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

[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: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: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.

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.

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

[stratjakt]

Hmmm...

HALO: $46.88

Ringworld $6.99

What's a poor mans who now?

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.

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.

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.