ATTN: JMS Concerning The Summoning (* Spoilers *) & Instructions to Actors

Thu Dec 19 06:20:15 EST 1996

Subject: ATTN: JMS Concerning The Summoning (* Spoilers *) & Instructions to Actors
-----+-------------+--------------------------------------------------
 No. | DATE        |  FROM
-----+-------------+--------------------------------------------------
s  1: Dec  4, 1996: H.Eckstein at nnrp2.farm.idt.net
-  2: Dec  4, 1996: jmsatb5 at aol.com
- 20: Dec  9, 1996: "gregory a. tutunjian" <Gregory=A.=Tutunjian%ITO%DFCI at EYE.DFCI.HARVARD.EDU>
- 21: Dec  9, 1996: jmsatb5 at aol.com
- 36: Dec 13, 1996: Cheryl.Thompson at mvs.udel.edu
- 37: Dec 14, 1996: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
- 38: Dec 14, 1996: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
+ 46: Dec 18, 1996: wkdugan at ix.netcom.com (Bill Dugan)
* 47: Dec 18, 1996: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
+ 49: Dec 19, 1996: gharlane at ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore)
* 50: Dec 19, 1996: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: H.Eckstein at nnrp2.farm.idt.net
Lines: 68

(* Spoilers for The Summoning *)

I enjoyed The Summoning more than I have any of the recent episodes.
It had an unusual blend of drama, action, sci-fi goodies and arc
development.  It was a great gamble, in my opinion, for you to take
two minutes or so to have Cartagia count from one to thirty-nine.  It
might have played as overblown or pandering, but it did not.  I was
riveted as I watched and wondered if I was really going to have to
watch you spell out G'kar's torture.  It was like being sucked in by a
long, long interval of dead air in a radio drama.  When he screamed, I
was relieved.  That was, for me, the high point of the episode and the
mark of its greatest success.

I happened to be watching The Long Twilight Struggle the other night.
I noticed that when Sheridan is confronted with the certainty that his
wife died with all the others on the Icarus, Delenn looks down and
away, with a guilty look on her face.  That escaped me completely when
I first saw the show, and now, of course, we've had her knowledge
revealed.  Tell me, please, did you instruct Mira at that time, that
Delenn did, in fact, know that Anna was alive?  Did you instruct her
to look guilty?

I saw the same form in The Summoning.  When Delenn sees Sheridan walk
up upon the balcony, she displays none of the joy and love I expected
her to feel, which she indeed displays moments later, when she's in
Sheridan's arms.  Instead, she displays a sort of horror and
trepidation.  She's shocked but not with joy.  And Lennier, while
she's up there, he smiles his tight little smile with his eyes turned
inwardly.  He's seeing an expectation fulfilled or he's experiencing a
certainty that a hope will be realized.  He's not just smiling that
Sheridan is there.  Aren't you leading the viewers forward with those
looks?  Will you say something about to what we're being led?

Finally, what's the title of season four?  I haven't heard or seen it.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: wkdugan at ix.netcom.com (Bill Dugan)
Lines: 20

Lawrence King <lking at math.washington.edu> wrote:

snip

>The only consistent timetravel is the kind where the past cannot be
>changed.   This is Heinlein's time travel, which was actually done
>very well in Twelve Monkeys.  But since neither Heinlein nor that movie
>really address the problem of what WOULD happen if you really tried to
>change the past, it still collapses under analysis.

The protagonist of Heinlein's "By His Bootstraps" tries to change the
past.

>Larry King
>univ of washington

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Lines: 53

Yes, Ghar, and we all know what a bastion of patience and tolerance you
are, and that your tastes are the norm and nobody else could possibly
enjoy something if you do not unless they are an idiot, we've been down
this road before.  

You are free to have your opinion.  And I am free to hold mine.  And in my
opinion, the Jeanne Cavellos book is probably the best one of all the Dell
books to date.

