. Check the boxes:
1. Edited by Conklin
2. 800+ pages
3. Contains "Killdozer"

<want>

--
Michael F. Stemper
No animals were harmed in the composition of this message.

In article <3apq0h13q4m0mjcuq112hheh23275sbmdd@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 04:45:51 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>>https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-rerun-review-first-one-with-killer.html
>>>
>>>The story, yes. Never saw the movie.
>>
>>Ditto. I have the story somewhere in one of those 3-inch-thick
>>anthologies by Groff Conklin; have not read in decades and I
>>don't *think* I liked it.
>
>Conklin's anthologies weren't all 3" thick - the first SF book I ever
>bought was one of those and it was paperback (I think 5"x7") and only
>1" thick. I would have been 12-13 at the time back in the late 60s...

Well, mine are hardbacks, from the early 50s, and if not a full 3
inches, maybe 2.75". :) Thick paper.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

In article <sujqcm$nqt$1@dont-email.me>,
Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 16/02/2022 14.58, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 04:45:51 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>> Heydt) wrote:
>>
>>>>
>https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-rerun-review-first-one-with-killer.html
>>>>
>>>> The story, yes. Never saw the movie.
>>>
>>> Ditto. I have the story somewhere in one of those 3-inch-thick
>>> anthologies by Groff Conklin; have not read in decades and I
>>> don't *think* I liked it.
>>
>> Conklin's anthologies weren't all 3" thick - the first SF book I ever
>> bought was one of those and it was paperback (I think 5"x7") and only
>> 1" thick. I would have been 12-13 at the time back in the late 60s...
>
>I have nine of his anthologies on my shelf, because I've liked every
>one that I've read. Standard MMPB aspect ratio, with a total thickness
>of 9 7/8", for an average of 0.54" each.
>
>However, this one:
><http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?4111>
>appears to be the one to which Dorothy was referring. Check the boxes:
>1. Edited by Conklin
>2. 800+ pages
>3. Contains "Killdozer"

Sounds like it. What's the date on it?

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

In article <r7F57r.1txz@kithrup.com>,
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <sujqcm$nqt$1@dont-email.me>,
>Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 16/02/2022 14.58, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 04:45:51 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>>> Heydt) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-rerun-review-first-one-with-killer.html
>>>>>
>>>>> The story, yes. Never saw the movie.
>>>>
>>>> Ditto. I have the story somewhere in one of those 3-inch-thick
>>>> anthologies by Groff Conklin; have not read in decades and I
>>>> don't *think* I liked it.
>>>
>>> Conklin's anthologies weren't all 3" thick - the first SF book I ever
>>> bought was one of those and it was paperback (I think 5"x7") and only
>>> 1" thick. I would have been 12-13 at the time back in the late 60s...
>>
>>I have nine of his anthologies on my shelf, because I've liked every
>>one that I've read. Standard MMPB aspect ratio, with a total thickness
>>of 9 7/8", for an average of 0.54" each.
>>
>>However, this one:
>><http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?4111>
>>appears to be the one to which Dorothy was referring. Check the boxes:
>>1. Edited by Conklin
>>2. 800+ pages
>>3. Contains "Killdozer"
>
>Sounds like it. What's the date on it?

/follows link

1946. Wow. My mother must have bought that for herself; I *was*
reading at four, but only barely.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

In article <sujqcm$nqt$1@dont-email.me>,
"Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 16/02/2022 14.58, The Horny Goat wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 04:45:51 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> > Heydt) wrote:
> >
> >>> https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-rerun-review-first-one-with
> >>> -killer.html
> >>>
> >>> The story, yes. Never saw the movie.
> >>
> >> Ditto. I have the story somewhere in one of those 3-inch-thick
> >> anthologies by Groff Conklin; have not read in decades and I
> >> don't *think* I liked it.
> >
> > Conklin's anthologies weren't all 3" thick - the first SF book I ever
> > bought was one of those and it was paperback (I think 5"x7") and only
> > 1" thick. I would have been 12-13 at the time back in the late 60s...
>
> I have nine of his anthologies on my shelf, because I've liked every
> one that I've read. Standard MMPB aspect ratio, with a total thickness
> of 9 7/8", for an average of 0.54" each.
>
> However, this one:
> <http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?4111>
> appears to be the one to which Dorothy was referring. Check the boxes:
> 1. Edited by Conklin
> 2. 800+ pages
> 3. Contains "Killdozer"
>

It also contains "Universe" and "Solution Unsatisfactory" (BTW, both of
which appeared in the May 1941 issue of Astounding).

