Ladies and Gentlemen, Dr. Larry Niven 484
1) Fallen Angels, Baen Free Library, and RMS
by Robotech_Master
Your collaborative novel Fallen Angels is available in the Baen Free Library. What prompted you to make it available there?
Have its paper sales picked up since you posted it there? (Assuming it's still in print to be sold.) Might you consider making some of your other works available that way?
Also, Fallen Angels features a couple of references to one of the ultimate ubergeeks of the Linux world, Richard M. Stallman. Who was responsible for that? (I'm guessing it would have been Pournelle.) Are there any amusing stories associated with those appearances?
Niven:
Jim Baen's theory is that putting a work on the net will sell more paper copies. Paper books are easier to read and carry around. I thought it worth testing. So did my collaborators.
I don't have figures on whether it worked: raised the sales of Fallen Angels. I'll have to ask Jim Baen. If the theory holds, sure I'll make more stuff available. Long ago I gave away Net rights to certain short works, "Man of Steel/Woman of Kleenex" and "Down in Flames".
Richard Stallman must have ben put in by Jerry or Mike, not by me. We all did some research into science fiction fans; I introduced Mike Flynn to several on the West Coast, and he found his own in the East. Most of the characters in the book are real people suitably altered.
2) Is Science Fiction healthy?
by technoCon
Lots of folks love SF: Today there's a cable network and a nauseating volume of Star Trek reruns. Computer graphics makes it feasible to put a movie into any imaginable setting. Technology is being deployed so quickly that Vernor Vinge's singularity comes to mind. Technological progress is moving so fast it is hard to anticipate it.
NASA is dinking around in LEO: Boldly going where John Glenn has gone four decades before. I don't know who said it: The future just ain't what it used to be.
The Sputnik generation is graying: When I was a lad, I watched moon shots. It captured my imagination. I read any book that had a rocket on its cover. I'm late forties and will be dead of cancer soon.
Writers are moving out of SF: William Gibson's latest novel has high geek content, but none of the science isn't already deployed. Same for Neal Stephenson's _Cryptonomicon_: good story with high geek content, but nothing beyond the current state of the art. And I've seen guys who once wrote Hard Science Fiction branching out to Fantasy.
Publishing is corporatized: The huge bookstores I haunt have SF sections that are overcrowded with Fantasy and StarTrek, StarWars, Babylon5 & (insert corporate franchise here) serials.
It looks to me as if Science Fiction is in trouble, or it may be sick, or it may be dead and doesn't know it yet.
What is your assessment of SF's health and which of these considerations do you think most significant?
Niven:
We were a tiny, despised cluster of the socially inept when I first found other science fiction fans. Today we have a hell of a lot more respect, success, and money. The field is healthy.
Yes, good SF writers veer into fantasy and mainstream. I do it too. It's a break, a vacation. Don't let it disturb you.
As for the rest--do you see the media invading the science fiction field? It's the other way around. We've fully corrupted them; it only remains to educate them too.
But we ourselves are not moving into space.
Note: we're learning about the universe at an amazing rate. We're exploring the planets. We've got everything we hoped for, except that human beings aren't going and aliens don't seem to be waiting. I don't know what to do about that, except to show the dream to as many minds as I can reach.
Most of my friends are convinced that NASA is the great roadblock. I have my doubts. We persuaded Goldin that all he had to do was fire two levels of NASA bureaucrats and...he managed it, and magic didn't happen. Maybe what we're up against is the universe.
3) Intersection of SciFi and Gaming
by Shadow Wrought
What do you think of video games as a future outlet for original SciFi universes? Do you think that the interactive environments games provide will appeal to writers who would otherwise create movies or shorts?
Niven:
I love it. Any new market (such as video games) opens more options for creativity, and more money. Games and movie/tv and books will feed into each other. Mind you, that's hard on the novices: competition is going to get fiercer yet.
4) Cautionary tales?
by J. Random Software
You've built worlds with uncommonly dystopian elements, such as Plateau's long tyranny over a disarmed populace, organlegging, all-out war with ruthless aliens, and suppression of dangerous technology. Have you intended any of these to be cautions about likely (or even inevitable) events, or just interesting to think about?
Niven:
Sure, they're all intended as warnings. Nevertheless--what I've been serving up through most of my career are the dark sides of bright futures.
Organlegging, including State executions for organs, is the dark side of longevity, advanced medical techniques.
Disarmed populace and suppression of dangerous technology seem inevitable. Be warned.
War with aliens seems less likely, except that an enemy is always alien to some extent.
Plateau was fairyland with a single flaw.
5) Favorite book?
by emarkp
Of the work you've written, does one title in particular have a special place in your heart? Douglas Adams once said that his book "Last Chance to See" was the one book he'd hope that people read if they only read one of his books. Is there one book of yours you'd like people to have read?
Similarly, if I were to introduce someone to your books, which one would you suggest I give him first?
Niven:
What book you give depends on who you're giving it to. To a mundane, give LUCIFER'S HAMMER. To a scientist, give THE INTEGRAL TREES. To someone who already wants to write, or to know about Niven, give N-SPACE or PLAYGROUNDS OF THE MIND or the forthcoming SCATTERBRAIN. Fantasy fans and Angelinos get THE BURNING CITY. If I had to bet my reputation it would be on RINGWORLD.
6) Intelligence and Wisdom
by Kostya
Could you comment on the difference between intelligence and wisdom? You seem to hint at some ideas in Ringworld Throne when Wu chooses to depose the Vampire Protector because he was not wise enough.
In these Pak Protectors, we have unbelievably intelligent and clever beings, but wisdom does not seem implied. What are your thoughts on wisdom, and what points were you trying to make? Considering the audience for most of your books (geeks, "smart folk"), it's an interesting point to include.
Side question: where did you come up with the idea of the Pak, especially as human ancestors? It has to be one of the more original conjectures about effects of old age that I have ever read :-)
Niven:
My father and stepmother got us into a night class in hominid development. From what I learned, and one initial assumption, I extrapolated protectors. The assumption was, every symptom of aging is a stunted version of something intended to make us better able to defend our descendants.
Fans have pointed out developments even I missed. Thus: We breeders have a stunted sense of smell because our protector forms would otherwise be obeying their noses, rejecting outsider mates for their breeders, causing inbreeding.
The original (Pak) protectors are still too reflexive: they've got intelligence but not wisdom.
Intelligence is a tool or tool set. Wisdom is what you do with that. I've met people who specialized their intelligence, who never developed a life. I know yoga students like that too.
