From: Alienthe@hotmail.com   
      
   The monster thread has now reached critical mass...   
      
   Omixochitl wrote:   
      
   > Alienthe  wrote in   
   > news:3FA8284A.5010705@hotmail.com:   
   >   
   >   
   >>Omixochitl wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>Alienthe  wrote in   
   >>>news:3F9EDC85.7030203@hotmail.com:   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>Omixochitl wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>Alienthe  wrote in   
   >>>>>news:3F9171E8.20101@hotmail.com:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>One of these days I'll try to trim this cascade...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>...but not today.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>>>>Omixochitl wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>Alienthe  wrote in   
   >>>>>>>news:3F758312.60406@hotmail.com:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>Omixochitl wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>Alienthe  wrote in   
   >>>>>>>>>news:3F57AC0C.5040300@hotmail.com:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>Omixochitl wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>Alienthe  wrote in message   
   >>>>>>>>>>>news:<3F4296A8.4090204@hotmail.com>...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>Omixochitl wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>Alienthe  wrote in   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>><3F3501D6.5070505@hotmail.com>:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Omixochitl wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Snoogy  wrote in   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>agreed, though PR went overboard on fashion description   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>rather than tech description and therefore suffered the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same failing as hard SF.  though   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Or more precisely, the same failing as hard chick lit.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Hard chick lit"? Would that be stories with detailled   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>fashion descriptions set in Harajuku or just outlandish   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>fashions like Trinity's wardrobe inside Matrix.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>Hard chick lit would be like _Bridget Jones's Diary_ and   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>_The Girl's Guide to Hunting and Fishing_, only more so.  ;)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>Bridget Jones to Neuromancer sure is a wide span in literary   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>Not that wide.  They're both 20th century, after all.  My   
   >>>>>>>>>>>literary tastes are a bit wider than those 2 imply.  ;)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>Well, I think it sounded wide as it was, no matter the   
   >>>>>>>>>>century. Or shall we say one bridget too far? Ahem.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>Heh.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>And now in another thread it appears you enjoy generic romance   
   >>>>>>>>stories too?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>Actually, I dislike formula romance.  Most of the romantic stories   
   >>>>>>>I like are definitely outside the genre, and the few I like within   
   >>>>>>>the genre are still outside the formula or at least kick the   
   >>>>>>>formula around (for example, _Ritual of Proof_ by Dara Joy).   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>Somehow a romantic streak seems a bit odd around here even though   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>Romantic streak?  Where?  I just happen to like several exceptions   
   >>>>>outside my favorite genres in addition to tons of stuff in my   
   >>>>>favorite genres.  :)   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>Is it possible to enjoy romance, formula or not, without a   
   >>>>minimum or romantic streak? Not that I know what it takes since   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>Eh, I had the impression that "streak" constituted somewhat more.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>Oh. Well, I had more of a "less" in mind, hoping   
   >>that less is not more here.   
   >   
   > It ain't.   
      
      
   We could go for the other approach: too much of a good   
   thing is simply fantastic...   
      
   >>>>I was unable to finish reading one generic romantic story I   
   >>>>accidentally picked up.   
   >>>>   
   >>>Hey, I was laughing *at* _Virtual Warrior_, not laughing *with* it.   
   >>>;)   
   >>   
   >>Phew.   
   >   
   > Heh.   
   >   
   >   
   >>>>>>I know of former regulars in this newsgroup who got married. The   
   >>>>>>stereotypical Molly or Trinity is rather powerful.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>Um, powerful and horny aren't mutually exclusive in either gender.   
   >>>>>Anyway, Molly would definitely beat Trinity in a fight.  Speaking of   
   >>>>>power levels, who would win - Molly or Nell*?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>Umm, I am not sure where "horny" got into this; still I can agree   
   >>>>that it and being powerful are not mutually exclusive.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>* let's make it fair and have Nell not call her reinforcements   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>Ah but that would be cheating.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>Nah.  Molly vs. Nell is fair.  Molly vs. Nell + 3,300,000 Mouse Army   
   >>>   
   >   
   > Oops, off by an order of magnitude.  Make that 330,000 Mouse Army troops.   
      
      
   What? I thought you had them breeding...   
      
   >>>troops is cheating.  Heck, even Molly vs. Nell + 4 Mouse Army troops   
   >>>is cheating.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>Molly with her augmented body would also be unfair, without   
   >>it she wouldn't be Molly.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Trouble is, how many troops are the counterpart of Molly's augments?   
   > Probably less than 1 girl.  How the heck do you get 0.5 or 0.7 or 0.2 of   
   > them in a fight?  Hmm...maybe a fraction of 1's fighting ability...OK,   
   > how about Molly + augments vs. Nell + one of those older girls who had   
   > stunted feet?   
      
      
   I am not sure what 0.2 girl would look like but I am fairly   
   sure it would be messy.   
      
   > Meanwhile, a Nell vs. Trinity fight would be even more difficult to set   
   > up:   
   >   
   > "Writing fight scenes in a book doesn't count as martial arts"   
   > "Of course it does, I see no good reason to instead drill a hole into my   
   > skull"   
   > "No fair"   
   > "You're the one who chose to do this in a ractive, I intended to use a   
   > proper gymnasium"   
   > "That's no fair either, you've used your actual hands and feet in a fight   
   > before"   
      
      
   Molly aged (realistically?) in the Sprawl Trilogy and had a   
   close shave in a fight mentioned in Mone Lisa Overdrive, so   
   the "when" counts too.   
      
   >>>>>>>Thing is, if a book is in both the formula romance and SF genres   
   >>>>>>>then the library here shelves it as SF.  Which is the only reason   
   >>>>>>>I knew that book existed in the first place.  I checked it out,   
   >>>>>>>despite its being formula romance, because it also looked vaguely   
   >>>>>>>CP.  ;)   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>Seems strange to me that a library would stock generic formula   
   >>>>>>romance, perhaps also the librarian in charge of the shelves   
   >>>>>>agree too.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>Libraries stock everything these days, from   
   >>>>>Nobel-Prize-in-Literature stuff to generic formula romance and Star   
   >>>>>Trek spinoff novels and such. If they don't stock something for   
   >>>>>everyone, it's harder for them to ask for tax support from everyone.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>This sounds much like the lowest common denominator. It is easy to   
   >>>>   
   >>>More like all the denominators.  Lowest common denominator would be   
   >>>stocking *nothing but* generic formula romance and Star Trek spinoff   
   >>>novels.   
   >>>   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)