whoever recommended Lucifer's Hammer

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

larper

Guest
It is both. "Space Family Stone" is the UK version, "The Rolling Stones" is the USA version. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
 
A

avaunt

Guest
and if you read it, you will soon recognize the origin of my handle "crazy eddie" <br /><br />On the other hand, he may not.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />What I liked about the moties, was that they were sneaky cunning, but the humans didn't ever realise in what WAY they were. <br /><br />Still, ALL Niven and Pournelle characters are just the Imperial Japanese seen through a distorting lens.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
I believe 'The Mote in God's Eye' was my first introduction to the Niven and Pournelle collaborations. Definitely a classic science fiction tale.<br /><br />Still, I think my favorite work by the two authors remains their Inferno. What a fun book!
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Yeah, Inferno was a great book. Dante Aligheri must be belly-laughing... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
W

wmdragon

Guest
how does Mote compare to the sequel(s)(? Mote was indeed a very good novel, left me curious about the sequel which I never read <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#993366"><em>The only laws of matter are those which our minds must fabricate, and the only laws of mind are fabricated for it by matter.</em> <br /> --- James Clerk Maxwell</font></p> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Hope you don't mind if I answer.<br /><br />The Gripping Hand was ok. It wasn't as good as Mote, but it did resolve a lot of things from the first book. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
<i>Dante Aligheri must be belly-laughing...</i><br /><br />Or turning over in his grave - hope he had a sense of humor!
 
S

serak_the_preparer

Guest
I never read the sequel, but was warned away by someone I know, whose review was similar to Yevaud's. Not everything requires a sequel and, in my opinion, items which are classics in their own right - such as 'The Mote in God's Eye' - are best left to stand on their own.<br /><br />But that's just me.
 
5

5stone10

Guest
No Gripping Hand is worth the read - though I had to speed read through several overly detailed sections.
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Well, there's a few: Blaine, Sally, Horace Bury, Kutuzov. And (*Fyunch Click*) Moties. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
L

lampblack

Guest
<font color="yellow">Yeah, I liked Tunnel in the Sky, although it seemed a bit implausible to me that the technically advanced human society it depicted could have such a population problem. Surely by the time we become a starfaring species we'll have that problem licked.</font><br /><br />dunno... I think if there's anything to be learned from 21st century life -- with cell phones, computers, GPS systems, talking ATMs and digital home entertainment systems -- it's possible to be quite advanced technically and still make an entire range of really dumb mistakes. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.