On 2022-11-24 20:10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 11/24/2022 3:45 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 5:31:18 AM UTC-7, jack....@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see why some episodes of Star Trek shouldn't be mil-sf.
>>> It was an anthology show. Should there be some tortured definition
>>> of comedy so that "The Trouble with Tribbles" isn't one?
>>
>> Star Trek made history precisely because it _wasn't_ an "anthology show";
>> it had _continuing characters_, unlike The Twilight Zone, The Outer
>> Limits,
>> and Playhouse 90.
>>
>> It certainly is true, though, that it was built around individual
>> episodes,
>> not long story arcs.
>>
>> While "The Trouble with Tribbles" definitely was comedy, and so was
>> "A Piece of the Action", I think that by the _usual_ "definition" of
>> mil-sf,
>> nothing in Star Trek would really qualify.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> Star Trek got canceled because it was the most expensive show in TV.
> Desilu could not take the risk and so let it go.

Do you ever get anything right?

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 5:31:18 AM UTC-7, jack....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I don't see why some episodes of Star Trek shouldn't be mil-sf.
>> It was an anthology show. Should there be some tortured definition
>> of comedy so that "The Trouble with Tribbles" isn't one?
>
> Star Trek made history precisely because it _wasn't_ an "anthology show";
> it had _continuing characters_, unlike The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits,
> and Playhouse 90.
>
> It certainly is true, though, that it was built around individual episodes,
> not long story arcs.
>
> While "The Trouble with Tribbles" definitely was comedy,

With some military comedy included. Kirk dressing down Scotty and
the rest for getting into a bar brawl with the Klingons definitely
qualifies (especially regarding the motivation for the fight :-)

>and so was
> "A Piece of the Action", I think that by the _usual_ "definition" of mil-sf,
> nothing in Star Trek would really qualify.

The Dominion War had some arcs which were primarily (it not totally)
military SF.

On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 4:30:42 PM UTC-7, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> news:491b33bc-bccc-4fcf...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 5:31:18 AM UTC-7,
> > jack....@gmail.com wrote:

> >> I don't see why some episodes of Star Trek shouldn't be mil-sf.
> >> It was an anthology show. Should there be some tortured
> >> definition of comedy so that "The Trouble with Tribbles" isn't
> >> one?

> > Star Trek made history precisely because it _wasn't_ an
> > "anthology show"; it had _continuing characters_, unlike The
> > Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, and Playhouse 90.

> Virtually every television show prior to Star Trek had continuing
> characters.

Yes, that's right.

But the only science-fiction shows with continuing characters
made before Star Trek were kid stuff. There was serious science
fiction on TV before Star Trek - but *only* in the form of anthology
shows like The Outer Limits, and therefore it did not reach a mass
audience.

This point is specifically mentioned in "The Making of Star Trek"
by Stephen E. Whitfield.

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:ea0f0b46-e101-449e-8b52-1191ebcbe640n@googlegroups.com:

> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 4:30:42 PM UTC-7, Ninapenda
> Jibini wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> news:491b33bc-bccc-4fcf...@googlegroups.com:
>> > On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 5:31:18 AM UTC-7,
>> > jack....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> >> I don't see why some episodes of Star Trek shouldn't be
>> >> mil-sf. It was an anthology show. Should there be some
>> >> tortured definition of comedy so that "The Trouble with
>> >> Tribbles" isn't one?
>
>> > Star Trek made history precisely because it _wasn't_ an
>> > "anthology show"; it had _continuing characters_, unlike The
>> > Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, and Playhouse 90.
>
>> Virtually every television show prior to Star Trek had
>> continuing characters.
>
> Yes, that's right.
>
> But the only science-fiction shows with continuing characters
> made before Star Trek were kid stuff. There was serious science
> fiction on TV before Star Trek - but *only* in the form of
> anthology shows like The Outer Limits, and therefore it did not
> reach a mass audience.

My Favorite Martian ended the same year Star Trek started. Dr. Who
started two years earlier, though I supposed you could quibble
about "not in the US." Space Patrol (the US version) started 16
years before Star Trek. The UK version started three years before.
Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea started two years earlier. Lost in
Space predates Star Trek by a year (though one could easily quibble
that isn't science fiction so much as fantasy, or just stupid). The
Time Tunnel was the same year. The Avengers was unquestionably
science fiction, at least a times, and started in 1961. Some of
that could be classified as "kid's stuff," I suppose, but not all,
and most of it was aimed at adults as much as children. Certainly
not The Avengers. (Have you ever seen the Hellfire Club episode? If
you try to claim with a straight face that's "kid stuff", you
should be committed for your own safety.)