One reason for the difference in these next batch of books is that I got
deeply and intensively involved with the books this time around, which
time didn't permit me to do in the past.  I made the time, because I felt
that they needed improving.  I worked closely with Jeanne on the backstory
(Anna's experience leading up to, and on, the Icarus), made sure she got
scripts prior to airing so she'd know what was being done, and so on.  The
third book (based on an assigned premise) follows Sinclair to Minbar and
starting up the Rangers, and though I haven't seen the manuscript yet,
it's easily the most comprehensive tie-together of the B5 universe that
I've seen yet.  The second book (this is in order of publication) by Al
Sarrantino is also based on an assigned premise, set on Centauri Prime
around the time of the first 4 episodes of season 4.

In the past, it's been a question of outside writers coming up with a
notion or a scientific idea (expressed poorly or well is a matter of
opinion), and then trying to work that into the arc, or as a stand-alone. 
This time the three books all fit tightly into continuity, and there
aren't any based on goofy nonscience notions.  (The Sarrantino book is a
little off the mark in terms of the way the characters speak, and I sent
it back with some notes, whereas Jeanne's book went back without one
single, solitary note.)  

In the past, the books have been primarily about the guest characters,
since that's what outside writers want to write about, the characters they
introduce.  This time I insisted that our characters had to be at the
*center* of the story, not the periphery.

So overall, these three books are the best, especially Jeanne's.  Now,
based on what went before, you may want to prejudge these.  Such is life. 
But I do object to you smearing Jeanne's ability or accuracy without any
information whatsoever on the content of the writing involved...she spent
a great deal of time researching archaeology and anthropology to use in
the background for Anna and the mission, and I think she's done a bang-up
job.

But like all things B5, the book will stand or fall on its own.  And this
one will stand.  

 jms

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: gharlane at ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore)
Lines: 136

In <19961218203400.PAA02619 at ladder01.news.aol.com>
jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5) writes:
>
> Yes, Ghar, and we all know what a bastion of patience and tolerance you
> are, and that your tastes are the norm and nobody else could possibly
> enjoy something if you do not unless they are an idiot, we've been down
> this road before.  

*shrug*   Right is right, wrong is wrong.   If you're not striving for 
the ideal, there's no point in playing, just as there's no point in 
playing when  you don't have the equipment, the conditioning, or 
know your way around the playing field.

Unlike human beings and social interaction, physical reality is not 
subject to opinion; and this is a point which is still very difficult
for you to apprehend, much less accept.    You've created one of the 
most brilliantly-realized and coherent universes in all of fiction, 
but deep down inside, you can't accept that the laws of physics apply
to it.

Mercy, variability, shades of gray, and no absolutes are effective 
approaches when dealing with PEOPLE.   But reality is not mutable,
and cannot be edited to suit the convenience of a writer who's 
unaware; this is a fundamental failing of lazy writing in all fields.

> You are free to have your opinion.  And I am free to hold mine.
> And in my opinion, the Jeanne Cavellos book is probably the best
> one of all the Dell books to date.

*GRIN*   That still leaves a WHOLE lot of room for Abysmal Badness.

We'll wait and take a look at the book; your opinions in this area
have not been entirely reliable in the past.

> One reason for the difference in these next batch of books is that I
> got deeply and intensively involved with the books this time around,
> which time didn't permit me to do in the past.  I made the time,
> because I felt that they needed improving.  I worked closely with
> Jeanne on the backstory (Anna's experience leading up to, and on,
> the Icarus), made sure she got scripts prior to airing so she'd
> know what was being done, and so on.  The third book (based on an
> assigned premise) follows Sinclair to Minbar and starting up the
> Rangers, and though I haven't seen the manuscript yet, it's easily
> the most comprehensive tie-together of the B5 universe that
> I've seen yet.  The second book (this is in order of publication)
> by Al Sarrantino is also based on an assigned premise, set on
> Centauri Prime around the time of the first 4 episodes of season 4.

