Pavilion Digest: March 2005

A plethora of perplexing pavilion posts. The Pavilion Annex thread, the Pavilion Discussion thread, and monthly digests of all messages from the Pavilion.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 679
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 12:03 pm

Pavilion Digest: March 2005

Postby admin » Tue Mar 01, 2005 7:25 am

The following posts contain Art Deco Dining Pavilion messages for the month of March 2005.

Rick K.
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:49 pm

Typewriters & computers

Postby Rick K. » Tue Mar 01, 2005 7:25 am

Name: Rick K.
Source: unca20050524.htm
I use both typewriters and computers myself, although for the last two years Ive done most of my writing on my AlphaSmart 3000, which offers the portability of a manual typewriter (without having to carry around paper), and is far, far, far, far more affordable than a laptop. It also has _long_ battery life. Im talking _months_ here.

Both technologies have their advantages and disadvantages. What I like about working on the computer is that I can, if I wish, do several drafts on the screen before printing and save paper (though I like to print out a hard copy and make corrections on paper before typing in a new draft). What I like about a typewriter is the portability; the fact that I dont need an electrical outlet or batteries; and the fact that words appear on the paper as I write.

I also prefer manual typewriters to electric (I have 12 manuals and 1 electric; the latter was my first typewriter, a sixth grade graduation present). In part, because a manual can go anywhere; and in part because theres a certain elegant simplicity about a manual typewriter that an electric lacks.

As to computers, although I no longer use it, I retain a strong fondness for my Commodore 64 and the WordWriter 6 word processing program I used with it. It was a small, unassuming little program compared to WordPerfect, but it was _much_ more affordable (especially for a poor college student), and it had the features I needed to write, edit, save and print my work. I called it the little program that could.

Currently, I do my creative writing on the computer on either a Microsoft Works document or with Power Writer software.

Speaking of typewriters, I was curious why Harlan chooses to use an Olympia. Was it the first he used, and he decided to stick with it out of brand loyalty; or did he discover through trial and error that that brand works best for him?

For myself, I retain a certain fondness for the Smith-Corona brand. My first typewriter (the electric) was a Smith-Corona; I used a SC PWP word processor after the Commodore, and I own at least two SC manuals, as well as a folding Corona from the pre-Smith days.

On the other hand, my first manual typewriter was a Royal Aristocrat; and perhaps because of that, the Royal brand has a certain appeal as well.

And for the record, I own two Olympia typewriters, too.


User avatar
David Loftus
Posts: 3182
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

finger work

Postby David Loftus » Tue Mar 01, 2005 7:59 am

Name: David Loftus
Source: unca20050524.htm
PCs hit college campuses just about the time I got my bachelor's, so I typed all my college papers on typewriters -- first, a big manual and then a trim electric. (Smith Corona, the latter; don't recall the brand of the former.) I remember borrowing somebody else's Elite-style typewriter for my undergraduate thesis because we were limited to 60 pages, including bib and notes, and I wanted to fit more words on a page.

I got forced over to the Dark Side six years later on my newspaper job: we HAD to compose on computers tied into a mainframe. Haven't looked back. It's a lot easier to move sentences, paragraphs, whole pages of text around and see how they flow. I would never skip the step of printing out a hard copy to edit and proofread at least once -- DON'T depend on spell-and-grammar-check, which is largely responsible for a lamentable cornucopia of typoes and grammatical errors in books published ever since the mid 1980s (that and publishers' cheap willingness to skimp on editors and proofreaders; do the latter even exist at publishing houses anymore?) -- but I'm fine composing totally on screen now.

On the other hand, I insist on handwriting certain letters for emotional verisimilitude.

STAN: My punny gloss on your reference is "Beware of geeks bearing gifs."

Finally, my favorite typing joke, which appeared in Herb Caen's column in the SF Chronicle 'way back in about 1975. It was in the wake of the Wayne Hays-Elizabeth Ray scandal, he being a doddering but powerful U.S. Congressman and she being a highly buxom blonde on his payroll as a "secretary" whose office skills turned out to be all but nil.

