LOIS-BUJOLD Digest 934 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Monogamy by hvalli-+AT+-mindspring.com (Heather R. Valli) 2) Elizabeth Naismith's Granny Fever by Ramona Winkelbauer 3) Re: 3 Investigators by WALTDISNY-+AT+-aol.com 4) RE: Procrastination of procreation by hvalli-+AT+-mindspring.com (Heather R. Valli) 5) Re: Biology in SF (OT) by Sfolse-+AT+-aol.com 6) Re: Cat apologies by Sfolse-+AT+-aol.com 7) Re: Re: Monogamy by Sfolse-+AT+-aol.com 8) Re: Procrastination of procreation by "Carol M. Strouts" 9) Re: Monogamy by Sfolse-+AT+-aol.com 10) Re: RE: Procrastination of procreation by Sfolse-+AT+-aol.com 11) Re: Headless Embryo Created by David McMillan 12) Re: Re: Monogamy by Sfolse-+AT+-aol.com 13) Monogamy by Chuckson_M_Yokota-+AT+-amat.com 14) Re: Re: Monogamy by castiron-+AT+-mail.utexas.edu (French German Celtic Knot) 15) OT: RE: Procrastination of procreation by castiron-+AT+-mail.utexas.edu (French German Celtic Knot) 16) Re: Elizabeth Naismith's Granny Fever by Katie Schwarz 17) Re: Headless Embryo Created by castiron-+AT+-mail.utexas.edu (French German Celtic Knot) 18) ICQ by Martian687-+AT+-aol.com 19) Re: Rhetorical question by robertaw-+AT+-halcyon.com (Robert A. Woodward) 20) I'm not sure, but...(long) by MWYoung 21) Re: Monogamy by Kirsten Edwards 22) Re: I'm not sure, but long... by Kirsten Edwards 23) Granny Fever by gov.legis-+AT+-saipan.com (doug muir) 24) Re: Biology in SF (OT) by rrhorton-+AT+-concentric.net (Rich Horton) 25) Re: Fanfic, speculation, and Star Trek by rrhorton-+AT+-concentric.net (Rich Horton) 26) Re: Granny Fever by gryphon-+AT+-execpc.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:35:12 -0400 (EDT) From: hvalli-+AT+-mindspring.com (Heather R. Valli) To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Monogamy Message-ID: >>And then there's the Family Part of the Equation. > >Ohhhh yes. > >My mother and I have that conversation about once a month now. Yes ladies, >guys get this too. > >Mom would, I believe, cheerfully empty a shotgun into a crowded McDonalds >if she thought it would somehow lead to me settling down and producing a >crop of Muir grandchildren for her. > >This is not the reason that I live ten time zones from her, but it would >make me think twice about moving anywhere within easy reach. > > > >Doug M. My mom didn't get married until she was 32, so I have a couple of years before she can start making "don't you want to settle down?" comments to me. Right now she settles for bemoning my fascination with motorcycles. (heh. Just wait until I actually get one. I may have to move 10 time zones away.) But as far as monogamy goes, I like Rita Mae Brown's comment from _Bingo_. She says that monogamy is against human nature, but necessary for the greater social good. (The previous sentence was pretty much a direct quote. The following paragraph is a paraphrase because the book is out on loan.) Diseases are all too easily spread through intimate contact--you can make whatever moral judgements you want or not, but it's a basic biological fact. Mating proceedures take a lot of energy. Producing kids and then raising them take energy, care, and material, mental, and emotional resources. By settling down with one person you reduce the risk of spreading diseases around. You no longer have to put the energy into mating games with a variety of people. (According to Brown there are a lot of other things in society that could use the energy.) The emotional/physical/mental strain of raising offspring is very hard for one person to cope with,(although I have seen it done well). It's easier with two caring people. (paraphrase over) These arguments do not preclude a stable non-monogamous situation--a threesome or whatever. I've never seen one work among my friends and acquaintances, but there's a lot of people I haven't met. Now two of these issues--disease and children--are mostly avoidable with the right precautions. And people can put energy into whatever they choose--relationships, careers, flower arranging... But on the whole I find I agree with Ms. Brown--getting the whole hearts and groins thing (to steal a phrase from Emma Bull) settled frees up a lot of energy. The people I know who are in stable monogamous relationships seem to have a lot more oomph to put into their careers and other non-romantic pursuits. The ones (like me, at the moment) who are in no romantic relationship and who aren't really fretting about it seem to have a similar amount of energy. But the one's who are starting relationships, searching for relationships, or breaking up relationships are wiped. H. Valli ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 15:39:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Ramona Winkelbauer To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Elizabeth Naismith's Granny Fever Message-ID: <19971022223948.24897.rocketmail-+AT+-web2.rocketmail.com> Kirsten