That took me all of five seconds to find, four of which were
waiting for the browser to open and Google to load. I suspect there
are other examples, as well. SciFi was very popular in the late 50s
and early 60s, at least in part due to the fascination the public
had with the burgeoning space program.
>
> This point is specifically mentioned in "The Making of Star
> Trek" by Stephen E. Whitfield.
>
His statement appears to contain more ego than fact. Infinitely
more, given the fact content sppears to be zero.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:ea0f0b46-e101-449e-8b52-1191ebcbe640n@googlegroups.com:

> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 4:30:42 PM UTC-7, Ninapenda
> Jibini wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> news:491b33bc-bccc-4fcf...@googlegroups.com:
>> > On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 5:31:18 AM UTC-7,
>> > jack....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> >> I don't see why some episodes of Star Trek shouldn't be
>> >> mil-sf. It was an anthology show. Should there be some
>> >> tortured definition of comedy so that "The Trouble with
>> >> Tribbles" isn't one?
>
>> > Star Trek made history precisely because it _wasn't_ an
>> > "anthology show"; it had _continuing characters_, unlike The
>> > Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, and Playhouse 90.
>
>> Virtually every television show prior to Star Trek had
>> continuing characters.
>
> Yes, that's right.
>
> But the only science-fiction shows with continuing characters
> made before Star Trek were kid stuff. There was serious science
> fiction on TV before Star Trek - but *only* in the form of
> anthology shows like The Outer Limits, and therefore it did not
> reach a mass audience.
>
> This point is specifically mentioned in "The Making of Star
> Trek" by Stephen E. Whitfield.
>
> John Savard

BTW, did you know that there were four episodes of ST:TOS that were
banned in the UK for years because the show was considered a
children's program, and they were deemed too intense of minors?

https://fanlore.org/wiki/The_Four_Banned_Star_Trek:
_TOS_Episodes_in_the_UK

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
news:tlpf76$mrj$1@gioia.aioe.org:

> On 11/24/2022 3:45 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 5:31:18 AM UTC-7,
>> jack....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see why some episodes of Star Trek shouldn't be
>>> mil-sf. It was an anthology show. Should there be some
>>> tortured definition of comedy so that "The Trouble with
>>> Tribbles" isn't one?
>>
>> Star Trek made history precisely because it _wasn't_ an
>> "anthology show"; it had _continuing characters_, unlike The
>> Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, and Playhouse 90.
>>
>> It certainly is true, though, that it was built around
>> individual episodes, not long story arcs.
>>
>> While "The Trouble with Tribbles" definitely was comedy, and so
>> was "A Piece of the Action", I think that by the _usual_
>> "definition" of mil-sf, nothing in Star Trek would really
>> qualify.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> Star Trek got canceled because it was the most expensive show in
> TV. Desilu could not take the risk and so let it go.
>
No. That isn't why it was cancelled, and it wasn't the most
expensive show in Television. Bonanza cost more, as did The
Virginian. Of the eight most expensive shows in the 60s and 70s,
Star Trek ranks #7.

It was cancelled because the ratings were dropping, because a) it
was stuffed into one of the worst time slots on Friday nights, and
b) Roddenberry stopped being actively involved as (what today would
be called) show runner[1], Gene L. Coon had died, and the people
running the show didn't really know all that much about it. Which
is why the ratings dropped (even more than they would have with a
Friday night slot) By most accounts, it was about mid range in cost
for the time.

[1]He was promised a prime Monday night time slot, which would have
brought in a much bigger potential audience, but Laugh In's
producer had a lot more pull with the networks. I don't think it's
entirely unreasonable to consider Roddenberry's reaction to be a
bit of a snit, though he had a point about avoiding a reputation
for "giving in."

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 5:45:13 PM UTC+11, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 4:30:42 PM UTC-7, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> > news:491b33bc-bccc-4fcf...@googlegroups.com:
> > > On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 5:31:18 AM UTC-7,
> > > jack....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >> I don't see why some episodes of Star Trek shouldn't be mil-sf.
> > >> It was an anthology show. Should there be some tortured
> > >> definition of comedy so that "The Trouble with Tribbles" isn't
> > >> one?
>
> > > Star Trek made history precisely because it _wasn't_ an
> > > "anthology show"; it had _continuing characters_, unlike The
> > > Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, and Playhouse 90.
>
> > Virtually every television show prior to Star Trek had continuing
> > characters.
> Yes, that's right.
>
> But the only science-fiction shows with continuing characters
> made before Star Trek were kid stuff.

I'll give you good odds Star Trek was seen as kid stuff at the time...
I don't see any real reason to see it as more adult than, say, Lost in Space...

>There was serious science
> fiction on TV before Star Trek - but *only* in the form of anthology
> shows like The Outer Limits, and therefore it did not reach a mass
> audience.

Doctor Who...
>
> This point is specifically mentioned in "The Making of Star Trek"
> by Stephen E. Whitfield.

On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 4:41:18 AM UTC+11, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Some of
> that could be classified as "kid's stuff," I suppose, but not all,
> and most of it was aimed at adults as much as children. Certainly
> not The Avengers. (Have you ever seen the Hellfire Club episode? If
> you try to claim with a straight face that's "kid stuff", you
> should be committed for your own safety.)
>
I'm sure many kids would have found it both interesting and educational

Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote in
news:d439b340-f7bb-4df1-85c8-b6d9d2c9349bn@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 4:41:18 AM UTC+11, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Some of
>> that could be classified as "kid's stuff," I suppose, but not
>> all, and most of it was aimed at adults as much as children.
>> Certainly not The Avengers. (Have you ever seen the Hellfire
>> Club episode? If you try to claim with a straight face that's
>> "kid stuff", you should be committed for your own safety.)
>>
> I'm sure many kids would have found it both interesting and
> educational
>
And the rest would have found it . . . confusing. And maybe a little
frightening. But whether or not kids would have found it entertaining
isn't really the point, now it is?