"In the wake of the Wayne Hays-Elizabeth Ray scandal, a survey has been taken of the typing skills of Washington secretaries. It has been found that 75 percent use the touch method, while the rest are just hunt'n'peckers."

Roger Gjovig
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 7:03 pm

Postby Roger Gjovig » Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:56 am

Name: Roger Gjovig
Source: unca20050524.htm
I did go into the article about Harlan's appearance in the Cleveland paper. I knew "Deathbird Stories" was coming out in a new edition from the SFBC. I am hoping one of the others will be the new "Partners In Wonder" with the new stories he has been working on with other collaborators. I'm a little confused about the DVD version of "Dream Corridor" and if the adaptations are with live actors or live versions of the cartoon stories of the comic book itself. I would think it very tough if it were live versions of the cartoon stories, to make the comic long enough for a tv show. I guess we'll hear some from Harlan or the others in Cleveland about that when they return home. It will be interesting to see if the latest issue of "Dream Corridor" that Harlan has been working on will be out soon too. I'm really curious to find out what the other books soon to be released and the stories Harlan has been working on, and where to find them. I've been out of action since last Wednesday with bronchitis and finally broke my fever of 100+ last night. It could have been worse, they were afraid I had pneumonia when I went in to the clinic, particularly when i've had it 3 times before. They also gave me an ekg because of the chest pain, but i came out okay on that one. Will try to go back to work tomorrow or thursday. The really bad thing is the day i started losing my voice and getting sick last Wednesday, we found out 500 of us were losing our jobs at the citi corp office we work at in West Des Moines. At least my job will be there the longest of the ones being transfered to other sites, but still will be gone by October. Take care. Hi Barney. Roger Gjovig

Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 10:28 pm


Postby Dara100 » Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:12 am

Name: Dara100
Source: unca20050524.htm

I have of late wanted to play the "I Have No Mouth..." game but find the description on the site less than informative. Is it the boxed, shrinkwrapped version that appeared in stores and if so is it the version with or without the mousepad? Or, is it possibly just the plastic jewelbox with cd? Or, is it (heaven forfend) just the cd in a paper sleeve? These are the things inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks for any clarification you can give me.


Posts: 386
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 3:42 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Postby BrianSiano » Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:24 am

Name: Brian Siano
Source: unca20050524.htm
Okay. I finally saw _Seconds_ last night.

I could sit here and nitpick all kindsa things, but then I'd just be trying to show off that I'm a critical kind of guy. And it'd sound as though I'd missed all of the good bits, like James Wong Howe's photography, Saul Bass's incredible titles, and Jerry Goldsmith's terrifying score. And all of the great character actors in the smaller roles manage to bring in powerful streak of black humor. There's Jeff Corey, tearing a roast chicken apart as he speculates about a hotel fire; Murray Hamilton, sweating desperation; Richard Anderson as a surgeon telling Rock Hudson to just relax, before asking for the cranial drill; and Will Geer, coming on as a free-market deity, confiding his problems to Hudson at the very end.

It's a great movie. Okay, the plot twists'll be sorta obvious to anyone who's read a lot of SF, but that's fine. That doesn't matter; if we cared only about the plot twists, this would've been a shitty thriller like _The 6th Day_. What matters is the human dread, the poignancy that drives the main character. Early on, Will Geer pulls some very personal information out of John Randolph. So we understand why Randolph is agreeing to something... and it's something most of us understand. (And the scene takes on another meaning when we know the rest of the film: suddenly, Geer's sympathy becomes something very different.)

Later on, Rock Hudson and Murray Hamilton have a conversation. And Hudson confesses what he's learned through his experiences. He says, and I'm paraphrasing, that he'd tried to live by the rules they gave him. He'd done what people had asked of him. And it did NOT give him the life he'd wanted. So when he agreed to what Corey and Geer offered him, he'd done nothing different: he'd simply followed a new set of rules, and these didn't give him happiness, either. Now, he says, he's learned what he should do with his life. And THEN... he follows their rules once more. (And once again, a second viewing reveals that Murray Hamilton's unspoken issues are equally important in this scene.)

The one conversation where the main character actually _learns_ something is, perhaps, the only honest conversation in the film. It's with Frances Reid, and it's a heartbreaker.