I've written at length about wisdom and intelligence because I didn't have a short answer.
7) What do you read?
by caesar-auf-nihil
Mr. Niven,
I'm always curious about what authors read for either inspiration, or what they find to be good literature. What books (science fiction or otherwise) have influenced your work, or do you find to be delightful reads. Any favorite authors?
Thank you for your time.
Niven:
THE WIZARD OF OZ seems to have inspired me as a child.
Today I read a lot of science fiction, and I take friends' advice for what else pops up. I loved CRYPTONOMICON. I read everything by Tim Powers and Terry Pratchett and a lot of Connie Willis. Some really good hard SF writers have popped up, and I read them: John Barnes, Bruce Sterling, Stephen Baxter. Barbara Hambly's detective fiction. Patrick O'Brian's sea stories, courtesy of John Hertz.
8) Why is there no religion in Known Space
by Adam Rightmann
I know most SF writers aren't big on religion, but religion occupies a very large space in your collaboration with Pournelle, "The Mote in God's Eye", yet is conspicously lacking in Known Space. Is the religion in "Mote" all Jerry's doing?
Niven:
Yes, it is. I'm not comfortable speculating on the development of new and established religions. The Kdaptist heresy was a joke. INFERNO was a compulsion: I'd read Dante's INFERNO and my mind wouldn't let go of it, and I sucked Jerry into it too. My motives weren't religious, they were a storyteller's.
9) Crossing my fingers
by Demona
Was your cease-and-desist regarding Elf Sternberg's "The Only Fair Game" motivated more by a personal aversion to the content, or a desire to retain control over "your universe"? How does this jibe with your statement in Ringworld Engineers that "If you want more Known Space stories, you'll have to write them yourself"?
Niven:
I couldn't remember "The Only Fair Game", so I used your link.
I don't buy its premise. An older species won't have human versatility in sex: sexual responses will be all hard wired. Kzinti females won't be soft and unresponsive, either. You die if you make that mistake.
I probably issued a cease-and-desist when the story was described to me as violating my copyright. It does that, of course, and I notice the "desist" had no effect.
Once upon a time there was a gaming article that blew away the punch lines of several Man-Kzin War stories. I asked that it not be published. In that case too, I acted to protect my copyrights and my authors.
More generally--"If you want more Known Space stories" was intended as an invitation to daydream, not to violate my copyrights and steal my ideas. Turning such dreams into stories is only done under restricted circumstances and with permission.
But these dreams can make my morning. I love it when someone sees an implication I missed. (I get these via email, usually, or as Man-Kzin War stories.) And after all, there are things I can't copyright or patent or trademark. "Halo" looks like a poor man's Ringworld, but I didn't invent spin gravity.
10) Movie Jealousy?
by spun
David Brin has been forthright concerning his jealousy over bad SF being made into movies while his work is not. With the exception of 'Forbidden Planet' I have yet to see a science fiction movie that draws me in the way a good Sci-Fi book does.
I also think that your works would make excellent movies. Brin's work would probably play well in Europe, where people seem to prefer a little more ambiguity in their movies. It probably wouldn't do well here. Now, I'm not saying your writing isn't of the same caliber as Brin's work, but it is a little more accesible to the common man, and therefore seems well suited to be made into a blockbuster that would do well in the states. My questions: 1.) Are you at all jealous that lesser talents get to have their work seen by millions on the silver screen? 2.) Have you been approached by any producers regarding screenplays of your work? 3.) Would you even want to have your works made into movies?
That said, I just have to say thank you for providing me with so much quality entertainment! I grew up reading your stories from the time I was ten. In my esteem, you are one of the best well rounded Sci Fi authors out there. Your work has great characters, fantastic settings, believable science, and lots of action. Thanks again.
Niven:
Sure I'm jealous, and angry. I've waited too long to take my family to a movie made from my works, and now my mother's gotten to old to go. I'm glad to see Brin's "The Postman" on the big screen. I like his message. But I'd like to see Harry the Mailman, from "Lucifer's Hammer", up there too.
And sure I've sold rights and options, and written a Star Trek cartoon and sold an Outer Limits episode, but it's not the same as walking into a theater. Movies cost a lot more than options do.
Yes, I would like to see my works made into movies. All of them. Short stories as well as novels. Why not? A movie doesn't ruin a book; the book is still there, unchanged, and may even see a larger audience. See Vince Gerardis of Created By, my agent, if you've just won a lottery.
Maybe what we're up against is the universe (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe what we're up against is the universe (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maybe what we're up against is the universe (Score:3, Funny)
Either that apostrophe is in the wrong place, or NASA has recruited a Pearson's Puppeteer. I think we should be told!
Re:Maybe what we're up against is the universe (Score:5, Insightful)
For the most part, you're right, but for Mars, I respectfully disagree.
A freshman geology student with a pickaxe, a shovel, and an hour's worth of oxygen could teach us more about Martian history than any robotic sample return mission we have on the drawing board.
Re:Maybe what we're up against is the universe (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously. I know I wouldn't but I'd put very good money that someone would be willing to trade the honour of being the first human in recorded history to set foot on another planet for it being a suicide mission.
Re:Maybe what we're up against is the universe (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe what we're up against is the universe (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe what we're up against is the universe (Score:4, Insightful)
You could be right. The human race has shown a weakness for impossible dreams. Consider, for example, ancient mythologies, or the "ideal" of modern communism. Myths about gods residing on Olympus and entering into the affairs of humans are clearly not true. Similarly, the notions of that contemporary mythology known as communism have been similarly discredited.
However, we do know that the NASA-aerospace industrial complex has many dysfunctional features. In some ways it's been getting worse over the years. Can current NASA problems be fixed? Reforms have been successfully made to other institutions.
Before we chuck out our dreams, perhaps we should consider changing the current approach to the problems. This could mean reform of the existing establishment, creating new ways out of whole cloth or some combination.
Goldin's efforts probably worsened the existing situation. It remains to be seen whether the impact of O'Keefe's reforms will be positive or negative.
Re:Maybe what we're up against is the universe (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't wish for anyone to chuck out their dreams. I'd just like some of the anti-NASA zealots to put their dreams into perspective. The common Joe is convinced that NASA is a farce of waste and mismanagement. This isn't the case, but the perception gives leverage to forces that oppose NASA and, by extension, institutional exploration altogether.
