Against a Dark Background [SPOILERS]

"Richard Puchalsky" <rpuchalsky.DeleteThis@worldnet.att.net> writes:

 > "Coriander Lexus" <solatic.DeleteThis@yahoo.poofters.com> wrote:
  > > The Lazy Guns strike me as Culture level technology - it should be
  > > simple to achieve the functionality of a Lazy Gun using displacement
  > > capability. And the "sense of humor" that the guns display is a
  > > definite attribute of Culture drones and minds.
 >
 > Displacement wouldn't work, because displacement grabs an item from
 > somewhere else. The Lazy Guns routinely use large electrodes, bullets, etc.
 > when killing people-sized entities, and if they were displacing them from
 > elsewhere in the Golter system, surely people would have noticed by now,

A renegrade Culture Mind/GSV lurking in the neighborhood would
probably not be noticed by the low level technology posessed by the
Golterians. Easy then to create whatever is needed for the Gun to do
its job and displace it in and away afterwards. (Sleeper Service
created a huge battlefleet out of exotic matter in short order) A
comet nucelus would be just as simple.

Perhaps the whole setup was an experiment by such an entity - seed a
civilization and see what happens to it when forced to develop
absolutely in isolation. The sort of thing that something like Grey
Area would do... Of course it wouldnt allow the destruction of
Thrial...


 > given the level of interest in how the Guns do what they do. The Lazy Guns
 > appear to create these objects at will, after which they sort of fade away.
 >
 > The sense of humor bit isn't really Cultural either. A Culture weapon could
 > destroy itself when probed without choosing to have a nuclear bomb sized
 > blast, and if it detected that it was in a populated city, presumably it
 > would decide not to do so.

Or it could choose to do so: Scopell-Afranqi certainly considered that
option before deciding on limited self destruction in Excession. A
militarized drone certainly wouldnt hesitate.

 > Not to mention that the Lazy Guns always kill
 > when directed to, even if they do so in a "humorous" way -- that seems the
 > antithesis of a Culture ethic.

Au contraire. The drone Skaffen-Amtiskaw in UoW was quite happy to
slaughter all the warriors even while being exhorted to stop by
Diziet. And it gave Zakalwe a hat after his head was chopped off.

 >
 >

--
Real email address? Rule 1.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Against a Dark Background [SPOILERS] 

"Coriander Lexus" <solatic RemoveThis @yahoo.poofters.com> wrote in message
news:wkznaomd3d.fsf@yahoo.poofters.com...
 > "Richard Puchalsky" <rpuchalsky RemoveThis @worldnet.att.net> writes:
 >
  > > "Coriander Lexus" <solatic RemoveThis @yahoo.poofters.com> wrote:
   > > > The Lazy Guns strike me as Culture level technology - it should be
   > > > simple to achieve the functionality of a Lazy Gun using displacement
   > > > capability. And the "sense of humor" that the guns display is a
   > > > definite attribute of Culture drones and minds.
  > >
  > > Displacement wouldn't work, because displacement grabs an item from
  > > somewhere else. The Lazy Guns routinely use large electrodes, bullets,
etc.
  > > when killing people-sized entities, and if they were displacing them
from
  > > elsewhere in the Golter system, surely people would have noticed by now,
 >
 > A renegrade Culture Mind/GSV lurking in the neighborhood would
 > probably not be noticed by the low level technology posessed by the
 > Golterians. Easy then to create whatever is needed for the Gun to do
 > its job and displace it in and away afterwards. (Sleeper Service
 > created a huge battlefleet out of exotic matter in short order) A
 > comet nucelus would be just as simple.

If a Culture ship was present, of course it could fool the Golterians in any
way that it wanted to. But that's not what is meant by "Culture level
technology" and "displacement capability". You might as well just say that
God could fool the Golterians into thinking that the Lazy Guns were creating
something from nothing, while actually God was. It's a theory that is
equally incapable of proof one way or the other and equally unindicated by
the text.

