ants

Members
  • Content count

    4,164
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ants

  • Rank
    A Valiant Knight of the Fur!
  • Birthday 07/17/1978

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    London, UK (Australian though)

Recent Profile Visitors

3,537 profile views
  1. In Australia one incident can also be harassment.
  2. Great news. Now pass the Smith bill, and get it done. I'm really worried that the conservatives are going to fight tooth and nail, and might just win, in getting a whole heap of restrictions and buts added to the final bill.
  3. Yep. The major issue is that people want to know what happens. If the series is wrapped up, whether shorter or longer, I don't think many will complain (although in the case of WOT, if people perceive it to be padding, they might for different reasons). Its why I think any author who has written a long, incomplete series should have notes on how it concludes, so that in the worst case scenario at least the fans know what was intended.
  4. I don't think anyone has an issue with that, just as I don't think anyone has an issue with failure to complete a series if a reasonable excuse is given. Its those who leave the audience hanging without making any attempt to explain things (either from the plot/character outcomes and why there won't be more books) that people have an issue with.
  5. I think most people who have argued against Ser Scott and Ran, have argued that the author should have a good faith intention to finish the books. That doesn't mean things can't go wrong. But it also means that, where possible, the author has some obligation to satisfy the fans. Two extreme examples I can think of are Robert Jordan and Moira J Moore. In the case of Jordan, faced with his own impending death he went to quite extreme lengths to ensure that not only did we know how the story ended, but received three books that provided it. In the case of Moira J Moore, with her series cancelled due to sales, she still made the final book of the series available through non-standard systems. I do not expect that this should be matched by other authors. I especially recognise that authors who have unexpected events (not necessarily tragedies) like what happened with Rawn can quite understandably not complete books. However, I do think authors have some obligation where possible to answer the understandable yearning of the readers to KNOW WHAT HAPPENS. If it is a tragedy, this may not be possible. But I do expect something. Harry Connolly's 20 Palaces series was fantastic, and left on a semi-cliffhanger. But it got cancelled, he's explained this to his audience, and so we move on. Similar with why we can't get the last Andrea Cort book in english. I do think it is slightly different for very long series, or ones that have taken significant time to write. Especially where the authors are (now) old. It was alluded to above that Jim Butcher has had some quite bad things happen in his life. I'm sorry to hear that. And if the Dresden files never is completed, I'll understand that. What I won't accept is that for a series that is 15 odd books long, where he's talked about knowing where it is going, that there aren't some sort of notes on where its heading. They might not be up to date (e.g. a book out of date), but I think when you've made an obligation like that, I'd expect that. Similarly with Martin, Janny Wurts or Michelle West, all who are taking significant times per book for major series, where those series are have been being written for over a decade, I would expect to have some kind of notes and explanations in the event of tragedy. Sorry, but I do think that an author creates this obligation by getting people to buy into their worlds. I've followed all three authors for the best part of two decades - surely writing the equivalent of a novella saying what was to happen in case of the worst isn't too much to ask? And sometimes, the behaviour by the author is much worse. Look at Robin McKinley. She wrote Sunshine, a fantastic book and has made it very clear that there will be no sequel. She doesn't like sequels, and is sick of people pestering her for one. This is totally acceptable. She wrote it as a single book, and even if there are some threads that could be continued, she is under no obligation and should be under no expectation to continue that. However, she then wrote Pegasus. Published in 2010. Which on the current listing on Amazon says "the first book in a magical tale of fantasy and friendship . . . ". Needless to say, there hasn't been any subsequent books in the series, and there is no mention of it on her website beyond a 2012 post to say she's struggling with it. Do I think this is acceptable? No. And she's one of my favourite writers. Other books have come out since. The caption on one reads "A compelling and inventive novel set in a world where science and magic are at odds, by Robin McKinley, the Newbery-winning author of The Hero and the Crown and The Blue Sword, as well as the classic titles Beauty, Chalice, Spindle’s End, Pegasus and Sunshine". I do not think this is appropriate. At the very least, an explanation of if we should still wait for books two and three would be the minimum to put on her website. She writes a blog! These are not like for like. The ice cream vendor hasn't made a promise. The person buying the book has not made a promise. But I think most people would consider that the author has made a promise to try and finish the series. There is that implicit intention. If there was no such intention, and it was widely viewed as such, then sales of first books would be significantly less. As has been mentioned, most have the view that they must try, and have a good faith go at it. We don't expect that life won't always get in the way, but if it does, an explanation of some sort is fair. At the very least, to say that its not happening, move on with your life.