There are two groups of anti-NASA. The first group hates NASA because they harbor vague notions about how to do it "right." They believe NASA, with it's big budget programs such as the Space Shuttle, is the reason that progress is slow. The second group hates NASA because NASA consumes resources that they would rather have for other, mostly "social", agendas. The problem is that when the first group sounds off, they give ammunition to the second group. I don't like this because I believe progress is slow because the task is hard, not because NASA sucks, and NASA doesn't need either group ankle-bitting it, much less both. Destroying NASA isn't going to create a better NASA, it's just going to get more food stamps bought.
Next year Cassini will reach Saturn. It will drop a probe onto the surface of Titan. We will learn more about Saturn than has ever been known. That which we learn will constitute the domain of knowledge about Saturn that anyone reading this will ever have the opportunity to know prior to death. Cassini is considered an old-fashioned "big budget" mission according to contemporary anti-NASA zealot thinking. Will there be more? God forbid!
Want something to dream of that you have a rational basis for suspecting may be feasible in your lifetime? Here are mine; detecting extra-terrestrial intelligent life and creating machine based non-human intelligence. The first is a matter of fate and possibly some luck. The second I consider an inevitability and I'm only left to wonder about timing. I too have my dreams. I just try a little harder to keep reality in perspective. The physics involved in space exploration precludes most of what our imaginations are capable of. This isn't NASA's fault so I figure it's best not to blame them for it.
Re:Maybe what we're up against is the universe (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of us have more than vague ideas for improvements. Substantive proposals for reform have been made -- frequently by people who have real knowledge of what's going on in the field. One friend who still works at NASA complains about increasingly bureaucratic management getting in the way. Shifting back to a more flexible management style such as was once practiced isn't a vague proposal. Encouraging independence and the free flow of communications aren't vague proposals.
Yes, things revealed by this group can provide ammunition to the people who want to simply destroy NASA. But suppressing bad news isn't healthy for an organization in anything but the shortest term. People once assumed that totalitarian dictatorships would best open democracies because they didn't "waste time" on debate or allow "internal critics" to weaken the state. It turned out that the problems ignored were sufficient to weaken the totalitarian states.
NASA is far from a totalitarian state. But similar principles do apply. You can't solve problems until they are known and widely discussed. The more people who look at a problem, the more likely you'll find a solution.
Yes, Cassini looks to be a success. And some of the "better, faster, cheaper" approaches have been notable failures. Goldin made severe mistakes. So did his predecessors. And I agree that the critics make some too. That's why I favor getting as many people involved as possible. Openness and flexibility are what we need -- not dogma of one variety or another.
Yes, physics does argue against things like Star Trek fantasies. That doesn't mean we're not able to do a wide variety of remarkable things in space. Physicists far better than I think things like space colonies and even travel to other stars are possible. Some even think them likely. The Fermi Paradox is still a debated topic. And, given that present day aerospace does have significant management problems, we don't need to invoke ideas that "physics is against it" to explain the failures that we see.
Re:Maybe what we're up against is the universe (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're referring to the Challenger explosion, then I should probably say that there were repeated objections from plenty of people saying that it was too cold to launch, but somewhere in the beauraucracy somebody decided that they would launch anyway for political reasons. The same beaureaucracy buried complaints about the shuttle safety which culminated in Columbia's disaster.
I think NASA should get back to research. [xprize.org]
Re:Maybe what we're up against is the universe (Score:3, Interesting)
Other government institutions? Are you sure? Quite frankly, I can't think of any. From the Post Office to Social Security to the IRS to the Patent Office, every government institution I can think of just gets worse and more bloated year after year. I wish I could, but I honestly can't think of any governmental organization that has gotten better, aside from those which have been essentially totally dismembered (for example, the ICC).
That's really a depressing thought, actually. Please, someone give me a counter example.
Re:Maybe what we're up against is the universe (Score:5, Interesting)
NASA is a victim of its past successes. When Kennedy decided to beat Russia to the moon, what was previously a small, tight research organization got given a blank check and a mandate. After we won the race, the mandate went away. This meant that NASA was a large organization that had grown to its full size too quickly, still possessing a fairly large budget but no clear impelling direction. It's hardly surprising that they fell into bureaucracy.
STS is a system that might has well have been designed for unreliability. Something like 30,000 people are involved in the refit of the orbiter between each mission. The main engines are partially disassembled, which means de-welding them, between each flight!
Space travel is expensive and dangerous. It is vastly more expensive and dangerous as a result of NASA's approach.
A large part of this is politics, and is not really NASA's fault (for whatever that's worth). They make important decisions (like who is going to build different parts of the Orbiter) for purely political reasons, because they need Congress' support. The STS system has major components manufacturered in something like 40 out of the 50 states, because they have to spread the federal dollars around. This is not the way to design a cheap, reliable solution.
Even doing all that, they can't count on their budget from year to year, which makes it almost impossible for them to undertake long-term projects with confidence.
No grassroots road, eh? Why not? It's a technical challenge, sure. But so far no entity other than NASA has had a real chance to attack the problem. Back a few years, there was a flurry of small private rocket companies, all of which collapsed after spending a few $million. They were successfully moving the technology forward, but were unable to raise the $100-200 million that was the rough budget for developing a new launch system: most investors just don't have that kind of vision.
$100-$200 million sounds like a lot, but consider this: NASA spent over $30 million just selecting the bloody launch site for the X-33, which ultimately never got built.
It is possible to build reliable rockets cheaply. It is even possible to mount them in piloted vehicles safely. It's been done. [xcor-aerospace.com] So don't tell us it is impossible.
I will agree with your statement insofar as a literal interpretation goes: there is no military/industrial conspiracy. It's just a bunch of people and bureaucrats all acting to protect their personal short-term interests. Most of them don't care any more about space than the Post Office employee cares about your mail. And given how bound up in bureaucracy NASA is, I can hardly blame them.
Thanks for the interview! (Score:3, Informative)
The machine gnomes stole my drugs! (Score:2, Funny)
It seems to me that channeling might be a perfectly reasonable way to conduct an interview!
Wisdom vs. Intelligence (Score:4, Funny)
The difference between intelligence and wisdom is the difference between Edith Bunker and Richard Nixon.
Edith has high wisdom and low intelligence, and Nixon is the other way around.
Re:Wisdom vs. Intelligence (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wisdom vs. Intelligence (Score:2)
Has anyone read any of his later works?
Solomon. (Score:5, Insightful)
That question reminds me of the story of Solomon deciding which woman was the baby's mother.
