Ladies and Gentlemen, Dr. Larry Niven

Several Slashdot staff people are major Larry Niven fans, so we feel he needs no introduction. You asked. He answered. Enough said. Read and enjoy.

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.

Comments

Maybe what we're up against is the universe

[Tailhook]

Amen. Put that in your NASA/Military Industrial Complex conspiracy pipe and smoke it. The Universe has no compelling reason to cater to whims and dreams of mortals. There is no "grass roots" road to space. Get over it.

Re:Maybe what we're up against is the universe

[TopShelf]

And frankly, until there is something that would truly require human study and analysis, we just won't see any strong drive to send a manned mission out of orbit anytime soon. The improved capabilities of orbiting telescopes and robotic exploration have pretty much eliminated the need for manned missions in the short- to medium-term. It's not that we're not exploring, we're just not sticking our (astronaut's) necks out.

Re:Maybe what we're up against is the universe

[ChuckDivine]

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

[Tailhook]

Before we chuck out our dreams, perhaps we should consider changing the current approach to the problems

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

[jthomas2]

That's a beautiful line and there is a lot of truth in it. In general the universe does not seem hospitable for intelligent life. Planetary scale stability required for the evolution of intelligent life seems to not be there. There doesn't seem to be anyone else out there - otherwise a) they would be here already b) we would notice their handiwork everywhere.

So where does that leave us? We have got to get out of here! If we don't - in a million years there will be no humans, if we do, in a million years humans will be everywhere. It will probably take us far longer to get out than the willy eyed futurists predict but it doesn't really matter because we have to think in terms of geological time. When time scales go to thousands and tens of thousands of years the probability of a civilization destroying event go to unity. If we don't, it might be another 5 billion years until something like us arises elsewhere.

And god damn, there is nothing more human than having impossible dreams.

-Jay

Re:Maybe what we're up against is the universe

[The Cornishman]

we're just not sticking our (astronaut's) necks out

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

[Tackhead]

> The improved capabilities of orbiting telescopes and robotic exploration [nasa.gov] have pretty much eliminated the need for manned missions in the short- to medium-term. It's not that we're not exploring, we're just not sticking our (astronaut's) necks out.

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

[Galvatron]

Reforms have been successfully made to other institutions.

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

[Once&FutureRocketman]

You are so full of shit.

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. 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.

Re:Maybe what we're up against is the universe

[jo42]

With that attitude, we would have never of left the cave...

Re:Maybe what we're up against is the universe

[Selfbain]

The odds that there is another civilization nearby that is at the same technological level as we are is pretty remote. I would say that if they're out there, they're a thousand times more advanced or still banging rocks together.

There was a /. story a ways back about how the earth is getting quieter as our communication technology increases and that soon the earth will fall silent as we stop broadcasting our signals out into space. Perhaps this is why we can find no evidence of other life, we simply don't have the technology to detect it. Not only that, I would be willing to bet that any species that can survive long enough to make it into space would be fairly enlightened and peaceful, thus we must look like barbarians.

Perhaps they HAVE been here, took a good look at us and decided they'd check up on us when we've matured a bit more.

Re:Maybe what we're up against is the universe

[ChuckDivine]

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.

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.

Cassini is considered an old-fashioned "big budget" mission according to contemporary anti-NASA zealot thinking.

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

[TerraFORM]

That 'something compelling' might just be a rogue asteroid.

Sure, it's a long shot, but IF IT DOES HAPPEN, we sure as heck need to be established somewhere else.

The longevity of the SPECIES is at stake, and methinks that alone is a pretty damn good reason.

Re:Maybe what we're up against is the universe

[GregWebb]

How much would a one-way mission cost?

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

[cybercuzco]

Im tired of people bitching about how were not going into space anymore. These things take time people! Youre not going to have star trek tomorrow, or the next day or maybe even in 3 centuries. The first real colony in the americas was nearly 100 years after columbus first set foot here, and there was alot more reason for people to come to america then there is for us to go to space now. We need the impetus to do it, and that means running out of more natural resources. Humans are lazy, they wont change their ways unless they are absolutely forced to. Look at how the steam engine was invented: Steam power was known about for millenia before the industrual revolution (see Heros Engine) but it was finally perfected because they needed a way to pump water out of the coal mines. They needed to do that because they were using more coal, they were using more coal because the english and most of europe had run out of trees. They had run out of trees because populations had grown and they needed to wood for housing and heating. Essentially we were forced to move to another fuel source, and this fuel source required new technology to gather it. Its amazing how innovative you can be when youre faced with being inventive or freezing to death in the winter. Space travel is no different. If we have 15 billion people on the planet in 50 years, I gaurentee we will be going into space. Not to send excess population there, but to bring back resources like power and minerals. All it takes on your part is a little patience for the population pressure to start pushing us outward again.