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 1:31:22 PM UTC-5, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:d439b340-f7bb-4df1...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 4:41:18 AM UTC+11, Jibini Kula
> > Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >> Some of
> >> that could be classified as "kid's stuff," I suppose, but not
> >> all, and most of it was aimed at adults as much as children.
> >> Certainly not The Avengers. (Have you ever seen the Hellfire
> >> Club episode? If you try to claim with a straight face that's
> >> "kid stuff", you should be committed for your own safety.)
> >>
> > I'm sure many kids would have found it both interesting and
> > educational
> >
> And the rest would have found it . . . confusing. And maybe a little
> frightening. But whether or not kids would have found it entertaining
> isn't really the point, now it is?

A good deal of the episode can be seen here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EtJLOeKbe4

I've visited the caves and abbey in West Wycombe where
the meetings were held.

Pt

On Nov 23, 2022, Quadibloc wrote
(in article<91c37afc-9d63-45de-8ca8-1de883c0aac2n@googlegroups.com>):

> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 1:10:22 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 12:27:10 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire quoted,
> > in part:
> > > The Dragon Awards were created by DragonCon for many reasons. One,
> > > frankly, was the perception by a significant portion of fandom that
> > > existing awards — like the Hugo and the Nebula — had been politicized.
> > > That they were no longer voted on the merits of the work itself but
> > > because the work in question had checked off the proper boxes.
> >
> > Although David Weber's advice that being confrontational is not the way to
> > get
> > things done is wise, it is rather obvious that this decision, whatever its
> > merits, will
> > give the appearance that DragonCon has been taken over by the sort of people
> > that it was founded in order to get away from.
> >
> > Given the current dysfunctional state of politics, I think the real
> > "solution" is for
> > another breakaway group to issue its own science-fiction awards, so that
> > those who
> > would like to get away from political correctness without being Trump
> > supporters,
> > and those who are Trump supporters, can each do things their own way without
> > instead being enmeshed with fighting with each other.
> If, on the one hand, the established and respected science-fiction awards
> have become... oh, say, like James Nicoll's selection of novels to review...
> too much socially-conscious effort to promote works outside the mainstream,
> unjustly neglected though they may be - and the *rebellion* against that is
> _also_ overly politicized...
>
> then, it follows, that if we actually had white males writing science fiction
> today
> reminiscent of that of Heinlein, Asimov, and Clarke, _that_ science fiction
> would
> not be showing up at *anyone's* award ceremony.
>
> Which means that if science fiction wasn't dead, it would still *seem* to be
> dead.
>
> However, I don't think that _politics_ killed science fiction. Maggots
> feeding on
> a decaying corpse, instead, are the image that comes to my mind.
>
> In the first instance, science fiction went downhill from its glory days of
> the
> golden age... *not* because we aren't twelve years old any more. The world
> has *not* run out of twelve-year-olds.
>
> This is despite declining sperm counts.
>
> No; in the first instance... the problem was:
>
> a) television, and
> b) a shortage of trees, that led to a rise in the price of newsprint.
>
> The song said "Video killed the radio star", and the phenomenon here
> was clear as well; television, supported by TV commercials, was free,
> hence quite cheap, and pulp magazines went up in price, and so they
> were no longer a major form of mass entertainment.
>
> That, of course, though, is a transition that took place *long ago*.
>
> Then video games and cable TV killed network television.
>
> And then the Internet came along!
>
> So we are *three* media revolutions away from the glory days of
> science fiction, and hence we should _hardly_ be surprised that it
> isn't quite thriving these days as though nothing had happened between
> today in 2022 and back in, say, 1934.
>
> Even if you don't count World War II and the Apollo moon landings.
>
> Not having an award ceremony you can trust to point you to the
> good science fiction you would like to read... is just icing on the cake,
> not the root of the problem.
>
> John Savard

I’ve been reading SF for a _very_ long time. (Well, I think that it’s a
long time.) Among the first SF books that I read were novelizations of Gerry
Anderson puppet shows: Stingray, Captain Scarlet, etc. And RAH juveniles, the
very first one that I read being _Between Planets_. I had a lot of Tom Swift
and Tom Corbett in there, too. I bought Heinlein and Anderson and Reynolds
and Asimov and Clarke and Schmidt and more. I spent every penny I could
scrape up from various pre-teen and teen ‘jobs’. I worshiped the lists of
Hugo and Nebula nominees, and bought every single one that I could, which
wasn’t bloody easy as I was in various parts of the (ex) British Empire at
the time. (You would not believe how difficult it was to get hold of Asimov
or Heinlein books in the depths of East Africa or the (ex) British West
Indies.) After a while I just got hold of the various Hugo/Nebula winners,
even when I was in Britain or Canada or the US, and it was relatively easy to
get SF. Then I started just taking note of the winners. Then I stopped
caring. Then I started actively avoiding anything which had ‘Hugo’ or
’Nebula winner’ attached to it. Current awards committees, or whoever’s
in charge, have succeeded in driving me away... and ensuring that my credit
card stays in my wallet. Perhaps I’m missing really great stuff, but
that’s not the way to bet after literally 50+ years of observing the trend.
I read very little new SF. Mostly I re-read my old collection. I’ve got
literally thousands of books.

