Conference noted::sf

    I found the fast paced action and cliff hanger chapter endings to make
    a fast read.  The style is reminiscent of "Stand on Zanzibar" with the
    point of view of the narration alternating between the two protagonists
    with an occasional third person omniscient narrator and media accounts
    thrown in.  The story is not real deep, but he makes some interesting
    comments on the effect of immortality on one's views of religion.

	I agree with .0.  Pretty poor.  I found the first half of the
	book fairly interesting, but as .0 pointed out, he never
	went anywhere with it.

	It was a very quick read.

	One spoiler comment:


	He wrapped it up in the last 3 pages, not 15 :-(.

	He might as well have said "And then they killed everyone, escaped and
	lived happily ever after".

	ScottR

    A quick read.  There are enough plots of this type out. "Lovers run
    all over the place to escape people who are trying to kill them."
    
    Things did happen very quickly at the end.
    
    The description and the effects of the zombie drug was interesting.
    
    But the Stillman process was a good Sci-fi device and I enjoyed JH's
    speculations on how such a process would affect individuals, society
    and the future development of the human race.
     
    Escapism with a dash of philosophy about immortality.

        
    Domenic

    re:.3
    
    	� Come on,its *only* a sci-fi novel! �
    
    Sigh. Fie!
    
    What do you mean "only a sci-fi novel"?  That suggests to me that
    you think science fiction is a lesser form of literature that
    doesn't have to measure up to "real" fiction. A science fiction
    novel should be judged by the same standards as *any* novel. It
    doesn't have to speak Great Truths about the human condition, or
    to "dare Great Things". It can be simply an enjoyable action story.
    Still, it should maintain some sort of miminum standards of plot,
    characterization, etc.
    
    If Haldeman's book falls short on these, then it shouldn't be
    excused by claiming that it's "only" science fiction. Claiming
    that science fiction is exempt from the standards of literature
    is damning the genre.
    
    --- jerry

    re:.4
    
   Watch the flame Jerry! B^)
    
    Science fiction is a *better* form of literature because it can
    express great thoughts and ideas. After all, what other kind of
    literature can explore the possibilities of extending life they
    technological means?
     
    I was only expressing my opinion to offer an alternate opinion to
    other reviews in this topic.
    
    Sure, Haldeman missed the boat in furthur exploring possibilities
    of life extention, and the book ended *real* fast.
    He could have drawn out the ending, maybe he will write another
    book and continue, though I doubt it, Haldman is not one of those sequel
    writers.
    
    But he is a good writer and the book is good for a lazy Sunday
    afternoon read. 

     

    I really really enjoyed almost all of the stories in "Dealing in Futures."
    Though it wasn't the best, I especially enjoyed "!tang" (sp).  Now, I wanna
    know whadda rest o' youse !tink.

    Hey, mod, let's turn this into a Haldeman topic (title = Joseph Haldeman).
    His stories -- including a whole Niven (= 1 passel) worth of shorts --
    are certainly worth it, and I don't find Haldeman in a title elsewhere.

    -- mikeK

Actually, speaking of Niven, the "Buying Time" concept is reminiscent of Niven's
"corpsicle" and "organlegger" stories. I think Niven did a better job of 
studying the wide-ranging social effects of the technology, since Haldeman's
perspective was more from the rich-playboy viewpoint, where the character was
mainly concerned with his own skin, so to speak. However, I did enjoy the book.
It was one of those good James Bondian kind of adventures that rolls all over
the place. I especially liked the rather cynical bit about how the technology
could really be much more widely available but for the greed of a few; fans of 
the Illuminati consipiracies should rejoice. 8^)

    Speaking of organ-legging, there was a piece on "Prime-Time Live"
    a few weeks ago about the booming market in kidneys in India. 
    Apparently you can sell one of your kidneys for about $5000, a
    lot for a poor villager.  If your other one fails, tough luck. 
    It sounded like all the kidneys were used locally, but I wouldn't
    be surprised to find that there was an international market for
    them.  Organ-legging indeed!  And capital punishment is still
    used in the US...
    
    /jlr

#%@*&! That's awful! I remember a recent story on NPR about how people were
having children to provide donor material for other family members. It was
spooky as hell. There was some concern that the donor child might be held
responsible by the rest of the family if the donation did not prove successful
(kind of like "we brought you into this world to save your brother, and you
failed"). Also there was some question whether providing spare parts was a valid
(i.e. moral) motivation for having a child. Parents who had done this said they
love the donor children as much as their other children regardless of what
might happen, but who knows how grief and despair can twist that kind of thing 
around?

I've also heard about ethical concerns over doctors suggesting that
parents provide organs for their children, the worry being that a mother will
do just about anything to save her child, even place her own life at risk,
regardless of the chances of success.

If you were poor and suffering, with no hope of improving your life, how much
of your body would you ransom to escape?

    
    
     There are some who question our current practices today.
     People pay a rather large sums of dollars for organs that
     have already been "Donated".