I don't mean to be crude, but. . . .

[trailer_park_vixen]

Just some . . . interesting messages I got from the game.

>_You squeeze the fleshy orifice shut.
>_You part the fleshy orifice.
>_There is an open fleshy orifice here.



> You eviscerate Cigotuvi's Monster!!!
> You kill Cigotuvi's Monster!
> Okawaru appreciates your kill.

Hmm. --That just a "differently packaged" tentacled monstrosity?

>A sacrificial human.

>From the look of things, she was supposed to be sacrificed in some
>demon-summoning ritual.

>It looks easy.

Wow. I didn't know it was date night in the dungeon!



>You enter the shallow water.
> Moving in this stuff is going to be slow.
>_Donald says, "The more heads they grow, the more I hate hydras."
> You rip the one-headed hydra's last head off!
> You kill the hydra!
>_Okawaru accepts your kill.

I just thought that last one was funny.






--TPV

[Azrael]

...uh

[BlackSheep]

Oh dear...

[rebthor]

I've posted this before.

You pound Duvessa like an anvil!!

[Confidence Interval]

http://www.dobrazupa.org/morgue/ddubois/morgue-ddubois-20130603-123640.txt
106163 | Slime:6 | Identified the ring "Cunt" {Wiz +Blink rF- Dex+4} (You found it on level 6 of the Pits of Slime)

I presume the name generator has some monkeys-typing-Shakespeare aspect and thus will eventually generate all names, from the sacred to the profane.
All nine billion of them. And then, without any fuss, the stars will begin to go out.

[trailer_park_vixen]

>I presume the name generator has some monkeys-typing-Shakespeare aspect and thus will eventually generate all names, from the >sacred to the profane.
>All nine billion of them. And then, without any fuss, the stars will begin to go out.

I read that, when I was a kid!! It was in "Best of Sci-Fi"---or something like that. It was a punishment, for an angel, that held up creation. . . . He had to wait for the monkeys to type (ALL of) Shakespeare. . . .

It's weird what one remembers. You guys are cool.




--TPV

[Amnesiac]

I've tried to think for a bit, but I still don't understand what op wanted to say. I mean... are those lines so funny or interesting that you would start a tread?

[Grimm]

All nine billion of them. And then, without any fuss, the stars will begin to go out.

http://i.imgur.com/XS5LK.gif

[Confidence Interval]

http://i.imgur.com/XS5LK.gif

Das macht mich glücklich but...

It was a punishment, for an angel, that held up creation. . . . He had to wait for the monkeys to type (ALL of) Shakespeare

...it seems there was a reference there I didn't even intend.

You guys are hella nerdy

ftfy

[Grimm]

I used to be hell of into Clarke. Childhood's End and all that.

[Confidence Interval]

Childhood's End is interesting. Conceptually it's great but I found the writing plodding and pedestrian - despite the extraordinary events described.

Rendezvous with Rama is curious, too; it's a bit like Waiting for Godot in space (or Something Happened in space, if you prefer).

[Grimm]

Yeah Rama was excellent. Just a big ol' mystery. Agree on the prose, I was too young to know better. I doubt I could tolerate him now. Though he's nothing compared to the dreadful Asimov, reading whom is comparable to chewing cereal boxes.

[Confidence Interval]

That's true about IA but I still like the Foundation series. But better than either I like Moorcock, who apparently at one stage wrote his "serious" novels by day and his fantasy stuff by night. It's sometimes evident that he wrote some of them in a few hours but they're still great.

CYC needs a "books" thread. I keep meaning to start one.

[VargrVeum]

That's true about IA but I still like the Foundation series. But better than either I like Moorcock, who apparently at one stage wrote his "serious" novels by day and his fantasy stuff by night. It's sometimes evident that he wrote some of them in a few hours but they're still great.

CYC needs a "books" thread. I keep meaning to start one.

I dip back into the young kingdoms whenever i need a dose of albino flavoured nostalgia. Couldn't get on with jerry cornelius though.

[Confidence Interval]

I agree - the Cornelius stuff has its moments but I've never found it very engaging. What about the Pyat books, have you read those? I've finished the first two, still two to go.

[Grimm]

I don't mean to be crude, but. . . .this is now a books thread.

Foundation was the worst offense in my eyes. I read the whole trilogy and I cannot remember a single thing that happens in it. Except that someone had a KSP tattoo on his wrist, but I only remember that because it was illustrated on the cover. Wonderful concept of a future history, but utterly anodyne in execution.

I have actually never read Moorcock. There was just none around when I was in my SF phase.