The question is whether the Lazy Guns are any different than magic wands.
They really aren't. Culture technology, while equally made up, has a
framework of rationality, and the Lazy Guns really don't.

 >
 > Perhaps the whole setup was an experiment by such an entity - seed a
 > civilization and see what happens to it when forced to develop
 > absolutely in isolation. The sort of thing that something like Grey
 > Area would do... Of course it wouldnt allow the destruction of
 > Thrial...
 >
 >
  > > given the level of interest in how the Guns do what they do. The Lazy
Guns
  > > appear to create these objects at will, after which they sort of fade
away.
  > >
  > > The sense of humor bit isn't really Cultural either. A Culture weapon
could
  > > destroy itself when probed without choosing to have a nuclear bomb sized
  > > blast, and if it detected that it was in a populated city, presumably it
  > > would decide not to do so.
 >
 > Or it could choose to do so: Scopell-Afranqi certainly considered that
 > option before deciding on limited self destruction in Excession. A
 > militarized drone certainly wouldnt hesitate.

In _Excession_, the module considering extreme self destruction was in the
middle of a military installation of a civilization with which the Culture
was at war. In AaDB, the explosion of the next to last Lazy Gun destroyed a
civilian city that was not in any way at war with the Culture.

 >
  > > Not to mention that the Lazy Guns always kill
  > > when directed to, even if they do so in a "humorous" way -- that seems
the
  > > antithesis of a Culture ethic.
 >
 > Au contraire. The drone Skaffen-Amtiskaw in UoW was quite happy to
 > slaughter all the warriors even while being exhorted to stop by
 > Diziet. And it gave Zakalwe a hat after his head was chopped off.

The drone in UoW was in (at least theoretically) a combat situation, and it
clearly had decided that the bandits were bad people. Moreover, it was over
the line, and quite probably warned never to do that again. The Lazy Guns
routinely shot down prisoners used for testing and innocent victims of all
kinds. And really, the whole idea of a weapon that's intelligent enough to
have a sense of humor, yet blindly allows its users to use it to kill
whoever they want, is the antithesis of the Culture ethic. That's why they
refuse to build non-intelligent ships and major weapons -- so the weapon
will always be able to make its own choice over how and whether to be used.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Against a Dark Background [SPOILERS] 

"Douglas Bailey" <trystero.DeleteThis@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:amlxgovbgdv3$.dlg@snernce.com...
> Richard Puchalsky wrote:
>
> [on the possibility of IMB writing a sequel to _AaDB_]
> > "Hello, Mr. Tolkein? The firm that I represent would like to commission
> > a sequel to _The Lord of the Rings_ ...
> > ...fighting some leftover Orcs perhaps. Or maybe you could make up a
> > brand new villain! ... Yes, Mr. Tolkein, I know that the structure of
> > the story you wrote isn't set up that way, and that Middle Earth is
> > supposed to be entering a New Age without new villains appearing out of
> > nowhere. But couldn't you, you know, just splice a bit on?..."
>
> Funny, but not as ridiculous as you might think. Tolkien actually *did*
> start writing a successor story, "The New Shadow", set in the early Fourth
> Age of Middle-Earth, with a bored and discontented younger generation of
> Gondorians turning back to "orcish" ways. He only did a single chapter
> before abandoning the work -- with good reason IMO -- but he doesn't seem
> to have been as averse to the general idea of a follow-on story as you
> suggest.

Well, that's what I was hinting at when I had the caller ask to talk to
Tolkein's son, who has been retailing every half-written abandoned scrap
left.

>
> (And let's not forget that _The Lord of the Rings_ is itself a sequel, and
> in any event represents a section of M-E history that Tolkien considered
of
> much less importance than his epic work on the First Age.)