Edwards wrote: ObBujold: Do you suppose when you FINALLY get married after all those years and it's to the Barrayaran Butcher of Komarr, your mom STOPS nagging you about grandkids? Hmm, I didn't think Cordelia's mother had 'Granny Fever' that badly --- IIRC, Cordelia mentions her brother getting a second child permit in _SoH_. Count Piotr, OTOH ..... ;) Besides, couldn't Cordelia donate either an egg or have a clone started in a uterine replicator? (And give her mother the spiel several listies have mentioned; you want a grandchild, you can do the chores.) Today's definite biological clock (requiring tinkering for post-menapausal procreation) isn't the case with the Naismiths ---- Cordelia's crack about making Vorkosigans ad infinium is pretty plausible --- look at the Cynthia Jane Baruch ovarian culture, 200+ years old before senescence. Ramona _____________________________________________________________________ Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:38:28 -0400 (EDT) From: WALTDISNY-+AT+-aol.com To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: 3 Investigators Message-ID: <971022183828_1622743458-+AT+-mrin40.mail.aol.com> Yes! I had forgotten about those, but a quick search found most of my colection in a box. Fun stuff. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:51:32 -0400 (EDT) From: hvalli-+AT+-mindspring.com (Heather R. Valli) To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: RE: Procrastination of procreation Message-ID: >(She's >been married 4 years, still got her bs and masters, but prefers >Toys-R-Us to Williams-Sonoma. Kids would just be an excuse to shop for >cool stuff.) > >Tom I read a button somewhere that said that having kids was just an excuse to buy toys, and the wearer was gonna cut out the middleman and buy his own. At work we have the "kids-no kids" debate every couple of months, with no one getting convinced of anyone else's opinion. I ride both sides of the fence, since I like kids, but don't want any at the moment. While I feel no personal need to gestate, I am all for helping to support the offspring of those who do. I don't think that someone who doesn't want kids should have them to make other people (potential grandparents, etc.) happy. Raising kids is hard work. If people want to have them and care for them then great! Since I want to have people around who can raise crops, turn the wheat into bread, build and maintain computers, diagnose and treat my ailments, build houses, make clothes, and neuter my pets, I'm going to vote for every educational tax increase, bond issue, school bill, etc. that comes down the pike. I'll also be doing whatever else I can do to support the development of educational opportunities. But I don't feel any desire to become a mother, and until I think otherwise it would be foolish of me to have kids. I think I was born to be an aunt. H. Valli ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:51:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Sfolse-+AT+-aol.com To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Biology in SF (OT) Message-ID: <971022184855_-426914584-+AT+-emout08.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 10/21/97 11:47:00 PM, you wrote: >> >ObBujold. "He WAS bisexual..Now he's monagamous..." (loosely quoted). >> ObGripe ;-). The two sets are not mutually exclusive. But I think we've >> been through that on this list already. > No, 'fraid not. Once you're monogamous, you can no-longer be >bisexual. *Faithful* and bisexual (one of say, 5, in a group marriage) >sure. But that monagamy sure put a crimp in the choosing another sexual >partner - of any gender - thang.... To my understanding, "bisexual," just like "heterosexual" and "homosexual," refers to a sexual *orientation*, not *expression*. It simply means that a person is sexually attracted to members of both genders, not that s/he is actively having sex with members of both genders. It is possible to be married monogamously and be bisexual, and also to be celibate and bisexual. Think of it this way -- when you are married, you may be sexually attracted to other people, although you may not act on that attraction. --Stephanie ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:03:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Sfolse-+AT+-aol.com To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Cat apologies Message-ID: <971022190211_174506991-+AT+-emout07.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 10/22/97 5:26:45 AM, you wrote: >I've had this problem with foreign languages before. There was the time in >France when, over breakfast, I noted that the milk tasted a little strange, >and asked, in French, if there were "preservatives" in it... My aunt backpacked through France asking mystified Frenchmen where the war was... (la guerre = war, la gare= train station, provided I got the articles right.) --Stephanie ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:15:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Sfolse-+AT+-aol.com To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Re: Monogamy Message-ID: <971022191442_580441716-+AT+-emout06.