Re:Maybe what we're up against is the universe

[sketerpot]

Does "flexible" include ignoring launch parameters and blowing up manned vehicles? I watched that happen. Fuck flexible.

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.

Thanks for the interview!

[eaddict]

I hope to see more authors here! Too bad PKD is dead. I guess I will have to live with "What If Our World Is Their Heaven? The Final Conversations of Philip K. Dick" which is a great read!

Wisdom vs. Intelligence

[schon]

Joel Rosenberg put it best in "The Sleeping Dragon":

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

[revery]

Thanks for reminding of Joel Rosenberg and his excellent novels. They are some of the best fantasy I have ever read. It's been far too long since I've read them.

Re:Who is this guy?

[DonkeyJimmy]

I didn't know either, but if you click the link to the old slashdot story it has a link to more info about him.

Re:Outer Limits

[scowling]

"Inconstant Moon", from the more recent (90s) series. It starred Michael Gross and Joanna Gleason, and is considered one of the finest, if not *the* finest, episode of the series.

Good SF and bad movies...

[Jhon]

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...

It's been my experience that GOOD sf books turn in to NASTY sf movies. Since David Brin's name was brought up, let's look at The Postman. In my opinion, it was a fantastic story which, once turned in to a movie made me feel like I'd been violated

Of course, it might have been entirely the fault of Kevin Costner...

- Jhon

Re:Good SF and bad movies...

[meringuoid]

Compare and contrast the original Blade Runner with Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep. The film massacred the book. The recent edited version was a lot better, but still cut out the whole religion and culture of the world; I suppose those couldn't realistically fit into a film.

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...

[Coz]

The effects are easy, nowadays... it still depends on the ability of the screenwriters, actors, and director to tell the story. Speaker and Nessus could be done, IMHO - they would probably be CGI, and it would be on a scale similar to Gollum in LOTR.

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...

[stratjakt]

I disagree WRT Blade Runner. I think it was an incredible movie, even though it was altogether different from the book.

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.

Re:Good SF and bad movies...

[wesmo]

You have to detatch the way your imagination depicts the the way any book, SF or otherwise, is written. The beauty of any novel is that, while the author is drawing an defining scenes and conversation, it is your mind that pieces it all together.

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...

[ChurchyardTX]

Another stinker: Contact. The movie of Sagan's book discarded the most interesting theme, that of God/Science and where they meet.

(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...

[Xoro]

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...

[banzai51]

Disclaimer: I haven't read the book.

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...

[jnik]

Starship Troopers was a great film - it really effectively skewered the horrible idiotic ideology and propoganda behind the book. The actors were ideal for the roles, and the directing was second-to-none. The only people who don't like it are those who were gulled by the book into believing fascism could be OK.

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...

[jcast]

I realize this is how film majors always explain it but there're two problems: (1) they're largely projecting their psychology on others. Many of us don't picture the scenes in our heads as we read. (2) they're largely projecting their psychology on others. Many of us are already larger than supposing a movie has to look the same as the pictures in our heads. But the ideas it presents have to be the same as those from the book, otherwise it's a shitty adaptation.

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...

[mog]

Speaking of Starship Troopers.

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...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

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.

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...

[Azog]

Well, I have to agree that they would not make good movies, but only because most people wouldn't consider an 8 hour movie to be good no matter what. It isn't quite extreme as transitioning a symphony to a painting - after all, both books and movies have characters, plots, settings, dialog...

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...

[kfg]

Not a movie trailer, but you're on the right track.

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...

[Daetrin]

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.

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?

Re:Who is this guy?

[termos]

He is a science fiction writer which is known for the book series Known Space and Ringworld. I have heard that Arthur C. Clarke named him as his favourite author. He is very well known in other words. :-)

Re:Who is this guy?

[Bonker]

Niven's background very nearly approaches Asimov's.

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.

Mote

[scharkalvin]

I just read an article in Astronomy magazine about travel to the stars using a laser to drive a sail craft. I thought this sounded too familiar. Sure enough Niven has been there. I'm going to have to pick up a copy of "Mote in God's eye" and re-read it. I think he also 'invented' the Bussard ram jet too.

Re:Mote

[Tassach]

Travel by a laser-powered solar sail was not an original idea of Niven's. Try reading "The Flight of the Dragonfly" by Robert L. Forward. Excellent book.

Re:Mote

[fgb]

He did use the Bussard Ramjet in his story. But the credit for "inventing" it should go to Robert Bussard, the physicist who first came up with the idea in the early 60's.