I used to have subscriptions to MFSF, Analog, Galaxy, others. I haven’t
read any new magazines in literal decades. (I had the very last issues of
Galaxy. Including the infamous purple cover issue.)

I think that the puppies are nuts. Just not as nuts as the anti-puppies.

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 3:49:53 PM UTC-5, WolfFan wrote:
> I worshiped the lists of
> Hugo and Nebula nominees, and bought every single one that I could
[snip]
> After a while I just got hold of the various Hugo/Nebula winners,
> even when I was in Britain or Canada or the US, and it was relatively easy to
> get SF. Then I started just taking note of the winners. Then I stopped
> caring. Then I started actively avoiding anything which had ‘Hugo’ or
> ’Nebula winner’ attached to it. Current awards committees, or whoever’s
> in charge, have succeeded in driving me away... and ensuring that my credit
> card stays in my wallet. Perhaps I’m missing really great stuff, but
> that’s not the way to bet after literally 50+ years of observing the trend.
> I read very little new SF. Mostly I re-read my old collection. I’ve got
> literally thousands of books. [snip]

It sounds like there are two separate issues here. The first one is that
recent Hugo/Nebula winners/nominees do not match your taste in SF.
The second one is that you haven't come across (much) recent SF
that you find enjoyable.

The first issue doesn't seem like it should be that big a deal. There
are lost of "best of" lists, awards, review blogs, etc these days.
Finding one or more sources of reviews/recommendations that
match your tastes may take some time, but it should be doable.

The second issue is a much more serious one. If you find that the
reason that there is "very little new SF" that you like is not that you
haven't found compatible reviewers but a near absence of the kind
of SF that you like among the thousands of books that get
published every year, then there isn't much that can be done about
it.

Perhaps you could list some of the recently published SF books
that you enjoyed? It may help other r.a.sf.w. posters come up with
recommendations. If you prefer "sense of wonder" SF, have you
tried _The Martian_, _Children of Time_, Peter F. Hamilton?

On Nov 27, 2022, Ahasuerus wrote
(in article<a488c2ab-32c3-48b0-b92c-4168ed42aecen@googlegroups.com>):

> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 3:49:53 PM UTC-5, WolfFan wrote:
> > I worshiped the lists of
> > Hugo and Nebula nominees, and bought every single one that I could
> [snip]
> > After a while I just got hold of the various Hugo/Nebula winners,
> > even when I was in Britain or Canada or the US, and it was relatively easy
> > to
> > get SF. Then I started just taking note of the winners. Then I stopped
> > caring. Then I started actively avoiding anything which had ‘Hugo’ or
> > ’Nebula winner’ attached to it. Current awards committees, or
> > whoever’s
> > in charge, have succeeded in driving me away... and ensuring that my credit
> > card stays in my wallet. Perhaps I’m missing really great stuff, but
> > that’s not the way to bet after literally 50+ years of observing the
> > trend.
> > I read very little new SF. Mostly I re-read my old collection. I’ve got
> > literally thousands of books. [snip]
>
> It sounds like there are two separate issues here. The first one is that
> recent Hugo/Nebula winners/nominees do not match your taste in SF.
> The second one is that you haven't come across (much) recent SF
> that you find enjoyable.
>
> The first issue doesn't seem like it should be that big a deal. There
> are lost of "best of" lists, awards, review blogs, etc these days.
> Finding one or more sources of reviews/recommendations that
> match your tastes may take some time, but it should be doable.
>
> The second issue is a much more serious one. If you find that the
> reason that there is "very little new SF" that you like is not that you
> haven't found compatible reviewers but a near absence of the kind
> of SF that you like among the thousands of books that get
> published every year, then there isn't much that can be done about
> it.
>
> Perhaps you could list some of the recently published SF books
> that you enjoyed? It may help other r.a.sf.w. posters come up with
> recommendations. If you prefer "sense of wonder" SF, have you
> tried _The Martian_, _Children of Time_, Peter F. Hamilton?

I liked the first three Commonweal books. The fourth was okay, but Saunders
has started to go off the deep end with the fifth one.