[Siegurt]

I've recently been on a Julian May and John Scalzi kick, both quite satisfactory.

[Mankeli]

I've read fantasy but never really gotten into sci-fi. I'm not sure why, maybe because the universe, space, physics and all that shit are in reality much more interesting and astounding than in some person's head. You really can't make something like pair-instability supernova, black hole, dark matter or Casimir effect up. And even if you could, it's not nearly as cool because you know it's not real. I've watched many sci-fi series though, so I don't know. And I know many scientists (astronomers etc.) find inspiration in sci-fi. Do you have recommendations for sci-fi literature that would be at least somewhat grounded in reality and yet not focused on the main characters love life or stupid crap like that?

So, instead of sci-fi I've read popular science books and follow the news. This book is maybe my favourite on that field: http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Teeming- ... 0387955011

It introduces, explains and reviews some of the explanations offered for the Fermi Paradox. And it rocks.

[tcjsavannah]

I've recently been on a Julian May and John Scalzi kick, both quite satisfactory.

Scalzi is excellent. Although I was disappointed in Redshirts (award-winning Redshirts that is) I like that he returned to the Old Man's War universe for his latest works.

I haven't read May in a long time. I enjoyed the whole Pleioscene saga/trilogy but the other later stuff was just meh.

My recent author reads are: Taylor Anderson, F. Paul Wilson, Neal Stephenson and of course whenever Jim Butcher releases something/anything. That guy is great.

[tcjsavannah]

Do you have recommendations for sci-fi literature that would be at least somewhat grounded in reality and yet not focused on the main characters love life or stupid crap like that?

Charles Sheffield. Sadly not with us anymore but his stuff should be right up your alley.

[Confidence Interval]

I have actually never read Moorcock. There was just none around when I was in my SF phase.

The better Moorcock is fantasy rather than SF, if you care for the difference.

[Confidence Interval]

never really gotten into sci-fi. I'm not sure why, maybe because the universe, space, physics and all that shit are in reality much more interesting and astounding than in some person's head.

You're thinking of so-called "hard" SF. That can be fun but the more interesting stuff, for me, is what's sometimes speculative fiction. At various points between SF and speculative I'd recommend:
The Stars My Destination (Bester)
A Deepness in the Sky (Vinge)
Flowers for Algernon (Keyes)
Riddley Walker (Hoban)
Cosmicomics (Calvino)
- of which only the first two have spaceships in them.

Also various stuff by Philip K Dick, JG Ballard, etc. I can suggest more if anyone is interested.

[MyOtheHedgeFox]

http://crawl.develz.org/learndb/index.html#fuk_da_sac

[VargrVeum]

I agree - the Cornelius stuff has its moments but I've never found it very engaging. What about the Pyat books, have you read those? I've finished the first two, still two to go.

I've not - Elric was where I squandered most of my time - a little erikose and... I can't even remember his name - jharry? the almost-omnipotent guy from dancers at the end of time. I ought to get back into the multiverse - i'm searching for inspiration at the moment but it's eluding me

[rebthor]

http://crawl.develz.org/learndb/index.html#fuk_da_sac

Stop trying to take our off-topic digression back on topic!

For sci-fi that's a lot science, you can do far worse than Stephenson. He's definitely one of my favorites. William Gibson is in a similar vein and I've read all his books too, but I prefer Stephenson.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Pat Rothfuss' excellent books, "The Name of the Wind" and "The Wise Man's Fear." I have just reread the former and it is as good as I remembered.

On the sci-fi space opera I'm also a fan of Peter F. Hamilton, but you'll need a lot of time to read them as his books are all quite long.

For sheer silliness and joy, Terry Pratchett is great. And though it's dressed up as fantasy, it's really social commentary.

[VargrVeum]

The Stars My Destination (Bester)

1000 times yes! this had me constantly flicking to the front to check when the book was written

Cosmicomics (Calvino)

I'd not heard of this, but I loved his (non sf if on a winter's night...) - amazon will be hit hard when I get home tonight - thanks!

Also various stuff by Philip K Dick, JG Ballard, etc. I can suggest more if anyone is interested.

Dick is always good - though I always tend to overdo it and end up in his strange schizoid world for a while. I've never been particularly impressed by Ballard's genre stuff, but I loved crash and high rise (though I realise there is a strong case to include those under the sf umbrella.)

[VargrVeum]

For sci-fi that's a lot science, you can do far worse than Stephenson. He's definitely one of my favorites. William Gibson is in a similar vein and I've read all his books too, but I prefer Stephenson.