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 10/22/97 10:20:08 AM, you wrote: >> >late, and she was a bit of an aberration for marrying at 24 in 1967(her >> >mother married at 29 in 1941, *her* mother at 25 in 1910). >You don't come from the South, do you? My family tradition has always >been to marry young. My mother married at 16, my grandmother at15, both >of my sisters at 17 and my brothers at 19 and 21. Strangely enough, >there has only been one divorce in my family. Texas. That side of the family, East Texas, to be precise. One of the places where your family tree tends to be a stick. :) I don't know a whole lot about that side of the family (other than that my cousin 2 or 3 times removed was the nonfiction editor of the New Yorker, and supposedly is fictionalized in _Bright Lights, Big City_). The other side of the family, though, I can trace back to the first Folse in Louisiana, ca. 1700. All Cajun, all devout Catholic, and (I think) my cousin's divorce may have been the first divorce in the family. --Stephanie, thinking she's not going to get an ObBujold out of this unless it means being thankful that geneology isn't quite the contact sport that it is on Barrayar... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:35:13 -0400 From: "Carol M. Strouts" To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Procrastination of procreation Message-ID: <199710222335.TAA06695-+AT+-skate.motown.lmco.com> Bill wrote: >>Have children or not as you wish. If the "population crisis" is bothering you, you may want to look up some of the newest modeling. At least one of the models shows a declining world population within 50 years. << Considering that the current world population growth rate will cause a doubling of the population in 50 years, this is hardly reassuring. That's 12 billion people! Will there be anyplace left to get away from them all? Carol ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:35:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Sfolse-+AT+-aol.com To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Monogamy Message-ID: <971022193233_-392789507-+AT+-emout17.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 10/22/97 4:45:14 AM, you wrote: >Mom would, I believe, cheerfully empty a shotgun into a crowded McDonalds >if she thought it would somehow lead to me settling down and producing a >crop of Muir grandchildren for her. > >This is not the reason that I live ten time zones from her, but it would >make me think twice about moving anywhere within easy reach. I moved in *with* my mother... luckily she's not one of the Baby Brigade. I think she prefers to think of herself as Not Old Enough to be a Grandmother Yet. OTOH, my grandparents who point adorable small children out to me have been great-grandparents for seven or so years now, thanks to the cousin who got her MRS degree, then dropped out of college. (Of course, *she's* now a bank manager and making more money than I *ever* will with my graduate degree...) --Stephanie, who keeps reminding herself that she defines "success" with something other than "money," although it's hard to remember at student-loan time. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:36:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Sfolse-+AT+-aol.com To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: RE: Procrastination of procreation Message-ID: <971022193629_-57161472-+AT+-emout02.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 10/22/97 1:19:56 PM, you wrote: >Tom >who admits that he would use marriage as an excuse to shop more at >Williams-Sonoma, even though he already has the ravioli maker I keep adding up all the nifty stuff I'll register for when I eventually prepare to get married, provided I haven't already bought it by then. :) And my future children are a great excuse to buy all sorts of books that I loved as a child -- of *course* I want to read this and that and the other to them! --Stephanie ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:35:36 +0000 From: David McMillan To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Headless Embryo Created Message-ID: <01IP4AZ8HJAI0067C2-+AT+-lakers.lssu.edu> Just to pick nits, but.... Isn't the entire issue with House Bharaputra the fact that they grow _viable_ clones and then kill them to make room for the new tenants? If, on the other hand, it was possible to grow clones that never had brains, and were therefore never _people_, I can't see anything really inethical about taking that route. I always assumed that Mark's and the Duronas' solution would take on some shape like that. So