1 Kings 3:16-28 [gospelcom.net]
Nowadays most knowledgeable and intelligent people would suggest using DNA tests for such a case.
In contrast, Solomon's method would find out who was better suited to be the baby's mother. Even if you are physically the baby's mother, if you'd rather the baby be chopped in two, you aren't a mother to the baby.
Whilst many intelligent people have a tendency to answer just the given question, a wise person will often give an appropriate response for the entire situation.
Giving correct answers to questions shows your your knowledge and intelligence. Responding appropriately to the entire situation shows your wisdom.
Outer Limits (Score:2)
Travis
Re:Outer Limits (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Outer Limits (Score:3, Interesting)
While it was good for TV, it lost most of the humorous bits that made the actual story so much more enjoyable (and really nailed the main character for me). Since I had last read that story more than ten years earlier, I think it is safe to say it struck me as very good story.
Now if you want to have some fun, name the TV series that Niven's collaborator (Pournelle) wrote an episode for. I started laughing out loud when I saw "written by Jerry Pournelle" on the credits. Note that this was an episode he wrote, not an episode based on one of his stories. (Hint: it involved an improbably old Civil War veteran and his cannon)
Re:Outer Limits (Score:2)
I believe that was an episode in the first season of the original (1970's) Land Of The Lost. It had several big name writers during the first season. It was well written for a Kid's show, at least until the third season. The 1990's version IMHO sucked.
Good SF and bad movies... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, it might have been entirely the fault of Kevin Costner...
- Jhon
Re:Good SF and bad movies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously the Niven book that would make the best big-budget effects monstrosity of a film would be Ringworld... but cast the wrong person as Louis and you face disaster. Making Speaker-to-Animals and Nessus look plausible would be a heck of a job, too. Compared to that, the CG involved in creating the ring, the flycycles and the flying buildings would be trivial.
Re:Good SF and bad movies... (Score:5, Insightful)
All that said, I still foamed at the mouth when I found out Verhoven had dropped the powered armor from Starship Troopers. He pretty much proved he couldn't direct, or select good actors, too.
I hope the Heinlein estate made good money off that monstrosity.
Re:Good SF and bad movies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, yes, the "the movie skewered the book" crowd. Starship Troopers the movie did not lampoon the book. It did an excellent job of ripping on what the book was most definitively not about. Go read some of Heinlein's essays. Read "Take Back Your Government"--if you can find a copy (apparently the American people don't care enough about the idea of participating in government to buy such a book). Read what he says about ST. And then tell me it's a love song to fascism.
Too many people read Stranger in the 60's and said "Ooooh, here's a remarkable model of what the world should be!" and then dove back to his previous novel to face major disillusionment...because it didn't fit their narrow conception of what Heinlein should be writing. The Starship Troopers movie missed the point. Entirely. It's a little kid pointing at the fully-clothed emporer and saying "he's naked!"
Re:Good SF and bad movies... (Score:3, Insightful)
A good book is always going to be more cerebral than any movie made out of it. I prefer when a director/scriptwriter is inspired by the story and translates it into a good film, rather than trying to recreate the book page for page.
Kubricks "The Shining" is another good example. The movie tells an altogether different story than the novel, but both are excellent.
I like Dick's answer (Score:3, Informative)
I'm quoting it from memory, so I probably have some words wrong:
I have just seen Blade Runner. It is terrific. It has nothing to do with a book. What my book will become is a futuristic shoot-em-up. Which is just as well, because my book may have made a terrible movie, full as it is of the main character's internal dialog. A book is meant to be contemplated, but a movie is an event that moves.
Re:Good SF and bad movies... (Score:2)
Re:Good SF and bad movies... (Score:2)
I always pictured Louis as David Carradine (the guy from "Kung-Fu"). Or maybe the other way around.
Re:Good SF and bad movies... (Score:2, Insightful)
Each of us may read the same novel, but we will formulate our own mental picture.
Any movie will, perhaps, come close to what some of us imagined, but it will never be an exact copy of what we all imagined.
Personally, I have found that if you disconnect the novel from the movie, at least a little, you get to enjoy it more as a seperate story than as a carbon-copy-that-failed story.
Re:Good SF and bad movies... (Score:3, Funny)
In any case, if you want something that will be judged on its own, you should create something that can stand on its own not something that pretends to be the same as something else.
Re:Good SF and bad movies... (Score:2)
Re:Good SF and bad movies... (Score:2)
The most disappointing to me was LOTR: The Two Towers. It's an instructive case as to what happens to books when they become movies, even when the person in charge actually cares about the project. I think of Peter Jackson as Smeagol/Gollum now. His good side is (Smeagol voice) "Good Tolkien! I'll make the movie as much like the book as I can! And the bad side is (Gollum voice) "The movie is my precious! MINE! MINE! I can write a better story than Tolkien, gollum!
Anyway, I think something like that happens whenever a great story gets into the hands of a bunch of egotistical movie makers and Hollywood types.
I have to admit I'd love to see Cryptonomicon, Ringworld, A Fire Upon The Deep, Neuromancer, and dozens of other stories as movies, but only if they were done right.
But the lesson from The Lord Of The Rings is that will never happen.
Each of those great stories would be shortened, condensed, sliced, diced, and rewritten. The dialog would be altered, plotlines scrambled, characters changed, motives lost, and connections cut. Gratuituous romance, special effects, sex, and lowbrow humor would be added in an attempt to put back what had been lost from the cuts.
By the time it makes it to the screen, it's a ruined wreck, and anyone who loves the original story can only weep for what has been lost.
Better to just read the book again and let the movie play out inside my imagination.
Re:Good SF and bad movies... (Score:5, Insightful)
None of those books would make good movies. Movies and books are competely different art forms. It's like saying, "I have to admit I'd love to see Beethoven's Ninth Symphony as a painting, but only if it was done right.
But the lesson from The Lord Of The Rings is that will never happen.
Actually, the lesson from The Lord of the Rings is that a good book has to be adapted in order to make it a good movie. Unless your idea of the perfect Lord of the Rings movie would have been forty-one hours of Tolkein himself sitting in a chair reading the book to you.
Re:Good SF and bad movies... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that there needs to be an adaptation, and a paragraph-by-paragraph text to movie transformation would not work. I actually mostly liked the Lord Of The Rings - Fellowship Of The Ring. That was an adaptation - Jackson made cuts, but stuck to the story line. He was in his "Smeagol" mode.