My first encounter with Niven

[Seq]

I had a book report to do in high school. It was obvious that I had to do science fiction, as I rather enjoy reading such literature. Unfortunately, thrown into that section of the library, I was a little lost, if only by the size of the science fiction shelves. I took a browse through, and recognized names of authors I've read before, but came across one called "ringworld", by a fellow named "Larry Niven". I hadn't heard of him (I, myself, find this hard to believe now), but figured it was probably rather good, as it had five copies in a public library. I started the book on a friday night, and while I cannot remember if it was saturday night or sunday night that I finished it, I couldnt put the book down for more than a few moments without deciding to read "just one more chapter." That is the only assignment I finished in high school without waiting for the deadline to approach. This probably wont interest anybody, but I just figured I would share my story of my first experience with Niven's work. I'd highly reccommend his work to anyone.

Re: Answer 2: Is Science Fiction healthy

[HiThere]

This is a harder question than it looks. I don't think it is healthy, but good real science fiction has always been such a small slice of the market that it's quite difficult to be sure except for decades later. E.g., Robert Forward was a great science fiction writer. And a pretty good story teller, too. Ditto for Hal Clement. And a very few others. Most well known authors have been great story tellers, who plied their trade in the Science Fiction area. E.g., Jules Verne. (The hollow earth hasn't been a reasonable idea since Newton. Just do a few calculation on the strength of materials required to make it work.)

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.

Re:Outer Limits

[WinPimp2K]

I was channel surfing and clicked over to this on it's opening scene. I saw the too-bright moon and instantly knew that whatever the darn show was, it was based on "Inconstant Moon" before they ever got to the title or opening credits.

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)

Star Trek Cartoon...

[RichardtheSmith]

Yes Larry Niven intersected with Trek...

This really trips me out...

Halo" looks like a poor man's Ringworld..

[stratjakt]

Hmmm...

HALO: $46.88

Ringworld $6.99

What's a poor mans who now?

Re:Halo" looks like a poor man's Ringworld..

[HeghmoH]

Yeah, but look at the costs of making real ones.

Halo: $10^(HOLY SHIT)

Ringworld: $10^(DEAR JESUS THAT'S BIG)

Re:Who is this guy?

[Bonker]

A lot of Niven's science fiction is set in 'Known Space' (or in the same continuity). It's not just populated by the Humans who are the main characters in a lot of his books, but also by the Kzinti, Pierson's Puppeteers, and the mysterious Pak Protectors, amoung others. There are myriad worlds in Niven's books, including the aforementioned Ringworld, and many non-worlds, such as the 'Smoke Ring' in 'The Integral Trees'

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.

Regarding the last two questions

[LionMage]

Well, I knew someone would bring up Elf Sternberg's stories, and how Mr. Sternberg ran afoul of Larry Niven. Naturally, Niven claims that Sternberg violated his copyrights. Pardon me, but I was under the impression that copyright only applied to complete works; you can only trademark a name, such as "Kzin." (Paramount goes nuts with claiming trademarks and registered trademarks on everything under the sun, so I know this is pretty standard practice.) Similarly, although IANAL, I understand that you technically can't claim copyright on a character or a concept, only on a work of fiction involving that character or concept.

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

[geekoid]

His point was not the The postman was a great movie, but that he was glad to see sci-fi books on the screen,regardless of quality. The book doesn't change. So he wouldn't mind seeing a bastardized version of ringworld, in the theory that more people would read his book. Although I suspect the money he would get would be the primary reason for wanting to see his books be made into movies.

"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.

Now, now...

[Thud457]

"Niven's background very nearly approaches Asimov's."

Now, now, there, we all know who's more prolific.

Makes Larry look like a bit of a slacker, actually!

I always thought that Larry should work a little more dilegently. I want more!

The machine gnomes stole my drugs!

[Thud457]

Hey, we're talking PKD here!

It seems to me that channeling might be a perfectly reasonable way to conduct an interview!

The Sequel Question

[Rayonic]

It's too bad that the question of sequels didn't make the cut to be asked. I've noticed a trend in Niven's body of work -- he's not good at direct sequels. Really, some of his sequels fall short of the original novel, while the others fall far, far short.

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

[Roblimo]

I almost sent him your question, since I think serialization is a plague on the novel-publishing industry, and that franchising an author's work (as Larry Niven, Tom Clancy, and others have done) is a sick marketing tactic that produces bad writing almost every time. (Even Robert Parker's attempt at completing a Raymond Chandler novel stunk -- and Parker is a plenty fine writer himself.)