if the clone is modified at the DNA level, pre-conception, to have no brain, what you end up with is a an empty shell ready and waiting for a new owner, and nobody has to die for it. Of course, this procedure may already exist in the Bujoldian Universe, but isn't used due to two problems: One, trying to grow a healthy human body over 18-20 years with no brain in it; how does it eat, exercise, develop? How do you "tune" it so it's ready to receive an adult brain? Problem two is the Jacksonian answer to Problem One: There is no better device for growing a human body than a human brain. Comes with built in survival instincts, exercise programs (with a little work), hormonal regulation, and just pretty much sets the whole thing up to be absolutely ready for new ownership. If it wasn't so vile, you'd almost have to admire the cleverness of the approach... WARNING: REALITY.SYS CORRUPTED. (A)BORT, (R)ETRY, (P)ANIC? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:43:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Sfolse-+AT+-aol.com To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Re: Monogamy Message-ID: <971022194206_-923962750-+AT+-emout12.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 10/22/97 1:24:41 PM, you wrote: >1. Birth control can fail. If you're going to run the risk of a pregnancy, >better to sleep with someone who you wouldn't mind having as your child's >father than someone who you wouldn't want a permanent biological connection to. I'd like to add a hearty "hear, hear!' to this... --Stephanie, who saw what happened to several people she knew in highschool and determined it wouldn't happen to her... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 16:44:19 -0700 From: Chuckson_M_Yokota-+AT+-amat.com To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Monogamy Message-ID: <88256538.0080C6BE.00-+AT+-GWSMTPSCLA02.mis.amat.com> I was married at 29, by which time my father, like Piotr, had given up looking for an heir through me. From what I've seen the people who are happy and fulfilled in marriage were generally those who were the same when single, while those who felt needy and hoped for marriage to rescue them from unhappiness were most likely to be disappointed. While Cordelia is aware of Aral's orientation (see her analysis of him in _MD_) I don't think she necessarily would agree with the definition of bisexuality as orientation. The connection between what you are and what you do is closer and more complicated in her theology. Remember her "I am what I choose," (_SoH_) echoed in her son's "You are what you do." (BiA) - Chuck ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:11:12 -0500 (CDT) From: castiron-+AT+-mail.utexas.edu (French German Celtic Knot) To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Re: Monogamy Message-ID: <199710230011.TAA24143-+AT+-mail.utexas.edu> >--Stephanie, thinking she's not going to get an ObBujold out of this unless >it means being thankful that geneology isn't quite the contact sport that >it is on Barrayar... Have you ever been to a genealogy library on a crowded day when a third of the microfilm readers are broken down? ;-) I wonder what genealogists do on Beta, actually. Given their strict child policies and probable extensive recordkeeping, I'd suspect it's quite easy to trace your ancestors back to the earliest settlers. Maybe they spend most of their time trying to go beyond the immigrant ancestor ;-), or maybe they do more family history. --slc -------------------------------------------------------------------- Sharon L. Casteel castiron-+AT+-mail.utexas.edu Now is the winter of our influenza made glorious summer by this anamorphosis of amoxicillin. --Jan Six ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:11:14 -0500 (CDT) From: castiron-+AT+-mail.utexas.edu (French German Celtic Knot) To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: OT: RE: Procrastination of procreation Message-ID: <199710230011.TAA08560-+AT+-mail.utexas.edu> Stephanie writes: >I keep adding up all the nifty stuff I'll register for when I eventually >prepare to get married, provided I haven't already bought it by then. :) I've purposely put off buying a few useful-but-not-essential kitchen items just so I'll have _something_ to register for (yeah, I'm already married, but we haven't had the big family wedding yet). I've lived on my own for almost ten years; I already own all the stuff I really need! Granted, some of the things I bought elcheapo in my first year of college are ready to be replaced.... >And my future children are a great excuse to buy all sorts of books that I >loved as a child -- of *course* I want to read this and that and the other >to them! Forget the kids -- I buy them for me and make no secret of it! I've used this as an excuse to buy an extra copy of a book I already own, though -- I'll have one for me and one for the