  6. I've got to admit that I'm not a huge fan. I love her Kate Daniels books, but thought these had some of the worst of the bad romance/misogynistic stereotypes there are. The main male character is utterly contemptible. He is part of a society that that forces the general population to be subservient, has little regard for ethics and literally begins the relationship with the female protagonist by kidnapping and torturing her because she might have some useful information. And some of the ways he tries to control her life are terrible. Its like she took all of Curran's worst characteristics, removed the context and justifications for them, made them significantly worse, condensed the romance into a single book, and somehow thought that was a good idea.
  7. The Elizabeth Moon books, Nicholas Seafort and a few others (Kris Longknife) have a similar style to Honor Harrington. I wouldn't necessarily recommend any of them, but they can be quite readable. A few I would recommend that haven't been mentioned yet: Tanya Huff's Valor Confederation books (although again, not masterpieces) The Andrea Cort books The Evergence trilogy
  8. Would it have guaranteed Bush? If Gore has time running the country before the election, he might actually have done better in 2000.
  9. When I recently changed companies, part of the initiation procedures was a session on harassment training. I actually brought up the question of whether power differentials were a problem, and the HR rep (and a number of others taking the course) found the idea a bit surprising. In their view a single approach was acceptable, continued harassment was not. It was interesting their view. That said, this company (which isn't huge) doesn't have a single reporting line (its a consultancy) and does have multiple couples who formed the relationships at this company.
  10. The plan wouldn't necessarily include Ana being where she was 28 years after her birth, or at least not her employment, as she obviously has to be quite good at what she does to have that role. As K was going through the DNA records of all children born the same year as Ana, it would seem that everyone is now DNA checked who is on the grid. At least as a child. Sapper obviously had the farm in 2021, as that is where Rachel is buried.
  11. Unless everyone at the orphanage was in on it (very unlikely) there would be adoption papers. That was why they were torn out. The digital records of her death were manufactured (or altered from boy to girl) but since the orphanage kept physical copies they had to be torn out.
  12. It might also depend on how established the worlds are. The older, more established ones might (now) be very nice, and the rich go there. Whereas in 2019 and for new worlds in 2049, life might be a lot harder. That would be where the poorer people, and the ones being advertised to would be predominantly going. I'm pretty sure those were adoption records they were looking up, since K needed to know where the child had gone next. It is likely that the replicants organised Ann to be adopted by sympathisers to give her a cover and the whole process probably gave her an identity, while hiding that the girl had survived. Layers and layers of protection. I suspect the compromised immune system is another step - I imagine replicants can be identified at the DNA level and Ann's DNA would be pretty weird. Putting her away in the bubble gives her both a level of protection, and if they foresaw her job a way of influencing future replicants.
  13. Saw it, thought it was clearly the most weird of any of the MCU films. There were huge amounts of comedy, and I get why people said it was comedy first and action second. The irony being, it was probably the most brutal of the films. Some of the guys considered "good", committed murder at whim, plenty of semi-important characters kick the bucket, and overall some of the themes around Odin, family, Asgard, are very dark. There is also some of the more poignant dialogue between Loki and Thor that has occurred. It veers from one extreme to the other, and I did finding the lack of, um, weight? importance? consequences? given to the dark elements to be a little jarring. I did enjoy it though.
  14. I need to watch it again, but there was that whole bit of the conversation that finished with "and then the blackout occurred and I couldn't find them even if I wanted to". I'm pretty sure in that section he says something along the lines of he taught them the system and how to hide.
  15. I don't think the "Replicant Underground" predated Decker and Rachel. He said he was the one who taught that group of replicants the system, how to hide, how to get identities, etc. He was almost certainly either a precursor or instigator, and neither he nor Batty probably got any assistance from it. I think Deckard may have even mentioned finding the group that Sapper and Freysa were part of, was it 6 replicants? It would be interesting to know if it was the same underground that caused the Blackout. Given humanities reaction to replicants pre and post the Blackout (killing replicants before, stopping replicant production after), it is understandable that they would tread very quietly with the next "mutiny". Wallace clear believes there is at least a loose group of replicants, the main information he wants from Deckard is who else assisted hide the child as he believes they are alive and he can track them. He doesn't actually think Deckard knows anything about the child's current location (which he is correct about). However, it is doubtful Wallace envisages that there are any of his replicants that are part of it. Surprise! And many here have speculated the bubble life is a ruse.