But The Two Towers wasn't an adaptation, it was a rewrite. It should have been called: The Two Towers: A Movie Inspired By The Lord Of The Rings. Jackson went into "Gollum" mode made all sorts of totally unneeded changes in the plot, dialog, and characters. He didn't just make cuts, he added unnecessary stuff that wasn't even in the original books! The resulting "plot" doesn't even make sense. Bah.
I have to admit my idea of the perfect Lord Of The Rings movie would be to film almost every scene and with a minimum of adaptation, and almost no changes to the dialog. The significant change I'd make would be to film the "flashback" stuff (like most of the Council Of Elrond) and not just have Aragorn, Gandalf, Elrond, and the rest sitting around the table talking to each other, and present a lot of that before the real beginning of the book and Bilbo's Birthday party.
But it would be very long, too long for a movie. Perhaps it could be done as a TV series - one years worth of 1 hour episodes, one per week.
Anyway, unless it could be produced quite cheaply it would never be a commercial success, so I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.
To get back on topic (i.e. Niven, Ringworld, and movies...) I do think that most books would be better adapted to a 8 to 40 hour TV series than jammed into a 2 hour movie.
Re:Good SF and bad movies... (Score:2, Interesting)
(In the book, she proves intelligent design of the universe. In the movie, she gets a goverment grant and a boyfriend. Hooray for Hollywood.)
Re:Good SF and bad movies... (Score:2, Interesting)
Starship Troopers...a classic sci-fi novel turned into a B movie
Heh. But Starship Troopers was a pretty good movie when they released it as "Aliens". And the whole mobile suit thing has certainly held its own in the visual medium...
Re:Good SF and bad movies... (Score:3, Insightful)
You, and all who pan Troopers in the same manner, have missed the point. It was the point to make it a campy B movie. They were lampooning the conformist attitude and showing the effects of totalitarian rule. Intellect is marginalized unless it is directly controlled by the state. The mindless football stud is elevated to puppet-hero; a perfect vassal for the powers that be. A violent reaction to those who are different. I realize books tend to be much better and have more depth than movies, but jesus, did the entire geek community only see the surface reflection of this movie????
Re:Good SF and bad movies... (Score:2)
I liked the movie, Starship Troopers. However, it had almost nothing to do with the book. A lot of the spirit and intent of Heinlein's work was entirely ignored, and the end message was in many ways contrary to the message that the book put forth.
Put simply, it wasn't Starship Troopers. It was a movie that had the name "Starship Troopers" just so it could rope in a few more people to see it. And that's a pretty shitty thing for a director to do, don't you think?
Re:Good SF and bad movies... (Score:2)
If that's the case, calling the result Starship Troopers is slandering Heinlein.
Re:Good SF and bad movies... (Score:2)
Re:Good SF and bad movies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Has any other fan of this movie noticed the gross similarities before the media in that movie, and CNN, Fox News, etc? I mean.. "SHOWDOWN IRAQ". Come on - today's media makes the war look like a movie trailer. Do you remember that scene in Starship Troopers "DO YOUR PART", with the kids squashing the bugs? Mirror that in people buying duct tape and plastic to "be prepared" in the event of terrorism. It freaks the hell out of me.
Re:Good SF and bad movies... (Score:5, Insightful)
The first thought that popped into my head when I was the first "Countdown:Iraq" ad was:
"My good, they're going to be doing a "pregame" show of the war."
And that's exactly what it is. A pregame show, just like for the Superbowl or something.
Totally irrespective of the merits/demerits of the war itself the fact that we can, as a culture, promologate and tolerate such a thing is just mind boggling to me.
It makes my skin crawl just thinking about it.
And it certainly makes some of the futures hypothesised by such as Heinlein, Niven and Huxley look that much more like prediction.
KFG
Re:Good SF and bad movies... (Score:3, Insightful)
Or people pouring out bottles of French wine in the streets because the French _dared_ to disagree with us about something! We helped them out in WWII! Don't they know we own their souls for the rest of eternity?
Paper Copies (Score:2, Interesting)
As a laptop, I have read over dozens of books while sitting on the couch, lying in bed, or in the breakroom at work. While any one paperback is probably lighter than my laptop, I needed the laptop anyway.
I've even read a few books on my PDA, which is even more convenient to carry around.
Re:Paper Copies (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Paper Copies (Score:3, Insightful)
So, I have a Sony Clie. Screens a bit small, but it's quite sharp.
On it I have a free program, 'PalmReader'. It basically shows about a paragraph at a time on the screen. Since the Clie has a thumb scroll wheel, this is quite usable.
Using a 128MB Memory Stick, I have enough room for quite a few books. I went to Project Gutenberg [promo.net] and downloaded several classic works. You know, all those books your English Teachers thought you were old enough to appreciate in 11th grade but weren't.
So now I carry around a small virtual library of English Literature, and whenever I find myself stading around waiting for anything, I start reading where I left off (Hell, I replaced the ToDo list button with the Palm Reader for quick access). It's now by far the most used program on my Palm. I even finished 'Count of Monte Cristo' on the airplane with it.
Quite easy to implement, and infinitely useful.
Re:Paper Copies (Score:2)
Re:Paper Copies (Score:2)
All stuff with expired copyrights. There's some good stuff in there. Too bad Disney and congress will never let us add anything past 1920 to it.
Re:Paper Copies (Score:5, Funny)
It's refreshing to hear a laptops point of view. They're always drowned out by the mainframes.
Re:Paper Copies (Score:2)
RATS!
Re:Paper Copies (Score:2)
I've even read a few books on my PDA, which is even more convenient to carry around.
Even better is a device designed for reading, like my Rocket e-Book.
After reading with my Rocket for a while, I find that I really dislike paper books. They're just inconvenient: fragile, bulky, heavy, require two hands, lose my place, don't work in the dark, etc.
IMO, the only thing paper books have going for them is market share. I've been reading a lot of Baen books recently, primarily because they're available in softcopy.
sales (Score:2)
Score, it just worked. Before I read this article, I had not heard of Baen Free Library. Paper has it's virtues, such as a 100 year battery life, which make it useful still.
Hear, hear (Score:5, Insightful)
I interpret that it is not that he sees no value in protection of ideas and innovation, but that he sees the reasonable limits and values of that protection. Hear, hear, Dr. Niven.
Re:Hear, hear (Score:3, Funny)
SF?? (Score:2, Funny)
Pratchett (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, I think that name Discworld is somewhat based in Ringworld, and being Niven being a fan of Discworld could make Pratchett very happy.