theoretical kids. They get the old paperback with the unfortunate cover design that looks like the girl has horns sprouting from her head; I get the nice clean white library-cull hardcover that I found for two bucks in Half Price Books ;-). And yes, between Jan and me we pretty much have two sets of Bujold.... --slc -------------------------------------------------------------------- Sharon L. Casteel castiron-+AT+-mail.utexas.edu Now is the winter of our influenza made glorious summer by this anamorphosis of amoxicillin. --Jan Six ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 17:14:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Katie Schwarz To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Elizabeth Naismith's Granny Fever Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Oct 1997, Ramona Winkelbauer wrote: > Besides, couldn't Cordelia donate either an egg or have a clone > started in a uterine replicator? (And give her mother the spiel > several listies have mentioned; you want a grandchild, you can do the > chores.) I had the impression that reproduction was *illegal* on Beta without a co-parent and a license. Maybe Cordelia and her mother would be allowed as co-parents. The desire for children came mainly from within Cordelia, though -- recall her ex who said he'd father children for her if she let him get promoted ahead of her. > Today's definite biological clock (requiring tinkering for > post-menapausal procreation) isn't the case with the Naismiths ---- > Cordelia's crack about making Vorkosigans ad infinium is pretty > plausible --- look at the Cynthia Jane Baruch ovarian culture, 200+ > years old before senescence. Also, with Betan longevity, people may still have enough energy even after 50 to raise young children. Katie ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:56:09 -0500 (CDT) From: castiron-+AT+-mail.utexas.edu (French German Celtic Knot) To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Headless Embryo Created Message-ID: <199710230056.TAA26083-+AT+-mail.utexas.edu> David McMillan writes: >If, on the other hand, it was possible to grow clones that never had >brains, and were therefore never _people_, I can't see anything >really inethical about taking that route. They have the capability already; I don't remember which book it's mentioned in. But the brainless vat-grown clones are less healthy, more susceptible to infections, and so forth. As you say later, the new body will be in a lot healthier shape if it's had a previous occupant to care for it. --slc -------------------------------------------------------------------- Sharon L. Casteel castiron-+AT+-mail.utexas.edu Now is the winter of our influenza made glorious summer by this anamorphosis of amoxicillin. --Jan Six ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 20:59:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Martian687-+AT+-aol.com To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: ICQ Message-ID: <971022205756_218150856-+AT+-emout16.mail.aol.com> This sounds like the exact same thing as AOL instant messenger service... Seema ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:30:07 -0700 From: robertaw-+AT+-halcyon.com (Robert A. Woodward) To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Rhetorical question Message-ID: <199710230129.SAA30293-+AT+-mail1.halcyon.com> >>Heather R. Valli wrote: >> > >>> >>> Well, the treatment he suggested for another annoying culture was: >>> >>> "Bomb them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." Or something >>> close >>> thereunto. >>> >> >>Wasn't that a quote from ALIENS? Where several people said, "Nuke 'em >>from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." >> >>Lizah M. who re-watches ALIEN and ALIENS almost as much as she re-reads >>LMB. > >I thought Miles said that in "Labyrinth", when one of the Baron's was being >especially snotty to Miles and Bel. It could have been Bel. I'm pretty >sure it was in the story, but I'm don't have my copy of BOI to make sure. >That doesn't mean it *wasn't* in Aliens, 'though. Maybe Ridley Scott reads >LMB. It was Bel, who said "Fry them from orbit." Robert A. Woodward robertaw-+AT+-halcyon.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Did it never occur to any of you three young louts that _I_ would wish to be informed?" Lady Alys Vorpatril expresses annoyance in _Memory_. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:30:26 -0700 From: MWYoung To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: I'm not sure, but...