I've only read snowcrash - what else would you recommend? Gibson's brilliant - I return to Neuromancer fairly regularly for a nostalgia boost. not so much the rest of the sprawl trilogy

For sheer silliness and joy, Terry Pratchett is great. And though it's dressed up as fantasy, it's really social commentary.

I used to love Pratchett, read most of his discworld stuff - not so much anymore.

No one's mentioned Dune yet?

[rebthor]

The book that got me into Stephenson was "Cryptonomicon." It's a parallel story about the birth of modern encryption and code breaking in WWII by Turing and a search for a vast trove of gold to set up a virtual currency and data haven in "modern" times.

Personally, I think his best work is "Anathem" but that's probably because I studied a lot of philosophy in college. It's probably his least science grounded in some ways since it's much more speculative but at the same time deals with the study and discovery of some of the fundamental laws of mathematics and reality.

The Baroque cycle is also really interesting in that it's much more historical fiction as it deals a lot with Newton and Leibniz, early cryptography and alchemy. It's also sort of a prequel to Cryptonomicon in that one of the characters seems to be the same person in both and another of the characters is an ancestor of some of the main characters in Cryptonomicon.

And if you liked Snow Crash, probably the novel that's most actually similar to it is "Diamond Age" in that it's set in an indeterminate future and instead of dealing with a "real" cyberspace deals with what would happen when nanotechnology really comes to fruition.

Finally, I'll mention in passing his latest novel "REAMDE" which was enjoyable but not really anything special and I felt like it was missing that Stephenson spark and a few of his early novels like "The Big U" , "Zodiac" and "Interface" which are all pretty good but rough around the edges.

[Grimm]

I'm sure his later books are better but I found Snow Crash to be overlong, amateurish and poorly thought out. It was hyped as the next Neuromancer, but compared to that book it's a joke.

[Siegurt]

I'm sure his later books are better but I found Snow Crash to be overlong, amateurish and poorly thought out. It was hyped as the next Neuromancer, but compared to that book it's a joke.

Actually his later books are longer and drier although by in large a little more internally consistent, I thought Snow Crash was fun, but that the ending was a little too forced, I definitely don't think it should've been an award winner as it was. Generally I give him a solid B. I also think Anathem is a really interesting concept (I keep waiting to see a sequel) but I feel like his concepts are better than his execution and writing style. The baroque cycle I found particularly dry. I feel like he's always *interesting* but not always *fun* to read.

[tcjsavannah]

I'm sure his later books are better but I found Snow Crash to be overlong, amateurish and poorly thought out. It was hyped as the next Neuromancer, but compared to that book it's a joke.

Seriously though, I can see how someone would think of that now. But when it first came out, when I was in college, it was the shit. One of the few books I can remember people asking you, 'Hey, have you read this??' that wasn't some guy trying to bilk you out of something.

I agree that "Crytponomicon" is the 'gold standard' but my favorite is actually "Diamond Age." Very underrated. I also loathed the Baroque Cycle. Never finished it.

[Mankeli]

never really gotten into sci-fi. I'm not sure why, maybe because the universe, space, physics and all that shit are in reality much more interesting and astounding than in some person's head.

You're thinking of so-called "hard" SF. That can be fun but the more interesting stuff, for me, is what's sometimes speculative fiction. At various points between SF and speculative I'd recommend:
The Stars My Destination (Bester)
A Deepness in the Sky (Vinge)
Flowers for Algernon (Keyes)
Riddley Walker (Hoban)
Cosmicomics (Calvino)
- of which only the first two have spaceships in them.

Also various stuff by Philip K Dick, JG Ballard, etc. I can suggest more if anyone is interested.

Thx, (to tcjsavannah as well), time for me to hit the library, aye.

[Grimm]

I'm sure his later books are better but I found Snow Crash to be overlong, amateurish and poorly thought out. It was hyped as the next Neuromancer, but compared to that book it's a joke.

Seriously though, I can see how someone would think of that now. But when it first came out, when I was in college, it was the shit. One of the few books I can remember people asking you, 'Hey, have you read this??' that wasn't some guy trying to bilk you out of something.

But that's what I thought then, when it came out. Gibson had set everyone on their ear and Snow Crash was billed as the next step on the trail he'd blazed. Eager for something as electric as Neuromancer I ploughed through it and was terribly disappointed. It was cyberpop, not cyberpunk. Never gave Stephenson another chance.

[Confidence Interval]

Snow Crash was fine but Stephenson has written far better. Anathem, Cryptonomicon, and the Baroque Cycle (of which I'm currently on the final volume) are all worth checking out. I don't think one would easily read them and recognise them as being by the same author as Snow Crash

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Pat Rothfuss' excellent books, "The Name of the Wind" and "The Wise Man's Fear." I have just reread the former and it is as good as I remembered.