I started reading the Temeraire books. I bogged down when Our Heroes were
stuck in Deepest Africa, a Deepest Africa which had very little in common
with the Africa I knew. (I was reminded of the one and only Rat Patrol
novelization that I ever started. I stopped it when the waited stated that
the Rat Patrol’s Jeeps were armed with 50mm _machine guns_. Yeah. Right. I
never finished that book.) S. M. Stirling has vanished down a rabbit-hole.
David Weber pulled the rabbit-hole in after himself; there was a time when I
read Honorverse books in hardcover, but now I couldn’t name the latest
three to save my life. Hamilton collapsed the rabbit-hole; I never was into
the Princess Merry books, and I couldn’t name the last six Anita Blakes.
Kratman’s a nazi. Ringo isn’t far behind. Corriea is telling the same
story, over and over and over again, just with more and bigger guns. I’ve
got guns. I’m not impressed. Drake is burned out. Tayler should have got
the Hugo for “Longshoreman of the Apocalypse”; that he didn’t was the
final nail in the coffin for my caring about Hugo/Nebula awards, but Schlock
Mercenary’s finished its run. It’s over, there ain’t no more Schlock.
If I see a new Bujold, I buy it. I’ll probably buy the next Commonweal
book, if only to see if the decline continues; if it does, that’ll be the
last I buy. Turtledove has done variations on the American Civil War and on
World War 2, repeatedly; occasionally there’s something new and
interesting, such as Joe Steele (Turtledove rigs things so that Ioseb
Besarionis dze Jughashvili was born in California, not Georgia (the _other_
Georgia) and becomes the Democratic nominee for President of the US in 1932.
The best part was when he does what should have been done in reality, and has
Dug-Out Doug MacArthur shot.)

If I go to a Barnes & Noble, very few of the books have authors I recognize,
and very few of the cover blurbs attract. Same with a trip to Amazon’s or
Apple’s ebook stores; there seem to an amazing number of books inspired by
Hornblower or Aubrey or both, but In Space. Thanks, but I’ve read Honor
Harrington, no need for third-rate imitations.

On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 10:41:18 AM UTC-7, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> The Avengers was unquestionably
> science fiction, at least a times, and started in 1961. Some of
> that could be classified as "kid's stuff," I suppose, but not all,
> and most of it was aimed at adults as much as children. Certainly
> not The Avengers. (Have you ever seen the Hellfire Club episode? If
> you try to claim with a straight face that's "kid stuff", you
> should be committed for your own safety.)

The Avengers was indeed intended for an adult, or at least
post-pubescent, audience. I remember it, and Diana Rigg,
quite well, thank you.

However, while it contained science-fiction elements, like
the "cybernauts", it wasn't trying to address serious
science fiction themes the way The Outer Limits or the
original Star Trek attempted to. It was an action-adventure
show, aiming to deliver pure entertainment.

And it was *British*, not American, which already means
that it doesn't count.

My Favorite Martian was a situation comedy.

Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea is one of the science
fiction shows that *was* kid stuff. Unlike Lost in Space
and The Time Tunnel, it may have run for a longer time
before Irwin Allen ruined it, but while some episodes of
all three shows occasionally had plot elements that could
be taken seriously, fighting with monsters in rubber suits
was basically what those shows were about.

John Savard

On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 2:43:50 AM UTC-7, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 5:45:13 PM UTC+11, Quadibloc wrote:

> > But the only science-fiction shows with continuing characters
> > made before Star Trek were kid stuff.

> I'll give you good odds Star Trek was seen as kid stuff at the time...
> I don't see any real reason to see it as more adult than, say, Lost in Space...

You could not possibly seriously make such a statement had you seen
a significant number of both of those shows.

John Savard

On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 2:43:50 AM UTC-7, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 5:45:13 PM UTC+11, Quadibloc wrote:

> >There was serious science
> > fiction on TV before Star Trek - but *only* in the form of anthology
> > shows like The Outer Limits, and therefore it did not reach a mass
> > audience.

> Doctor Who...

1) British, so it doesn't count.

2) And it was intended by the BBC as a children's show, even if it
was such a _good_ children's show that it was popular with adults
as well.

John Savard

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 8:45:33 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

> The Avengers was indeed intended for an adult, or at least
> post-pubescent, audience. I remember it, and Diana Rigg,
> quite well, thank you.

And here is a link to the theme music for the show, by
Laurie Johnson, which was very good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwvSuG9rFlc