(long) Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971022183026.007ae950-+AT+-oz.net> Hi Lois and assorted denizens of the listy. Well, over time I've read all of Lois' work and enjoyed all of the books immensely (this actually an understatement). When I was done with Memory a few days ago a friend stole it so she could read it (she always does this to me, especially the books I rave about--she did bring it back today, tho.) Anyway, in talking about Memory she asked me if I knew what order the books should be read in. Until she asked I hadn't thought about it because I read them (and she steels them) as they hit the store shelf or I discovered them. So, I went on-line, found a biblio of Lois' work and I still have the same question; what order should they be read in? I also discovered that I only had a couple of Lois' books on my shelves so I want on a two day hunt to get another copy of each of her books. This, I discovered, was not an easy task. There are over forty(!) bookstores in Seattle/Bellevue and NONE of the used bookstores had ANY used copies of Lois' work. NONE! Did I say that loud enough? NONE! NADA! ZILCH! Seattle is one of the reader's capitals of the world and this is a big deal. So, I called a few friends who buy and sell books and asked what's going on? They each told me that Memory had sparked new interest in Lois' work and everyone was out of them--EXCEPT the University Bookstore. So, I hang up the phone and start another quest for her books in the New Book bookstores on my way up to the University Bookstore. Nobody had any of them! Hey BEAN(!) you folks need to saturate Seattle FAST with Lois' work. I talked to four people looking for her work and they can't find anything either. Okay, I finally get to the University Bookstore and discover they have one or two copies of each, but there are people standing around deciding which one they want to buy (of Lois' work, that is). At this point I'm kind of desperate, so, getting a little impolite, so I can get what I want, I wade into the group and start pulling copies of the ones I want (everything except Memory, Falling Free, and Shards) which causes people to start asking me why I want so much of her work. Very easy question. I have a somewhat standard dissertation on Lois' work (BEST Space Opera EVER written since Heinlein I tell them...yada yada) and I laid it on them while I'm checking my printed out biblio to make sure I got everything I need (ten books in all). Well, there are now NO more copies of ANY of Lois' books at the University Bookstore in the Seattle U. District--at least as far as I could tell when I turned to leave the shelf. Just thought I'd pass this on to Lois and everyone else. I went to 16(!) new and used bookstores before I went to the U. Bookstore and found any of her work. Okay, so the question still remains; what order should I (and my thieving friends) reread Lois' work in? Just for reference here's the list: Obviously Falling Free is first, but...I think the order goes like this(?) Falling Free Shards of Honor Barrayar The Warrior’s Apprentice The Vor Game Ethan of Athos Brothers in Arms Borders of Infinity Cetaganda Mirror Dance Memory Don't worry about the following, I included them for completeness. Cordelia’s Honor - Anthology - includes Shards of Honor and Barrayar. Young Miles - Anthology - Includes Warrior’s Apprentice, Mountains of Mourning, and The Vor Game Vorkosigan’s Game - Anthology - book club edition - includes The Vor Game, Borders of Infinity, and The Mountains of Mourning If anyone knows of any that I missed PLEASE let me know. Oh! Lois? (or anyone who knows) By chance are you going to go "back" in history and write anything about "The Butcher of Komarr" and/or Aral Vorkosigan? Oh, please do! Cheers, Michael -- mwyoung-+AT+-oz.net If a man says something in the woods and no woman is there to hear him, is he still wrong? Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Sec. 227, any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:11:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Kirsten Edwards To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Monogamy Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Oct 1997 Chuckson_M_Yokota-+AT+-amat.com wrote: > > While Cordelia is aware of Aral's orientation (see her analysis of him in > _MD_) I don't think she necessarily would agree with the definition of > bisexuality as orientation. The connection between what you are and what > you do is closer and more complicated in her theology. Remember her "I am > what I choose," (_SoH_) echoed in her son's "You are what you do." (BiA) > Based on a good correction to my off-the-cuff quip, what I think Cordelia was commenting on was the *relevancy* of a bisexual orientation. I.e. it no longer mattered to whom (or what) Aral had been attracted to in the past - NOW he was only going to be having sex with her. Until one of them dies - or heaven forbid - they split up, Aral's a functioning heterosexual only. Kirsten (Who agrees with the "You are what you do" philosophy BTW) kirstedw-+AT+-kcls.