Re:Pratchett (Score:5, Interesting)
Discworld magic is turning into science at a tremendous rate. I think the world's getting away from him; after two dozen books, the world's either totally stale or becoming dangerously real. Ponder is converting all of magic to physics, a link that has been there in spirit ever since the law of conservation of energy gave Rincewind a tough time in Colour of Magic. Ankh-Morpork itself is turning into a real city, independent of the heroes and monsters that occasionally march through, independent of whoever thinks he's in charge at the time. Vetinari maintains only a semblance of control - I get the feeling that Terry is in the same position.
Personally, I blame Cohen and Stewart for the science creeping into Discworld. The Collapse of Chaos and Figments of Reality have had a clear influence on the development of the Discworld in the last five years or so. Terry was quoted on the cover of Figments as calling it 'the most thought-provoking book I've read all year' - and it clearly provoked a whole lot of thought. Ankh's economy has been particularly heavily affected by the ideas Cohen and Stewart put forward.
OK, let's bring this back on-topic. Niven reads Pratchett. Pratchett reads Cohen and Stewart. And guess what? There's a whole chapter in Figments about the Moties...
Re:Pratchett (Score:2)
Also, I think that name Discworld is somewhat based in Ringworld,
It's definitely more of a linguistic basis than anything else. The concept of a disc shaped planet supported on the backs of four elephants who are in turn, standing on the back of an enourmous turlte is not very physically analagous to a ribbon of steel a million miles wide that revolves around a star.
It's funny though. The whole reason that I read (and became thoroughly addicted to) the Discworld novels in the first place is that I had just read and loved the Ringworld novels and was hoping that they were an intelligent parody.
Boy was I wrong, and yet not the least bit disappointed.
--
Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross that told me this was a world condemnded, but loved and bought with blood.
Score 5: Insightful (Score:3, Interesting)
After reading a few of the recent Interview Answers, I was beginning to think the Slashdot interviews were a waste of blog, with nothing but terse, off the cuff replies.
Thanks to Larry Niven for spending more than 30 seconds!
Glad? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Glad? (Score:2)
Had it been any other actor than Costner, even if it was the exact same performance, people would not have lampooned it the way they did. I felt it was a good movie (although very different from the book), and most of the problems I've seen people have with it have been because it was Costner. That isn't to say the movie was perfect; there were about 20-25 minutes of film that should have been cut, that were somewhat interesting but, in the end, extended the length of the movie more than was justified. Still, I think it was a much better movie than people give it credit for.
But whatever. I know, I know. It's cool to hate Costner, so anything he makes must be terrible. Let's all go back to parotting the same hatred towards those it's popular to hate, like good little drones.
Mote (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Mote (Score:3, Informative)
My first encounter with Niven (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Answer 2: Is Science Fiction healthy (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of what's called good science fiction is actually good story telling. Nothing wrong with that, but story telling can play in any field. Science fiction is different. Ringworld was a great concept for a science fiction story. But it made use of a lot of magic (hyperdrive) to make the story work. So it's a great story, and a good science fiction story.
With that background: It seems to me that science fiction is both in trouble, and more vital than ever. The reason science fiction is in trouble is the same reason that even narrow specialists can't keep up with their fields. And that's the same reason that it's more important than ever. I consider Lobster's (et seq.) to be the best science fiction that I've read in the last decade. There's almost no magic in them. The only weakness I see is that some of the characters are a bit difficult to empathize with. Which weakens it a bit as a story, but not as Science Fiction. But, and here's the catch: Lobsters takes place within the next 50 years. (10 if I take the story literally.) Now if things are changing that fast, and they appear to be, long term projections go right out the window. (As it was, Larry Niven used hand-waving magic to justify not using computers to navigate hyperspace. And it took magic, because without magic 1: people wouldn't be able to do the navigation, and 2: computers would have done a much better job. But people make a much better story.)
So I say that science fiction is in dire trouble, and that most of what passes for science fiction is really just high-tech fantasy. But there are still a few exceptions.
Star Trek Cartoon... (Score:2, Interesting)
This [danhausertrek.com] really trips me out...
Halo" looks like a poor man's Ringworld.. (Score:5, Funny)
HALO [amazon.com]: $46.88
Ringworld [amazon.com] $6.99
What's a poor mans who now?
Re:Halo" looks like a poor man's Ringworld.. (Score:5, Funny)
Halo: $10^(HOLY SHIT)
Ringworld: $10^(DEAR JESUS THAT'S BIG)
Re:Halo" looks like a poor man's Ringworld.. (Score:2)
Of course Mr. Banks undoubtedly read "Ringworld."
Regarding the last two questions (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that I think Elf's stories are worth the electrons wasted in transmitting them. Those of us old enough to remember Elf's massive cross-posts of his fiction to a number of Usenet newsgroups (many of which were, in fact, inappropriate venues for this sort of work) will remember the complaints about wasted bandwidth and so forth. At least now that this junk is all archived on the web, only people who want to see it can go seek it out, and the rest of us are spared.
What's interesting, though, is that Elf claims "The Only Fair Game" is the original story where he ran afoul of Niven. I seem to recall an earlier work of Elf's that mentioned Kzinti, which was later edited so that the one Kzin character was changed to some sort of anthropomorphic tiger. (There have to be some early archives of the Usenet posts that contain the original version of the story.) I remember Niven's editorial in one of the Man Kzin Wars books, where he blasts Elf (though not by name) for writing a rather bad story involving a "sadomasochistic homosexual gang-bang." I'll never forget that line. Anyway, I assumed that Niven was speaking about this other, earlier story, and had no idea "The Only Fair Game" even existed until today.
The thing is, though, Sternberg doesn't just steal from Niven's work -- he steals freely from a variety of writers. (I've found elements of C. J. Cherryh's books in some of the stories.) Which leads to the natural question, what can an author do legally to prevent someone from stealing things outright? Short of the Paramount solution (i.e., claim trademark on everything), I don't see that there's much you can do except threatening someone with legal action and hoping they can't afford to fight back in court.
My only other comment is regarding the question of film adaptation, and why so many bad SciFi stories get made into films whereas the "good stuff" never makes it to film. Ignoring for the moment the definition of what constitutes good Sci Fi, I wanted to comment that I was aghast at Niven's seemingly congratulatory tone speaking of how The Postman got turned into a film. I enjoyed David Brin's The Postman, but the film was nothing short of horrible. Costner methodically removed any trace of the Sci Fi elements present in the original book, and dumbed down the dialogue so much that I almost walked out in the first 30 minutes.
