| |
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Matt Hein writes:
> Actually, LOTR and Pern would probably door quite
> well together if placed in a fantasy group. Since LOTR
> really doesn't revolve around castle, and is positioned
> so far beyond the verge of fantasy, where it really has
> nothing to do with castle, except in the case of mindless
> wars, I would find it to go in the group in question )i.e fantasy)
I think I disagree with your characterisation of LOTR. It is just as relevant
to castle as Isle of Mist, and it certainly is not "so far beyond the verge of
fantasy" (after all, it is usually taken as one of the definitive works of the
"Fantasy" genre [since fantasy as a word by itself encompasses basically every
piece of fiction ever written, this is an important distinction]). But perhaps
I'm miss parsing your sentence (but if a reverse meaning is taken, I think the
castle theme fits perfectly within the fantasy genre).
Also note that if we get too technical about what we mean by fantasy, Pern
doesn't belong there. Pern is intended to be SF (not Sci-Fi as Bill Ward
pointed out [the distinction I heard between SF and Sci-Fi was in relation to
conventions, where a distinction was being made between the commercial Star
Trek conventions and the literary conventions such as Boskone and The World
Science Fiction Convention <where discussions of Star Trek would be quite
welcome in the right context>]).
One reason I tend to put breaks on compartmentalized dorkdom is that I realize
that while some categorization is necessary in life, one can't perfectly
categorize life, at least not with simple schemes like the hierarchical
structure of news group names. If one were to divide up the books which appear
in the F&SF section of most bookstores into sets which did not include books
totally unlike another, one would find so many sets as to be useless, and every
book would be in dozens of those sets (so based on this, I vote that .castle
and .space be combined :-). Also remember Arthur C. Clarke's statement:
"Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
> Here's an interesting proposition. Why not eliminate a theme
> based group and merge it with other discussion mediums
> that would otherwise have no basis (besides .general)
> an idea for this would to eliminate .underground.
Two problems with this.
1. The structure of Lugnet is to have a group for every LEGO theme, almost no
matter how short lived or popular.
2. Removing newsgroups is not really feasible since it would remove access to
posts (effectively "canceling" them)
Removing a newsgroup is also not necessary. Lugnet has a tiny fraction of the
numeber of newsgroups a standard NNTP server carries. The resources are not a
problem.
As far as my issue of too many groups to keep track of, well, a dead newsgroup
will fall to the bottom of my list, and that isn't that big a deal.
> 1. Add a new category to lugnet.build
> 2. Add a subgroup to .castle
A sub-group of .build is the best place for the new group. The argument is that
it isn't sufficiently related to castle to belong there (if it is sufficiently
related to castle to belong under castle, then it doesn't need a new group yet,
not enough traffic).
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Fantasy group?
|
| (...) Actually, LOTR and Pern would probably door quite well together if placed in a fantasy group. Since LOTR really doesn't revolve around castle, and is positioned so far beyond the verge of fantasy, where it really has nothing to do with castle, (...) (22 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