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

In article <522s0h5a3k7il9nr27musij79e18f2eoo3@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 02:44:48 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>1946. Wow. My mother must have bought that for herself; I *was*
>>reading at four, but only barely.
>
>So was I but not science fiction. I was 11 or 12 before I read that
>and I've already mentioned I had a crush on Arkady Darrell of Second
>Foundation in those tender years....50 years later I still think both
>her and her grandmother were two of Asimov's best characters. (Not
>that him or Heinlein were any good at writing female characters!)
>
>The actual Second Foundationers meh - particularly when they talked
>about their 'analytic rule' - if Asimov had been TRULY prescient he
>would instead have talked of something like the iPhone 5 with voice
>input. Even in 1953 (when Second Foundation was written) something
>like the talking Star Trek computer should have been foreseeable some
>10000+ years in the future. (Asimov never said how many years
>Foundation was set ahead in the future but that's my minimum guess for
>a galaxy wide civilization where the location of Earth was forgotten)

Oh, I dunno. Remember how the Prime Radiant, with the entire
Plan in it, is contained in a handheld that projects on a wall?
>

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:30:56 AM UTC-5, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <522s0h5a3k7il9nr2...@4ax.com>,
> The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
> >On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 02:44:48 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> >Heydt) wrote:
> >
> >>1946. Wow. My mother must have bought that for herself; I *was*
> >>reading at four, but only barely.
> >
> >So was I but not science fiction. I was 11 or 12 before I read that
> >and I've already mentioned I had a crush on Arkady Darrell of Second
> >Foundation in those tender years....50 years later I still think both
> >her and her grandmother were two of Asimov's best characters. (Not
> >that him or Heinlein were any good at writing female characters!)
> >
> >The actual Second Foundationers meh - particularly when they talked
> >about their 'analytic rule' - if Asimov had been TRULY prescient he
> >would instead have talked of something like the iPhone 5 with voice
> >input. Even in 1953 (when Second Foundation was written) something
> >like the talking Star Trek computer should have been foreseeable some
> >10000+ years in the future. (Asimov never said how many years
> >Foundation was set ahead in the future but that's my minimum guess for
> >a galaxy wide civilization where the location of Earth was forgotten)
> Oh, I dunno. Remember how the Prime Radiant, with the entire
> Plan in it, is contained in a handheld that projects on a wall?

By 1956, Multivac, in 'The Last Question', has voice input.

pt

On 17/02/2022 02.48, The Horny Goat wrote:

> The actual Second Foundationers meh - particularly when they talked
> about their 'analytic rule' -

You've mentioned this phrase previously. Although I have read the
trilogy scores of times, I can't think of what it means. Would you
please elaborate?

--
Michael F. Stemper
This sentence no verb.

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 12:30:11 PM UTC-5, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 17/02/2022 02.48, The Horny Goat wrote:
>
> > The actual Second Foundationers meh - particularly when they talked
> > about their 'analytic rule' -
> You've mentioned this phrase previously. Although I have read the
> trilogy scores of times, I can't think of what it means. Would you
> please elaborate?
>
> --
Analytic rule ~= jumped up slide rule.

--
Kevin R

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 12:30:11 PM UTC-5, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 17/02/2022 02.48, The Horny Goat wrote:
>
> > The actual Second Foundationers meh - particularly when they talked
> > about their 'analytic rule' -
> You've mentioned this phrase previously. Although I have read the
> trilogy scores of times, I can't think of what it means. Would you
> please elaborate?

Quote from "And Now You Don't", 1944, a story that was later incorporated into _Second Foundation_.
Astounding Science Fictionj, 1944, no. 3, page 29:
https://archive.org/details/AstoundingScienceFictionv44n3/page/n27/mode/2up?q=asimov+analytical+rule

> "Would you use my Analytical Rule, sir, to check my statement?"
> The Analytical Rule might be considered a distant relation -- as a skyscraper is to a shack
> -- of that kindergarten toy, the logarithmic Slide Rule. Darell used it with the wristflip of
> long practice. He made freehand drawings of the result and, as Anthor stated, there were
> featureless plateaus in frontal lobe regions where strong swings should have been
> expected.

On 17/02/2022 12.26, Ross Presser wrote:
> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 12:30:11 PM UTC-5, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> On 17/02/2022 02.48, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>
>>> The actual Second Foundationers meh - particularly when they talked
>>> about their 'analytic rule' -
>> You've mentioned this phrase previously. Although I have read the
>> trilogy scores of times, I can't think of what it means. Would you
>> please elaborate?
>
> Quote from "And Now You Don't", 1944, a story that was later incorporated into _Second Foundation_.
> Astounding Science Fictionj, 1944, no. 3, page 29:
> https://archive.org/details/AstoundingScienceFictionv44n3/page/n27/mode/2up?q=asimov+analytical+rule
>
>> "Would you use my Analytical Rule, sir, to check my statement?"
>> The Analytical Rule might be considered a distant relation -- as a skyscraper is to a shack
>> -- of that kindergarten toy, the logarithmic Slide Rule. Darell used it with the wristflip of
>> long practice. He made freehand drawings of the result and, as Anthor stated, there were
>> featureless plateaus in frontal lobe regions where strong swings should have been
>> expected.

Okay, that refreshes my memory. Thanks.

I had the dual misunderstandings that it was:
1. A "rule" in the sense of the axioms of psychohistory
2. Something folks from the Second Foundation talked about

--
Michael F. Stemper
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.

On 2/17/2022 2:01 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 11:30:06 -0600, "Michael F. Stemper"
> <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17/02/2022 02.48, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>
>>> The actual Second Foundationers meh - particularly when they talked
>>> about their 'analytic rule' -
>>
>> You've mentioned this phrase previously. Although I have read the
>> trilogy scores of times, I can't think of what it means. Would you
>> please elaborate?
>
> Asimov was talking about a super duper futuristic slide rule

Isn't that an app on some of the lesser, dumbed down phones now? :P

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.