John Savard

In article <0001HW.293463C700C091BF70000201338F@news.supernews.com>,
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
>On Nov 27, 2022, Ahasuerus wrote
>(in article<a488c2ab-32c3-48b0-b92c-4168ed42aecen@googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 3:49:53 PM UTC-5, WolfFan wrote:
>> > I worshiped the lists of
>> > Hugo and Nebula nominees, and bought every single one that I could
>> [snip]
>> > After a while I just got hold of the various Hugo/Nebula winners,
>> > even when I was in Britain or Canada or the US, and it was relatively easy
>> > to
>> > get SF. Then I started just taking note of the winners. Then I stopped
>> > caring. Then I started actively avoiding anything which had ‘Hugo’ or
>> > ’Nebula winner’ attached to it. Current awards committees, or
>> > whoever’s
>> > in charge, have succeeded in driving me away... and ensuring that my credit
>> > card stays in my wallet. Perhaps I’m missing really great stuff, but
>> > that’s not the way to bet after literally 50+ years of observing the
>> > trend.
>> > I read very little new SF. Mostly I re-read my old collection. I’ve got
>> > literally thousands of books. [snip]
>>
>> It sounds like there are two separate issues here. The first one is that
>> recent Hugo/Nebula winners/nominees do not match your taste in SF.
>> The second one is that you haven't come across (much) recent SF
>> that you find enjoyable.
>>
>> The first issue doesn't seem like it should be that big a deal. There
>> are lost of "best of" lists, awards, review blogs, etc these days.
>> Finding one or more sources of reviews/recommendations that
>> match your tastes may take some time, but it should be doable.
>>
>> The second issue is a much more serious one. If you find that the
>> reason that there is "very little new SF" that you like is not that you
>> haven't found compatible reviewers but a near absence of the kind
>> of SF that you like among the thousands of books that get
>> published every year, then there isn't much that can be done about
>> it.
>>
>> Perhaps you could list some of the recently published SF books
>> that you enjoyed? It may help other r.a.sf.w. posters come up with
>> recommendations. If you prefer "sense of wonder" SF, have you
>> tried _The Martian_, _Children of Time_, Peter F. Hamilton?
>
>I liked the first three Commonweal books. The fourth was okay, but Saunders
>has started to go off the deep end with the fifth one.
>
>I started reading the Temeraire books. I bogged down when Our Heroes were
>stuck in Deepest Africa, a Deepest Africa which had very little in common
>with the Africa I knew. (I was reminded of the one and only Rat Patrol
>novelization that I ever started. I stopped it when the waited stated that
>the Rat Patrol’s Jeeps were armed with 50mm _machine guns_. Yeah. Right. I
>never finished that book.) S. M. Stirling has vanished down a rabbit-hole.
>David Weber pulled the rabbit-hole in after himself; there was a time when I
>read Honorverse books in hardcover, but now I couldn’t name the latest
>three to save my life. Hamilton collapsed the rabbit-hole; I never was into
>the Princess Merry books, and I couldn’t name the last six Anita Blakes.
>Kratman’s a nazi. Ringo isn’t far behind. Corriea is telling the same
>story, over and over and over again, just with more and bigger guns. I’ve
>got guns. I’m not impressed. Drake is burned out. Tayler should have got
>the Hugo for “Longshoreman of the Apocalypse”; that he didn’t was the
>final nail in the coffin for my caring about Hugo/Nebula awards, but Schlock
>Mercenary’s finished its run. It’s over, there ain’t no more Schlock.
>If I see a new Bujold, I buy it. I’ll probably buy the next Commonweal
>book, if only to see if the decline continues; if it does, that’ll be the
>last I buy. Turtledove has done variations on the American Civil War and on
>World War 2, repeatedly; occasionally there’s something new and
>interesting, such as Joe Steele (Turtledove rigs things so that Ioseb
>Besarionis dze Jughashvili was born in California, not Georgia (the _other_
>Georgia) and becomes the Democratic nominee for President of the US in 1932.
>The best part was when he does what should have been done in reality, and has
>Dug-Out Doug MacArthur shot.)
>
>If I go to a Barnes & Noble, very few of the books have authors I recognize,
>and very few of the cover blurbs attract. Same with a trip to Amazon’s or
>Apple’s ebook stores; there seem to an amazing number of books inspired by
>Hornblower or Aubrey or both, but In Space. Thanks, but I’ve read Honor
>Harrington, no need for third-rate imitations.
>

Well, you liked Honor Harrington, but you don't anymore, and you're not
interested in anything that she used to be like.. That kind of makes using
that as a data-point difficult :-)

So.. Have you tried Flintlock punk? If not, Powdermage is worth a shot.

Other than that, let me pitch some of my favorites from the past few years:

_In the Shadow of Lightning (Glass Immortals Book 1)_: A glass based
magic system in a romanesque world with two very rootable leads
(yeah, Commonwealth folk.. I know) and a larger than life best friend.

_Kings Of The Wyld_: If mercenary groups were like rock bands in a
s&s world, but Pratchett wrote it (he didn't) so it has heart and
humor.

Tsun-Tsun TzimTzum: Probably the best harem fantasy series ever
written. (And that's not faint praise).

Ilona Andrews: The best action romances going.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:acdabe33-5335-4ea1-b2de-138bbc976f53n@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 10:41:18 AM UTC-7, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> The Avengers was unquestionably
>> science fiction, at least a times, and started in 1961. Some of
>> that could be classified as "kid's stuff," I suppose, but not
>> all, and most of it was aimed at adults as much as children.
>> Certainly not The Avengers. (Have you ever seen the Hellfire
>> Club episode? If you try to claim with a straight face that's
>> "kid stuff", you should be committed for your own safety.)
>
> The Avengers was indeed intended for an adult, or at least
> post-pubescent, audience. I remember it, and Diana Rigg,
> quite well, thank you.

Diana Rigg in leather is the sort of thing that gets a boy through
puberty.
>
> However, while it contained science-fiction elements, like
> the "cybernauts", it wasn't trying to address serious
> science fiction themes the way The Outer Limits or the
> original Star Trek attempted to. It was an action-adventure
> show, aiming to deliver pure entertainment.

Now you're just quibbling over definitions so as to not admit that
you were rull of shit.

This will surprise no one.
>
> And it was *British*, not American, which already means
> that it doesn't count.

QED.
>
> My Favorite Martian was a situation comedy.