Bottom line, I think a bad film adaptation of a Sci Fi book is worse than no adaptation being made at all. I mean, how would Niven feel if some Hollywood mogul made a version of Ringworld, but removed all of what made it good Sci Fi?
Maybe Niven should be grateful nobody's raped his intellectual property yet, rather than being jealous.
Re:Regarding the last two questions (Score:3, Insightful)
"Costner methodically removed any trace of the Sci Fi elements present in the original book, and dumbed down the dialogue so much that I almost walked out in the first 30 minutes."
so apperently it takes 30 minutes to drain ones will power and common sense...
I hadn't read the postman, and I hateed the movie. As a counter to Nivens point, I didn't read the postman because of the movie.
Patrick O'Brian -- hear hear (Score:2)
Cool to see that name on his list of inspirational reading. They're not similar writers; O'Brian's series are historical fiction, and their heart is really the complex, evolving friendship between the two main characters. Not really Niven territory, but they're astonishingly good once you're in the mindset.
The Sequel Question (Score:5, Interesting)
Even when collaborating, the man just can't make a good series. Look at The Gripping Hand for a prime example. Am I the only one who notices this trend?
(Disclaimer: I've only read 50-60% of his work so far. Mainly it's the short stories I have to catch up with.)
Re:The Sequel Question (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a question I think we should ask a book editor or marketing person. Maybe Baen... he'd make a nice Slashdot interview guest, wouldn't he?
Please sumbit the same question when you see us grab Jim Baen or another publishing person. Or maybe Stanley Schmidt, editor of Analog, who may have a better grasp of science fiction as a whole than anyone.
- Robin
All very nice but (Score:5, Interesting)
It's fine for people to advance their point of view, but putting bogus science in the mix is a stunt that I would wish, to put it mildly, Niven would avoid. Some of the readership might think the scientifically literate characters in this story were describing the way the actual real universe works.
I'm all for progress, mind you, and I'm as tired as the next geek of people who don't believe in it. I'm just not for pretending that unconstrained pollution is the cure for an imminent ice age in the actual real world. The way "evidence" was mustered for this conclusion in this book is classic junk science.
This book is entertaining as light fiction, but in a way that is divisive, contemptuous, ignorant and destructive. It irresponsibly damages serious discourse. I'm sure it's done considerable harm to some of its adolescent readership. It ruined any respect I had for Niven.
Re:All very nice but (Score:2)
Re:All very nice but (Score:4, Interesting)
Classic example is the 'greenhouse cliff', which ignores the fact that average temperatures on earth were roughly 5 degrees higher 1000 years ago, without a disastrous icecap melt.
The iceage cliff in Fallen Angels matches up pretty well with current understanding of how fast iceages begin, and what prevented the 'Little Ice Age' of the last 700 years from becoming a true ice age.
Please get a clue before knocking the science in 'Fallen Angels'
Re:All very nice but (Score:3)
I assume that the flavour of this book (except for the NASA-bashing) was not Niven's fault. The novels Niven writes on his own are very apolitical except for a mild pro-corporate attitude. Pournelle, on the other hand, is an extremely old-fashioned conservative - he supports religion, monarchistic power, and is vehemently anti-intellectual. Read the many other collaborations of theirs and compare teh tone to Niven's books alone. Niven's bad guys are con-men and warriors, while Pournelle's bad guys are foolhardy academics and environmentalists. Look at how many academic villains there have been in their compilations - both the Legacy of the Heorot and Mote glorify the militaristic characters while they insult the academics.
what for sci-fi (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as space is concerned, when it is part of the science fiction story, it is mostly just a plot device. The story could just as easily be about Homer lost at sea or Huck floating down a river. This is especially true for most so-called science fiction TV shows. In fact, when a show tries to talk about (of course with many errors, inaccuracies, annoyances, but this is fiction) humans journey into space [imdb.com], or the commercialization of space [imdb.com], they get canceled quickly.
I think the interesting thing is that science fiction tends to promote understanding, knowledge, and then exploration. This is what NASA and other organizations are doing a very good job at. However, people get caught up in the idea of adventure and danger, which NASA is not do good at providing, nor should it be their job.
The love the odd space opera. OTOH, sometimes just thinking about what might happen if someone could predict the time of a persons death is enough for a wonderful sci-fi yarn.
wow, bad attitude! (Score:4, Insightful)
What kind of attitude is that? I love the known space story and other work by Neiven but my gratitude to its creator does not extend to limiting what I or others do. How does anyone intend to "share the dream" like that? Why would anyone bother to contribute back ideas to someone who would step on them like this? It's a very supprising attitude from such an amusing author.
No one owns an idea. Once you tell it, it belongs to everyone. Telling people that they can't write stories about rat tailed cats is about as silly as telling people they can't write stories about elves. Your words are yours, a phrase might be a trademark, implementations might be protected, but the rest is fair game.
How about the rest of us? (Score:3, Insightful)
But of course, since everybody over there knows who he is, I guess I'm just an ignorant shithead.
Re:How about the rest of us? (Score:4, Funny)
All it would have taken is a simple "Larry Niven, inventor of the Web Ring."
(That's a joke AND a troll)
Brin's 'Postman' vs Costners 'Postman' (Score:5, Interesting)
What a waste. I could go on but it's the same for almost all big screen adaptations of SF books. The translation of Starship Troopers was nearly as painful. In the book, troopers were seperated by miles (that's why they had armor) and in the movie troopers just ran around in mobs. One grenade could have taken out an entire squad.
The only hope is that hollywood will notice the performance of a faithful adaptation of source material ala Spiderman or the X-Men. If they can do that for comic books, there's hope that they'll one day do the same for Science Fiction.
Re:Brin's 'Postman' vs Costners 'Postman' (Score:5, Interesting)
It's been years since I've read The Postman, but I have to disagree with your reading of the book. If you read the book carefully, you'll find that the "hero" was much like Costner's version of the same character -- a flawed man who started out trying to scam some free food and shelter, moving from town to town. He finds a Post Office jeep stranded out in the middle of nowhere with the decayed remains of its driver, and the protagonist steals the uniform (or what was left of it) and a few other odds and ends (such as a scintillator, since there were nuclear weapons used in the war that occurred before the book's events, and some areas were still "hot zones"). He takes a bag of mail with him, and uses the letters as a desperate ploy to gain entry into towns that have built city walls to keep marauders out. Only later does the protagonist take on a more noble role, when he realizes the power in the dream that he's been selling people.