Ah, but we heard last time around that you were reading and checking
every word of the material before it went out, and you even sent
the third book back for some major reworking.... and we know how
those came out.

> In the past, it's been a question of outside writers coming up with
> a notion or a scientific idea (expressed poorly or well is a matter
> of opinion), and then trying to work that into the arc, or as a

Not really.   Basic Newtonian Physics and concrete information about
the nearby solar planets, and the way spacecraft behave, and the way
structures act when exploding in low pressure... these are facts,
not matters of opinion, and are hardly subject to re-evaluation by
writers whose previous major "SF" efforts were "TOM SWIFT" books
or some of the less-distinguished trekkiebooks.

> stand-alone.  This time the three books all fit tightly into continuity,
> and there aren't any based on goofy nonscience notions.  (The Sarrantino

Oh, so there's no telepathy, no FTL drive, no "life force" transfers?

*grin*   (All three of those are permissible in traditional SF, but 
face it, we don't have much basis for presumption of their scientific
validity or even their possiblity.)

> book is a little off the mark in terms of the way the characters speak,
> and I sent it back with some notes, whereas Jeanne's book went back
> without one single, solitary note.)  
>
> In the past, the books have been primarily about the guest characters,
> since that's what outside writers want to write about, the characters
> they introduce.  This time I insisted that our characters had to be
> at the *center* of the story, not the periphery.
>
> So overall, these three books are the best, especially Jeanne's.  Now,
> based on what went before, you may want to prejudge these.  Such is life. 

I'm trying REAL danged hard not to.   But there's a good chance you'd have
gotten more respect for the product by using people with known expertise
in the field, rather than bringing in a Dell ex-staffer who's never sold
a line of SF.   If she's good, never fear, we'll buy her stuff; but we're
not expecting much, at this point.

> But I do object to you smearing Jeanne's ability or accuracy without any
> information whatsoever on the content of the writing involved...she spent
> a great deal of time researching archaeology and anthropology to use in
> the background for Anna and the mission, and I think she's done a bang-up
> job.

Great, but did she have enough education to understand what she researched?
Or are we going to be getting the archaeological equivalent of the first
book's "hot Mars?"   (It might be germane to point out that "anthropology"
is the study of *man*, and that "xenoanthropology," and generalized 
paleontology, might pertain.)

Remember, John Vornholt did better research than YOU did... he had Mars'
surface gee *right*.   Of course, he blew about five other details in 
his clumsily-written opening passage, and neither he nor you knew enough
to catch it, and the "editors" at Dell *certainly* didn't. 
Not an auspicious beginning for a series of novels, to say the least.

The point is, not what SHE did, not what YOU did, but the WORK that has
been produced; and since her track record is not such as to inspire
confidence, and your own passionate warmth for, and support of, fellow
writers, has repeatedly placed you in a position of vigorously supporting
and applauding work which did not bear close scrutiny... at least without 
first being placed under a fume hood... we'll wait to see the book.

> But like all things B5, the book will stand or fall on its own. 
> And this one will stand.  
> jms

Dang straight.   "BABYLON 5" has enough to offer, and enough sheer 
*quality*, that it will survive any amount of bad tie-in "novels."

It's just that a number of us would really like to have some *good*
B-5 books, and at the moment our expectations are pretty danged slim.

Or are you telling me that Dell now has a competent SF editor on 
the staff?

+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| A Science Fiction writer should never violate known scientific |
| laws by accident.   ---- Frederik Pohl                         |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Lines: 9

Well, let's see...more Earth sets, a lot of stuff on and in Mars, Minbar,
some more on Narn...we've got quite a few coming, actually.

 jms

-***
-*** B5JMS SUBSCRIBERS: Replies to messages in this list go to the list
-*** maintainer, <b5jms-owner at cs.columbia.edu>.  If you want to reply
-*** elsewhere, adjust the "To" field.  The best way to reach JMS is to post
-*** to rastb5m, which can be done by sending email to <rastb5 at solon.com>.