From owner-freebsd-chat Sat May 15 13:54:17 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CFCA14BD7 for ; Sat, 15 May 1999 13:54:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert@usr07.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA06005; Sat, 15 May 1999 13:54:13 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr07.primenet.com(206.165.6.207) via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd005922; Sat May 15 13:54:03 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA27445; Sat, 15 May 1999 13:54:02 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199905152054.NAA27445@usr07.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Is it ok to use the FreeBSD name in a cyberpunkish To: zen@buddhist.com (G. Adam Stanislav) Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 20:54:01 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, licia@o-o.org, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990515102500.00979340@mail.bfm.org> from "G. Adam Stanislav" at May 15, 99 10:25:00 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > >Ian M. Banks and William Gibson both delay definition of terms until > >well after they have been mentioned (thrid or fourth mention is in a > >context where an explanation is necessary to an outsider, usually by > >a minor character to a secondary character). I believe that Jeff Noon > >(Vurt, Pollen) uses similar techniques, as did Roger Zelazny. > > Yes, as long as they do explain it. It does not have to be explained > immediately. Postponing the explanation slightly adds suspense and keeps > the reader reading. > > Heck, it may be postponed even considerably, but then the writer needs to > assure the reader that the explanation will come eventually, and it has to > come on time. That's why I said "serial shock". Because it's being posted in installments, people are trying to grok the installment on its own merit, and large works don't work like that. This leads to unfair criticisms about unidentified terms. Personally, I wouldn't have posted a glossary (but then, I avidly waded through the cacophony that is the first chapter of Brunner's "Stand On Zanzibar", to discover the wonderful novel that followed it). I remember reading Larry Niven's "The Integral Trees" for the first time in serialized form in Analog magazine; much of the nuances of the relationship of the people to the CARN to the S.I. Kendy, and the relative relationship to "The State" of all the players wasn't clear until later installments; it wasn't clear that Kendy was a Silicon Intelligence (uploaded human mind -- the term A.I> isn't really appropriate) until the second installment. Trying to keep these nuances in your head of three months until the final installment was, uh, ...good practice. > This is what they did in the movie Matrix when the leader said that no one > could explain what the Matrix was because it needed to be experienced. That > was a binding contract with the viewer: You *will* learn what the Matrix is > if you keep watching. And I'd say anyone who has seen the movie not only > learned what the Matrix was, but will also never forget it. :-) The story > was written very well. Maybe reading ~5000 SF novels (so far -- my preferred entertainment is reading) has jaded me, but I figured out the secret of The Matrix from the movie trailers. Any other Jack L. Chalker readers come to the same conclusion before seeing the movie? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message