OK, but in this thread we had already made the distinction between a sequel
(which directly continues a story), and another book set in the same
universe. The chapter about a younger generation of Gondorians that you
mention would be part of another book set in the same universe, rather than
a sequel. Banks has many books set in the same Culture universe, but no
sequels (unless you consider Use of Weapons to be a sequel to The State of
the Art). Most of Tolkein's books are set in the same universe, yes, but
the only sequel pair (The Hobbit and _LOTR_) is similar to The State of the
Art / Use of Weapons in that while some of the characters recur, the focus
character changes, and there is a sizeable gap in time between the two
books.
 >> Stay informed about: Against a Dark Background [SPOILERS] 

"Richard Puchalsky" <rpuchalsky.DeleteThis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:%A_3c.1290$H44.21559@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> "Douglas Bailey" <trystero.DeleteThis@world.std.com> wrote in message
> news:amlxgovbgdv3$.dlg@snernce.com...
>> Richard Puchalsky wrote:
>>
>> [on the possibility of IMB writing a sequel to _AaDB_]
>> > "Hello, Mr. Tolkein? The firm that I represent would like to
>> > commission a sequel to _The Lord of the Rings_ ...
>> > ...fighting some leftover Orcs perhaps. Or maybe you could make up
>> > a brand new villain! ... Yes, Mr. Tolkein, I know that the
>> > structure of the story you wrote isn't set up that way, and that
>> > Middle Earth is supposed to be entering a New Age without new
>> > villains appearing out of nowhere. But couldn't you, you know,
>> > just splice a bit on?..."
>>
>> Funny, but not as ridiculous as you might think. Tolkien actually
>> *did* start writing a successor story, "The New Shadow", set in the
>> early Fourth Age of Middle-Earth, with a bored and discontented
>> younger generation of Gondorians turning back to "orcish" ways. He
>> only did a single chapter before abandoning the work -- with good
>> reason IMO -- but he doesn't seem to have been as averse to the
>> general idea of a follow-on story as you suggest.
>
> Well, that's what I was hinting at when I had the caller ask to talk
> to Tolkein's son, who has been retailing every half-written abandoned
> scrap left.
>
>>
>> (And let's not forget that _The Lord of the Rings_ is itself a
>> sequel, and in any event represents a section of M-E history that
>> Tolkien considered
> of
>> much less importance than his epic work on the First Age.)
>
> OK, but in this thread we had already made the distinction between a
> sequel (which directly continues a story), and another book set in the
> same universe. The chapter about a younger generation of Gondorians
> that you mention would be part of another book set in the same
> universe, rather than a sequel. Banks has many books set in the same
> Culture universe, but no sequels (unless you consider Use of Weapons
> to be a sequel to The State of the Art). Most of Tolkein's books are
> set in the same universe, yes, but the only sequel pair (The Hobbit
> and _LOTR_) is similar to The State of the Art / Use of Weapons in
> that while some of the characters recur, the focus character changes,
> and there is a sizeable gap in time between the two books.
>
>

Blimey. All I said was "The Android".

--
Adrian
 >> Stay informed about: Against a Dark Background [SPOILERS] 

"Adrian Tupper" <adrian.tupper.TakeThisOut@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns94A6EB4CE6260z@194.247.47.119...
 > "Edward" <edwardthornton.TakeThisOut@btinternet.com> wrote in news:c2isjt$gho$1
 > @titan.btinternet.com:
 >
  > > I agree that it calls out for a sequel
 >
 > There is one. Somewhere. A short continuation on a website somewhere. I
 > was pointed to it when I posted much the same message a year or two back.
 > If only I could remember where...


Google is your friend

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.culturelist.org/cdr/article.cfm?id=142" target="_blank">http://www.culturelist.org/cdr/article.cfm?id=142</a>

BaldiePete
--
Never Knowingly On-Topic
Is that a donut or a meringue ?
You're right, it's a donut.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Against a Dark Background [SPOILERS] 

"BaldiePete" <baldiepete1961NOSPAM DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in
news:c2v9ju$20siu2$1@ID-115617.news.uni-berlin.de:

 >
 > "Adrian Tupper" <adrian.tupper DeleteThis @totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
 > news:Xns94A6EB4CE6260z@194.247.47.119...
  >> "Edward" <edwardthornton DeleteThis @btinternet.com> wrote in news:c2isjt$gho$1
  >> @titan.btinternet.com:
  >>
   >> > I agree that it calls out for a sequel
  >>
  >> There is one. Somewhere. A short continuation on a website
  >> somewhere. I was pointed to it when I posted much the same message a
  >> year or two back. If only I could remember where...
 >
 >
 > Google is your friend
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.culturelist.org/cdr/article.cfm?id=142</font" target="_blank">http://www.culturelist.org/cdr/article.cfm?id=142</font</a>>
 >
 > BaldiePete

Thanks Pete (and hello!). When I saw it originally it was quoted as
an ip-address rather than a domain name.

--
Adrian<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Against a Dark Background [SPOILERS] 

Aaaaaaahhhhhh.......that felt good.
So few postings over the winter, then a pre-spring bloom,
one of my fave IMB books has a thread,
and the thread yeilds goodies.

Never mind the mixed metaphors,
Meringues and donuts to you, Baldie Pete....

Andy

BaldiePete wrote:

 > "Adrian Tupper" <adrian.tupper.RemoveThis@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
 > news:Xns94A6EB4CE6260z@194.247.47.119...
  > > "Edward" <edwardthornton.RemoveThis@btinternet.com> wrote in news:c2isjt$gho$1
  > > @titan.btinternet.com:
  > >
   > > > I agree that it calls out for a sequel
  > >
  > > There is one. Somewhere. A short continuation on a website somewhere. I
  > > was pointed to it when I posted much the same message a year or two back.
  > > If only I could remember where...
 >
 > Google is your friend
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.culturelist.org/cdr/article.cfm?id=142</font" target="_blank">http://www.culturelist.org/cdr/article.cfm?id=142</font</a>>
 >
 > BaldiePete
 > --
 > Never Knowingly On-Topic
 > Is that a donut or a meringue ?
 > You're right, it's a donut.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Against a Dark Background [SPOILERS] 

>
> The question is whether the Lazy Guns are any different than magic wands.
> They really aren't. Culture technology, while equally made up, has a
> framework of rationality, and the Lazy Guns really don't.
>
> >
you mean abnormal psychology isn't normal?

TTFN

TROLL ALert!
 >> Stay informed about: Against a Dark Background [SPOILERS] 

"Richard Puchalsky" <rpuchalsky.TakeThisOut@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:qcI3c.95665$aH3.2911648@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
 > "Coriander Lexus" <solatic.TakeThisOut@yahoo.poofters.com> wrote:
  > > The Lazy Guns strike me as Culture level technology - it should be
  > > simple to achieve the functionality of a Lazy Gun using displacement
  > > capability. And the "sense of humor" that the guns display is a
  > > definite attribute of Culture drones and minds.
 >
 > Displacement wouldn't work, because displacement grabs an item from
 > somewhere else. The Lazy Guns routinely use large electrodes, bullets,
etc.
 > when killing people-sized entities, and if they were displacing them from
 > elsewhere in the Golter system, surely people would have noticed by now,
 > given the level of interest in how the Guns do what they do. The Lazy
Guns
 > appear to create these objects at will, after which they sort of fade
away.

Doubt it - there were only a few of the things around anyway... why should
anyone notice a few peculiar things happening in a whole system - we don't
seem to notice much around here anyway.

 > The sense of humor bit isn't really Cultural either. A Culture weapon
could
 > destroy itself when probed without choosing to have a nuclear bomb sized
 > blast, and if it detected that it was in a populated city, presumably it
 > would decide not to do so. Not to mention that the Lazy Guns always kill
 > when directed to, even if they do so in a "humorous" way -- that seems the
 > antithesis of a Culture ethic.
 >


Might have been a prototype of the Look to Windward-type "BAD" drones... ?
and the culture ethic seems to be "we win", "at the minumum possible cost"

TTFN
Horza<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Against a Dark Background [SPOILERS]