The problem is, Kevin Costner can't play at being smart, because he's clearly lacking the intellect to pull it off, and he's also seriously un-hip. So Costner rewrote the protagonist as a bumbling fool, when the protagonist in the book was smart (and survived on his wits alone at many points in the story). It's no wonder that Costner removed all mention of the group that was trying to re-establish technology, and their fake AI -- the real AI was destroyed shortly after the war, in the book. The protagonist in the book saw right through the fake AI, realizing that it was a scam, and there was a man behind the curtain. (The real AI was destroyed by rioting mobs, who sabotaged the power plant and facilities used to support the AI, which tragically shut down the AI's plans to help rebuild the country and the economy -- no doubt Brin's scathing commentary on the Luddite streak that permeates American culture.) Costner's version of that character lacked the smarts to see through such a deception. And on it goes.
I'm not sure which plot line you're referring to as "the most important." If I'm remembering correctly from your "night of the long knives" comment, this has to do with the plot line featuring the biologically enhanced super-soldiers who essentially became the feudal warlords of a broken America. If that's what you're referring to, then yeah, that's a key plot element Costner scoured out of the story.
I remember this one part of the film where they talked about the "Bad Mumps," when they were called "war mumps" in the book, and I cringed. Costner made some comment in the press before the movie came out that he'd "tweaked" the dialog, to make it sound just right, and after seeing this film, I have become convinced that Kevin Costner should never be allowed to edit a script ever again.
"Hard wired"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? I thought one of the key attributes of intelligence is learning and adaptability, the very opposite of hardwiring. The higher-up you get in intelligence on Earth, the less hard-wiring you see. A foal can walk within minutes of birth; a human baby takes several months minimum.
On the other hand, a human can learn Irish dancing, karate, rock climbing, roller skating, ice skating, and driving. An unusually smart horse might be able to learn one, but an average human, given training, could become competent in all of 'em.
Humans even rewire their brains in fundamental ways. We have deep wiring, apparently, to learn spoken language, but we can train those parts of our brain to read writing, and sign language. Helen Keller learned to communicate by touch. I don't know of any animal besides primates that have learned to communicate in other than their "natural" channels.
Humans show wide varieties of behavior in extremely fundamental bodily functions; bathroom habits differ somewhat (my poor wife learning to use those Eastern toilets...) but our sleeping habits differ more, our eating habits differ substantially, and our sexual habits perhaps most of all.
I don't buy it. An 'older' species, that has had longer to develop, would seem likely to have even more variation in sexual habits and most other areas.
Re:Who is this guy? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Who is this guy? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Who is this guy? (Score:5, Informative)
While I don't mean to sound elitist, to a science fiction fan, saying 'Larry Who? Niven? Never heard of him' would be like a physicist saying 'Niels Who? Bohr? Never heard of him."
Niven is both a *very* talented writer and an incredible world builder. While he had outside influences, he just about invented the concept of a Solar Ring World (Derived from a Dyson Sphere obviously), which has been re-used repeatedly by authors, movie-makers and comic-book artists since 'Ringworld' was originally published.
If you *really* don't know who Niven is, go do yourself a favor and get a copy of both 'Ringworld' and 'The Integral Trees' from your local library. Read them. Sit back and wait for your mind to cool down. Then go read everything else he's ever published.
Re:Who is this guy? (Score:2)
I just started the Hyperion series, and after that, the Foundation trilogy. Would you put the Ringworld series in this kind of class of a whole universe unfolded for the reader? I'll need something to read after the Foundation books!
Re:Who is this guy? (Score:2, Informative)
Is there an intriguing universe to be unfolded there? Absolutely. For me, that universe is more real by an order or magnitude than the worlds set forth in Star Trek or Star Wars.
Re:Who is this guy? (Score:2)
Re:Who is this guy? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not the one you are responding to but: yes. And no. The ringworld series fall off to quickly, in my opinion. Ringworld Engineers is okay (for a Niven book, which means better than most
The Ringworld Throne is
Your are certainly ripping through the master pieces. It's kind of sad that you read Night's Dawn before you read the Foundation books - you would have gotten more out of Night's Dawn if you had read more classics first.
I would recommend that you read some robot stories by Asimov before you read foundation. The more classics you have read, the better you'll understand the new classics. Names: Heinlein, Harrison, EE 'doc' Smith (If you had read Doc Smith you would have had double the fun when you read Peter Hamilton), Poul Anderson.
When you are done with your current reading plan: go for everything by Iain (M) Banks, read everything else by Simmons, check if you like John Barnes, I've aversions to David Brin, but can understand why most people like him, Ken Macleod, Linda Nagata,....
Now, now... (Score:4, Funny)
Now, now, there, we all know who's more prolific. [amazon.com]
Makes Larry [amazon.com] look like a bit of a slacker, actually!
I always thought that Larry should work a little more dilegently. I want more!
Re:Copyright a plot? (Score:2, Interesting)
You know, that struck me as a bit odd, too. I don't see how copyright can cover a plot summary of a book or story. Not only that, but the Fair Use clause of copyright law expressly allows for quotations and summaries used in book reviews and scholarly writings... Properly attributed, of course. I haven't seen the gaming magazine in question, but I don't see how Niven could have had a case unless there was a really egregious case of plagiarism.
This smacks of the same heavy-handed tactics others (especially authors) have used to suppress material they don't like. His high-priced attorneys are banking that nobody will be able to afford to mount a legal defense, and will cave in to any request that Niven makes. That's why, as much as I hate Elf Sternberg, I'm glad to see that he found a viable way to defend himself against this aggressive litigation: Elf claims that he's writing parody, as defined in the body of U.S. law and legal opinion, and at least in this country, that's an absolute defense against any infringement claims. (I get a kick reading some U.K. sites that talk about unauthorised parody, in regard to the flap over Mike Meyers using the title Goldmember for one of his Austin Powers movies. I guess the U.K. doesn't believe in protecting parody.)
Re:Recommendations of Niven's books (Score:2)
Pick up a copy of "N-Space" or "Playgrounds of the Mind". I'm pretty sure there's a chronological list of Known Space stories in one of those books (I'd check my copy, but I don't have it right now).
Re:Recommendations of Niven's books (Score:2)
Discworld is Pratchett, though I believe he's never written a book with that in the title.
Re:Lucifer's Hammer (Score:2)
Another good one would be Footfall, but then, I want to see Michael (the Orion powered ship in the end of the book) on the big screen.