And? It was science fiction, it predated Star Trek, and it had
recurring characters.
>
> Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea is one of the science
> fiction shows that *was* kid stuff. Unlike Lost in Space
> and The Time Tunnel, it may have run for a longer time
> before Irwin Allen ruined it, but while some episodes of
> all three shows occasionally had plot elements that could
> be taken seriously, fighting with monsters in rubber suits
> was basically what those shows were about.
>
You said something stupid, quoting someone stupid, and you're not
man enough to admit it.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:e9a19914-a753-4ba5-809d-3f84c944498en@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 2:43:50 AM UTC-7, Hamish Laws
> wrote:
>> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 5:45:13 PM UTC+11, Quadibloc
>> wrote:
>
>> > But the only science-fiction shows with continuing characters
>> > made before Star Trek were kid stuff.
>
>> I'll give you good odds Star Trek was seen as kid stuff at the
>> time... I don't see any real reason to see it as more adult
>> than, say, Lost in Space...
>
> You could not possibly seriously make such a statement had you
> seen a significant number of both of those shows.
>
As I mentioned, several episodes of Star Trek were banned in the UK
because it *was* classified as a kid's show.

I guess you didn't notice that as you snipped it out.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 11/27/2022 9:34 PM, WolfFan wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2022, Ahasuerus wrote
> (in article<a488c2ab-32c3-48b0-b92c-4168ed42aecen@googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 3:49:53 PM UTC-5, WolfFan wrote:
>>> I worshiped the lists of
>>> Hugo and Nebula nominees, and bought every single one that I could
>> [snip]
>>> After a while I just got hold of the various Hugo/Nebula winners,
>>> even when I was in Britain or Canada or the US, and it was relatively easy
>>> to
>>> get SF. Then I started just taking note of the winners. Then I stopped
>>> caring. Then I started actively avoiding anything which had ‘Hugo’ or
>>> ’Nebula winner’ attached to it. Current awards committees, or
>>> whoever’s
>>> in charge, have succeeded in driving me away... and ensuring that my credit
>>> card stays in my wallet. Perhaps I’m missing really great stuff, but
>>> that’s not the way to bet after literally 50+ years of observing the
>>> trend.
>>> I read very little new SF. Mostly I re-read my old collection. I’ve got
>>> literally thousands of books. [snip]
>>
>> It sounds like there are two separate issues here. The first one is that
>> recent Hugo/Nebula winners/nominees do not match your taste in SF.
>> The second one is that you haven't come across (much) recent SF
>> that you find enjoyable.
>>
>> The first issue doesn't seem like it should be that big a deal. There
>> are lost of "best of" lists, awards, review blogs, etc these days.
>> Finding one or more sources of reviews/recommendations that
>> match your tastes may take some time, but it should be doable.
>>
>> The second issue is a much more serious one. If you find that the
>> reason that there is "very little new SF" that you like is not that you
>> haven't found compatible reviewers but a near absence of the kind
>> of SF that you like among the thousands of books that get
>> published every year, then there isn't much that can be done about
>> it.
>>
>> Perhaps you could list some of the recently published SF books
>> that you enjoyed? It may help other r.a.sf.w. posters come up with
>> recommendations. If you prefer "sense of wonder" SF, have you
>> tried _The Martian_, _Children of Time_, Peter F. Hamilton?
>
> I liked the first three Commonweal books. The fourth was okay, but Saunders
> has started to go off the deep end with the fifth one.
>
> I started reading the Temeraire books. I bogged down when Our Heroes were
> stuck in Deepest Africa, a Deepest Africa which had very little in common
> with the Africa I knew. (I was reminded of the one and only Rat Patrol
> novelization that I ever started. I stopped it when the waited stated that
> the Rat Patrol’s Jeeps were armed with 50mm _machine guns_. Yeah. Right. I
> never finished that book.) S. M. Stirling has vanished down a rabbit-hole.
> David Weber pulled the rabbit-hole in after himself; there was a time when I
> read Honorverse books in hardcover, but now I couldn’t name the latest
> three to save my life. Hamilton collapsed the rabbit-hole; I never was into
> the Princess Merry books, and I couldn’t name the last six Anita Blakes.
> Kratman’s a nazi. Ringo isn’t far behind. Corriea is telling the same
> story, over and over and over again, just with more and bigger guns. I’ve
> got guns. I’m not impressed. Drake is burned out. Tayler should have got
> the Hugo for “Longshoreman of the Apocalypse”; that he didn’t was the
> final nail in the coffin for my caring about Hugo/Nebula awards, but Schlock
> Mercenary’s finished its run. It’s over, there ain’t no more Schlock.
> If I see a new Bujold, I buy it. I’ll probably buy the next Commonweal
> book, if only to see if the decline continues; if it does, that’ll be the
> last I buy. Turtledove has done variations on the American Civil War and on
> World War 2, repeatedly; occasionally there’s something new and
> interesting, such as Joe Steele (Turtledove rigs things so that Ioseb
> Besarionis dze Jughashvili was born in California, not Georgia (the _other_
> Georgia) and becomes the Democratic nominee for President of the US in 1932.
> The best part was when he does what should have been done in reality, and has
> Dug-Out Doug MacArthur shot.)
>
> If I go to a Barnes & Noble, very few of the books have authors I recognize,
> and very few of the cover blurbs attract. Same with a trip to Amazon’s or
> Apple’s ebook stores; there seem to an amazing number of books inspired by
> Hornblower or Aubrey or both, but In Space. Thanks, but I’ve read Honor
> Harrington, no need for third-rate imitations.