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:29:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Kirsten Edwards To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: I'm not sure, but long... Message-ID: MV wrote-- > I also discovered that I only had a couple of Lois' books on my shelves so > I want on a two day hunt to get another copy of each of her books. This, I > discovered, was not an easy task. There are over forty(!) bookstores in > Seattle/Bellevue and NONE of the used bookstores had ANY used copies of > Lois' work. NONE! Did I say that loud enough? NONE! NADA! ZILCH! Seattle > is one of the reader's capitals of the world and this is a big deal. So, I > called a few friends who buy and sell books and asked what's going on? > They each told me that Memory had sparked new interest in Lois' work and > everyone was out of them--EXCEPT the University Bookstore. So, I hang up > the phone and start another quest for her books in the New Book bookstores > on my way up to the University Bookstore. Nobody had any of them! > > Hey BEAN(!) you folks need to saturate Seattle FAST with Lois' work. I > talked to four people looking for her work and they can't find anything > either. > And I'm nominating CETAGANDA for our local Evergreen Award, so libraries across the Pacific Northwest will need multiple copies if it's chosen. I'm not sure if YOUNG MILES qualifies (publication date) but I'm going to give it a shot, anyway... > > If anyone knows of any that I missed PLEASE let me know. > DREAMWEAVERS DILEMMA - a collection of her short stories and essays - you'll need to order it from NESFA ($19.95 IIRC) NESFA PO Box 809 Framingham, MA 01701-0203 Fax (Visa/MC orders) 617-776-3243 And no, I don't remember what the initials NESFA stand for but while you're waiting for it, the King County Library System has the book, too. Kirsten kirstedw-+AT+-kcls.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 12:47:30 +1000 From: gov.legis-+AT+-saipan.com (doug muir) To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Granny Fever Message-ID: >Today's definite biological clock (requiring tinkering for >post-menapausal procreation) isn't the case with the Naismiths ---- >Cordelia's crack about making Vorkosigans ad infinium is pretty >plausible Which leads me to something that's been bugging me for a long time now. Soon after Laisa appears in "Memory", someone points out that she's thirty, or nearly so. Don't remember exactly who's talking, but I think it was Alys V. Anyway, the context was clearly "she's getting a wee bit long in the tooth". I found that... jarring. Yeah, yeah, Barrayarans are horribly retrograde. But even on Barrayar, increasing life expectancy and galactic reproductive technology must be causing serious erosion to certain traditional assumptions. Betans expect to live to be 120, and can reproduce right up to the end of their life. I'm sure Barrayar hasn't reached that point yet, but they must already be where we are today, or further, at least in the capitol. By way of analogy... just ten years ago, young Japanese women were absolutely expected to be married by 25. In fact, there was even a slang term for husband-hungry young women around that age: "Kurisimisu kekko", which means "Christmas cake". You see, in Japan, traditional Christmas cakes are cooked fresh and sold in stores throughout the week before Christmas, from the 18th to the 25th. Then on the 26th and for a few days after, you still see them, but at rapidly falling prices as the stores try to push the stale and increasingly unappetizing cakes off the shelves... Put down those flamers, ladies, I'm going somewhere with this. I said this was ten years ago. Today, the whole Kurisimisu kekko thing is considered vaguely passe'. There's still plenty of pressure for young Japanese women to marry, goodness knows. But holding past 25, at least for educated women, is now totally acceptable. These days, one often hears the term "New Year's Girl" -- married at or before the 31st (birthday). One imagines Barrayar must be going through a similar transformation. Also, Laisa is Komarran, not Barrayaran. A sophisticated Barrayaran would know enough not to judge her by Barrayaran standards. Was anybody else tweaked by this? Doug M. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 03:05:09 GMT From: rrhorton-+AT+-concentric.net (Rich Horton) To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Biology in SF (OT) Message-ID: <3451a7dc.5882137-+AT+-smtp.concentric.net> On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 06:11:55 +0100 (BST), Doug Muir wrote: [I've been away for a bit. So many posts, so little time, doncha know. ] >Rich Horton wrote: >>Secondly, I'd say that such ideas as you have set forth seem naturals >>for SF stories. > >Near-human hominid races, with an inhuman psychology? Well, they've = been >done from time to time. Well, sure. (And the Anderson (especially "Starfog", one of the great "sense of, not just wonder, but awe" stories ever) and Arnason references are very apposite. What