On the sci-fi space opera I'm also a fan of Peter F. Hamilton, but you'll need a lot of time to read them as his books are all quite long.

The Rothfuss books are good though I'm curious as to how he's going to wind everything up in the remaining volume of the trilogy. Hamilton is fun and, though long, his books are fairly quick to read; I find them a bit light, though the hard SF/fantasy mix is interesting. I think I preferred Simmons' Hyperion Cantos, which had more teeth (and spikes).

I also read a lot of non-SF: literary fiction and historical fiction as well as non-fiction. I tend to read multiple things at once and right now I'm reading The Surgeon's Mate (Book 7 in Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin series, which is outstanding); the Stephenson; Burr, by Gore Vidal; a non-fiction book about the New Testament; and (very intermittently) a number of other books, including various works of history. I tend to switch between books but to focus and finish one whenever it grabs my attention. I love books.

[BlackSheep]

Currently reading: The Godfather, Mario Puzo
Just finished: Last Chance to See, Douglas Adams and Mark Carwardine

If you like Douglas Adams' work, I highly recommend Last Chance to See.

[Siegurt]

Currently reading: The Godfather, Mario Puzo
Just finished: Last Chance to See, Douglas Adams and Mark Carwardine

If you like Douglas Adams' work, I highly recommend Last Chance to See.

Seconded; Last chance to see is amazing, fantastic and well worth reading.

[Grimm]

I will avoid being a Debbie Downer about Hyperion, which I found to be overambitious, tedious rubbish - Simmons's reach was greater than his grasp by a long chalk - and instead make three recommendations.

John Sladek, The Müller-Fokker Effect - Hardly read at all, even at the time it was published, this short SF novel is rich in wordplay and comedy. Sort of Pynchon lite. Sladek's several collections of short stories have many good jokes in them too. More easily findable in the UK.

David R. Bunch, Moderan - A criminally ignored minor masterpiece. Imagine if e.e. cummings wrote dystopian SF from the point of view of the ones in charge. An intense delight to read. Well worth the effort it takes to find.

Robert Aickman, anything - Like Dick and Lovecraft, Aickman is on his own path and follows his own vision. There is no one at all like him. Can be reread multiple times.

[Grimm]

David Lindsay, A Voyage to Arcturus - Fantasy? SF? Allegorical philosophy? Yes. Hard to believe its author never took psychedelic drugs.

William Hope Hodgson, The Night Land - A major influence on Lovecraft. I've never actually read it - it's said to be quite a challenge - but I invite you to spend some time reading about it on the net, via some of the almost fanatical fan sites.

[Confidence Interval]

Well worth the effort it takes to find.

It is my impression that your enjoyment of works of literature is in direct proportion to their obscurity.

[Grimm]

Your sample size is too small. For example I am currently reading http://www.blacklibrary.com/warhammer-4 ... t-The.html

[Confidence Interval]

I see. Is it any good?

[Grimm]

No. But it doesn't pretend to be.

[Confidence Interval]

So I suggest that you tend to think obscure books are good, and you counter by saying you are reading something non-obscure. You then say that it is not good. This seems to support my supposition.

[Grimm]

That's not what you said at first. You spoke of my enjoyment, not of my opinion of a work's "goodness".

[Confidence Interval]

That's true. I guess now that you were making the distinction that this book is not "good" but that you are enjoying it nonetheless, though this was not explicit in what you said.

[Grimm]

A typical American film, naive and silly, can - for all its silliness and even *by means of* it - be instructive. A fatuous, self-conscious English film can teach one nothing. I have often learnt a lesson from a silly American film.

[Confidence Interval]

A typical American film, naive and silly, can - for all its silliness and even *by means of* it - be instructive. A fatuous, self-conscious English film can teach one nothing. I have often learnt a lesson from a silly American film.

I'm not sure what the presence of the words American and English does in that sentence. I'm am aware of naive and silly films, as well as fatuous self-conscious ones, from various nations. Curious choice.

[Grimm]

Yeah you can strike those, I suspect he was probably drawing a contrast between Hollywood product and art films, which at that time were chiefly the purview of Europeans, indeed the English as the continental film industry probably hadn't recovered yet.

[Confidence Interval]

I wouldn't be able to tell you when continental European movie-making really recommenced post-WWII. Clearly by the 1960s there was plenty of movie-making going on in France but I don't know how long it had been going by that point.