B&N has burned itself out and is more interested in toys than SF.

Have you tried "A Long Time Until Now" by Michael Williamson ?
https://www.amazon.com/Long-Time-Until-Temporal-Displacement/dp/1476781729/

Sorry that you don't like Ringo. His "Graveyard Sky" and "Live Free or
Die" series are awesome to me.

Have you tried the Bobiverse series ? "We Are Legion (We Are Bob)" by
Dennis E. Taylor ?
https://www.amazon.com/We-Are-Legion-Bob-Bobiverse/dp/1680680587/

Lynn

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 9:55:31 PM UTC-7, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:

> Now you're just quibbling over definitions so as to not admit that
> you were rull of shit.

> You said something stupid, quoting someone stupid, and you're not
> man enough to admit it.

It's true that generalizations are nearly always false, at least in part.

However, that one can find exceptions doesn't mean that the
generalizations don't have validity.

Star Trek had episodes that were worthy of being taken seriously as
real science fiction, and even at its worst, it was never just a kid's
show the way Lost in Space or Captain Video were.

There wasn't really anything like it before on American TV. There
was real science fiction before Star Trek there - in the form of shows
like "The Outer Limits" and "One Step Beyond". Anthology shows, without
continuing characters.

Star Trek took real science fiction to the mainstream of American TV.

That's a fact, not "something stupid". My Favorite Martian and The
Avengers don't disprove it, as they did not - as The Outer Limits did,
and as Star Trek did - tell the kind of stories that had previously
appeared in serious science-fiction magazines like Analog/Astounding.

John Savard

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 9:56:31 PM UTC-7, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> news:e9a19914-a753-4ba5...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 2:43:50 AM UTC-7, Hamish Laws
> > wrote:
> >> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 5:45:13 PM UTC+11, Quadibloc
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> > But the only science-fiction shows with continuing characters
> >> > made before Star Trek were kid stuff.
> >
> >> I'll give you good odds Star Trek was seen as kid stuff at the
> >> time... I don't see any real reason to see it as more adult
> >> than, say, Lost in Space...
> >
> > You could not possibly seriously make such a statement had you
> > seen a significant number of both of those shows.
> >
> As I mentioned, several episodes of Star Trek were banned in the UK
> because it *was* classified as a kid's show.
>
> I guess you didn't notice that as you snipped it out.

I'm not arguing against the notion that some people could have, mistakenly,
seen Star Trek as just another kid's show, since that was what science
fiction shows tended to be up until it came along. I'm arguing against the
notion that it actually _was_ a kid's show, no better than Lost in Space.
That is what is preposterous.

John Savard

On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 4:43:50 AM UTC-5, Hamish Laws wrote:

> I'll give you good odds Star Trek was seen as kid stuff at the time...
> I don't see any real reason to see it as more adult than, say, Lost in Space...

Well, there are three things we can argue: What it _is_, What it's presented as, and What it's perceived to be. The first and last we probably will never change each other's minds about, but the middle is a matter of historical record... if only I can find the records. Someone with time, boredom, and an internet connection has scanned a few TV Guide schedule pages.

https://ctva.biz/US/TV-Listings/TVG_1968_02_09_Fri_NET-Playhouse-3_[TA].jpg

You can see Star Trek is classified as "Drama," same as NET Playhouse

https://ctva.biz/US/TV-Listings/TVG_1968_02_09_Fri_NET-Playhouse-2_[TA].jpg

On that page you can see that Tarzan is classified as "Adventure," which Batman and Lost in Space are:

https://ctva.biz/US/TV-Listings/TVG_1967_06_07_GA_Wed_Virginian.jpg

Hmm... Rawhide and The Virginian are "Western" while Death Valley Days is "Drama," anyone care to comment on '60s TV westerns?

--
-Jack

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:5b89b876-8872-43c6-aa0a-8935cc622663n@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 9:56:31 PM UTC-7, Ninapenda
> Jibini wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> news:e9a19914-a753-4ba5...@googlegroups.com:
>> > On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 2:43:50 AM UTC-7, Hamish
>> > Laws wrote:
>> >> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 5:45:13 PM UTC+11, Quadibloc
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > But the only science-fiction shows with continuing
>> >> > characters made before Star Trek were kid stuff.
>> >
>> >> I'll give you good odds Star Trek was seen as kid stuff at
>> >> the time... I don't see any real reason to see it as more
>> >> adult than, say, Lost in Space...
>> >
>> > You could not possibly seriously make such a statement had
>> > you seen a significant number of both of those shows.
>> >
>> As I mentioned, several episodes of Star Trek were banned in
>> the UK because it *was* classified as a kid's show.
>>
>> I guess you didn't notice that as you snipped it out.
>
> I'm not arguing against the notion that some people could have,
> mistakenly, seen Star Trek as just another kid's show, since
> that was what science fiction shows tended to be up until it
> came along. I'm arguing against the notion that it actually
> _was_ a kid's show, no better than Lost in Space. That is what
> is preposterous.
>
The only preposterous thing here is your inability to admit you
said something stupid, quoting some*one* stupid.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.