I meant, really, was stories which rigorously considered the effects of evolutionary/population biology on humans over a long period. (And maybe the stories you cite do do so. I'm not competent to say.) >>Iain M. Banks postulates similar alterations in the "humans" of his >>Culture universe, and similarly does not follow through on the >>population biology/natural selection consequences. >Partial agreement. First, we don't know how long the Culture have been >hypertechnological. Second, the Culture is just that -- a culture. >Cultural constraints could certainly affect evolution in all sorts of = ways, >especially if the culture remains stable over evolutionary time. Third, >the Minds might be a serious stabilizing influence. In the tens of thousands of years range, if I recall Banks' essay "A =46ew Notes on the Culture" correctly. Perhaps not quite evolutionary time. And I agree that the minds might be stabilizing influences. I'd like to see Banks try to explain the apparent interfertility of the humanoid races of the Culture, but as someone said about Banks' science content, "He waves his hands so fast they blur." -- Rich Horton ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 03:05:22 GMT From: rrhorton-+AT+-concentric.net (Rich Horton) To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Fanfic, speculation, and Star Trek Message-ID: <3452ac18.6965698-+AT+-smtp.concentric.net> On Wed, 22 Oct 1997 03:08:37 +0100 (BST), you wrote: >You probably heard it from somebody talking about Dreamweaver's Dilemma.= =20 >In Lillian Stewart Carl's introduction, she talks about the germination = of >what became _Shards of Honor_, and I'm sure she used the words "Star = Trek" >(somebody who has the book correct me if I'm wrong). That's where all = this >comes from. Well, sure, that's where it comes from. Ms. Bujold, it seems to me, is carefully distinguishing between "an idea for a piece of Star Trek fanfic which was never written" as (one of the many) sources for Shards, and "a piece of Star Trek fanfic which was scrapped" as said source. Carl's introduction makes it impossible to distinguish between the two, and at any rate, what does it matter? Authors' ideas, surely, come from numerous sources, some hard to trace, some less so, and the "source" of the idea is not terribly important (though it can be interesting), but the "result" is what matters. I'm a bit sensitive here, because I am one of the (6, was it?) people who have raised Ms. Bujold's ire this year by suggesting (based on Carl's introduction to DD) that Shards had it's source as (at least an idea for) Star Trek fanfic. Now I don't see any dishonor in this at all. It was (it seems) one source: there were many others (as she says, the totality of her life experience, looked at one way): and the end result is not Trekkish at all. But I'm guessing that Ms. Bujold was especially miffed because one person (on rasfw/rasff/rasfc) had suggested, based only upon reading _Cetaganda_, that the entirety of the Vorkosigan series were, to quote, "thinly disguised Star Trek fanfic". His reasoning was hard to follow: apparently any books involving interstellar travel could be rerarded as "thinly disguised Star Trek fanfic", and hordes of posters responded in support of the origninality and fictive virtues of LMB's books: but, still, if I were the author, I'd have been miffed too. -- Rich Horton ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 22:21:21 -0500 (CDT) From: gryphon-+AT+-execpc.com To: lois-bujold-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Granny Fever Message-ID: <199710230321.WAA06414-+AT+-mail.execpc.com> On Thu, 23 Oct 1997, gov.legis-+AT+-saipan.com (doug muir) wrote: >Soon after Laisa appears in "Memory", someone points out that she's >thirty, or nearly so. Don't remember exactly who's talking, but I >think it was Alys V. Ah, but Alys was born and raised in post-Cetaganda Barrayar, and breaking with assumptions learned in early childhood is *very* difficult. Heaven knows, *I've* certainly found myself expressing an opinion I've held for years, only to suddenly realize that my outlook has changed and I no longer really hold that opinion, but the change was so gradual that I never realized my opinion had changed until the words were out of my mouth. (Did that sentence make sense?) That's the sort of reflex I'm assuming took over Alys (or whoever said it) in commenting on Laisa's age. The commentor had grown up *knowing* women over 30 had a hard time conceiving, so that was the first thought to spring to mind when she considered Laisa as a potential producer of Imperial heirs. Diane E "There's a demon in the internet." Giles to Ms. Callender, _I Robot, You Jane_ # D Echelbarger gryphon-+AT+-execpc.com # # WWW HomePage: http://www.execpc.com/~echelbar/ # ------------------------------ End of LOIS-BUJOLD Digest 934 *****************************