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

Re:Who is this guy?

[tcdk]

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! :)

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 :-) and does a good job of answering a lot of the questions raised in the first book.

The Ringworld Throne is .... not something to bend over backwards to get your hands on. It's really two stories, one of them not really related to the Ringworld (could have happened any where) and one... just bad.

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,....

All very nice but

[uncadonna]

Junk science cuts both ways. Niven's "Fallen Angels" strikes me as malign, irresponsible propaganda.

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

[TheCrazyFinn]

The Science in 'Fallen Angels' is better than 90% of the so-called 'Science' being put forward by the greens these days.

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

[Pxtl]

As a niven fan, I never expect to read a book that positively revolted me as much as Fallen Angels did. It was painful. I finished the book out of sheer morbid curiousity at where else he was going with this.

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.

Solomon.

[TheLink]

The difference between wisdom and intelligence?

That question reminds me of the story of Solomon deciding which woman was the baby's mother.

1 Kings 3:16-28

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.

Re:Copyright a plot?

[LionMage]

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.
This doesn't sound right to me. How can he stop someone from giving away the ending. Sure, he can ask nice and hope they are nice, but talks acts like he had some kind of legal right. WTF?

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.)

what for sci-fi

[fermion]

I really like is answer to "Is Science Fiction healthy" and the related NASA basing. The fact is that science fiction is a very large category which can include extremely serious stories such as "Ringworld", as well as the Heinlein sex commentary "To Sail Beyond the Sunset" and Pohl's semi-historical novel "Chernobyl". To say this or that is real science fiction is a conceit.

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, or the commercialization of space, 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.

I like Dick's answer

[epepke]

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.

wow, bad attitude!

[Erris]

"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.

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?

[dasmegabyte]

I personally think Larry Niven *DOES* need an introduction, since I have no idea who he is. Being that I don't read nearly enough sci-fi literature (instead wasting my time with the subversive literature assigned to me by this damn hippy graduate program), I would have appreciated a quick run down of what he's written and why he's important.

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?

[dasmegabyte]

Bah. Slashdot's supposed to put news in a blender and serve it up with a tiny straw umbrella. I shouldn't have to go googling every time somebody answers questions. Tell me why I should care, man!

All it would have taken is a simple "Larry Niven, inventor of the Web Ring."

(That's a joke AND a troll)

Third Person?

[cherrypi]

"To someone who already wants to write, or to know about Niven, give N-SPACE..."

Interesting that he refers to himself in third person... I smell a secretary.

Re:Who is this guy?

[Thud457]

You really should read "Neutron Star" before "Ringworld" -- it sets up a lot of the primary motivations for the characters in the latter story.

Warning : Possible spoilers for "Ringworld" (I figured that was better than giving up the ending of "Neutron Star" ;-)

1. Why do the Puppeteers claim they are leaving known space?
2. What prize do they offer Man and Kzinti to convince them to explore the ringworld?
3. Why did the Puppeteers become intereted in the Ringwold? (Remember curiosity is not a natural trait for them.)

Best SF Line

[GammaRay Rob]

My first encounter with Larry Niven's work was during high school, oh so many years ago, with this line (by memory, hopefully not too far off the mark):
"Hey you, from We Made It, what am I?"
(A Flatlander, obviously!)
I was hooked.

Re:Does Larry Niven have cancer?

[admiralh]

That was my first reaction, too. However, it was the questioner who said he had cancer, not Niven.

Brin's 'Postman' vs Costners 'Postman'

[huckamania]

Although they share a similar story line, the Kevin Costner movie stripped almost every vestige of what made the book great. Costner turned the lead role from hero to antihero. In the book, the Postman was looking for and actually trying to reestablish civilization. In the movie, he's just trying to scam food, supplies and sex (while also getting a lot of people killed in the process). The movie combined the two female leads and dropped the most important story line in the book (if you've read the book you'll know what I'm talking about - The night of the long knives). In the book, there are reasons for what the Postman does. In the movie, the Postman just seems to wander about making trouble and only at the end does he do anything about it.

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'

[LionMage]

Costner turned the lead role from hero to antihero. In the book, the Postman was looking for and actually trying to reestablish civilization. In the movie, he's just trying to scam food, supplies and sex (while also getting a lot of people killed in the process).

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"?

[Dr. Manhattan]

An older species won't have human versatility in sex: sexual responses will be all hard wired.

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.

Flash Crowd and the Slashdot Effect.

[obnoximoron]

I am surprised no one has pointed out yet that the Slashdot Effect was anticipated by Niven long before the Internet came into being. Read Niven's 1973 short story Flash Crowd.