Stan Blumenthal

Postby Stan Blumenthal » Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:12 pm

Name: Stan Blumenthal
Source: unca20050524.htm
Hey Dave...I like puns no matter how corny they may be. We live so close to each other, we ought to correspond...since it looks like we indeed like the same author (Harlan of course).


My Two Bucks' Worth (Scroll Past at Will) (VERY Long So Sorr

Postby Velvet » Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:48 pm

Name: Velvet
Source: unca20050524.htm
First, the Saturday edition of The Groan and Wail (otherwise known to non-Canadians as "The Globe and Mail") seemed pretty clear that it was a even mentioned that his wife was on the phone with him at the time he did the deed. She's quoted in the G&M as saying that he was asking her to come home, he put the receiver down, and she heard the gun click.

Although now that I think of it, shouldn't she have heard something a little louder than a "click"? Nice full-page obit on the good Doctor appeared elsewhere in the same paper, though. (Promised to Paul Riddell, if any of the email addresses I sent the offer to are working...and if mine is working, which might be doubtful. Paul, you lurking in these woods?)

My second loonie is being tossed on the bar for the purpose of stating what I think about the whole "JMS might do the next Star Trek" news.

First reaction: Holy SHIT no, why the fuck would JMS ever want to go trailer-park-slumming like that? Even when Deep Space None was ripping off Babylon 5 shamelessly, Drek still couldn't touch the greatness of the really-really-good-novel-on-TV that was Babylon 5.

Also a key consideration, Paramount loves syndication (Can you say "cash cow", boys and girls? I *knew* you could!), ergo 99.9% of all Drek episodes are standalone, i.e., the characters remain static and don't grow, develop or mature over time (and when they do, it's usually through cliched plot devices not even worthy of daytime television), and there are standard formulas followed, as to which "type" each episode is going to be. Whenever they did happen to run two- (or, even rarer, three-) parters, everything always returned to status quo at the end. (The cliffhangers were only ratings-grabbers anyway, geared towards bringing the fanbase back after hiatus.)

Second reaction: If there's anyone listening out there, I can tell you (in quite explicit detail, sorry) *exactly* where I think JMS et al need to take Trek, in order to make it as compelling and thought-provoking as Babylon 5. There's only one way to do it. (No I am not about say "go where no Trek has gone before". Whaddaya think, I love my life so little I'd stick it on the lynching-post in so wanton a manner? Moving on....)

The first thing you have to do is kill all the libertarian, wishy-washy, it's-a-small-universe-after-all, happy-endings-r-always-us crapola that Drek thrived on for thirty years. Can the whole "We're probing deep, thought-provoking issues, but we're making sure *nobody gets hurt* when we do!" philosophy. (I know, I know, I'm preaching to the choir. But if *anyone* out there is listening, and can make it happen, you'll have one very re-devoted Trek fan who lost the faith right about the time Deep Six That One started going downhill...about the second season or so.)

Okay, so how do I propose that they actually achieve this utter heresy I'm suggesting here? How exactly do I expect them to completely eviscerate the very core tenets and approach of the entire canon of Drek that's been spoonfed to us over the years, and still retain (or gain) a fanbase in the same numbers they had during the heyday? Easy.

Start questioning the faith, gentlemen (and ladies). As with all organized religions, Star Trek has its own inherent flaws, the questions that any sane four-year-old can and will ask, which are brushed away by the simple blindness of the "Star Trek is good, so they must be right!" devotional incantation sung by the True Believers, usually in fluent High Klingon.

There are a lot of subtle clues in the not-really-mentioned backstory, for instance, which it would do any true Trekkie well to explore. Some episodes of the various incarnations have come close to exposing the dark little secret of Roddenberry's "perfect" universe (I'll come back to that in a moment. It's critical.), but they were usually all resolved with the "But it's really all okay at the end anyway!" cop-out.

After Voyager quite explicitly championed the assisted suicide/euthanasia movement, the darker edges of the Star Trek philosophy started sinking far enough beneath the surface that most of the underlying dark belly of the shiny-happy-people world of Starfleet was submerged in weekly shoot-em-ups, alternating with the running gag of the three-hour-tour, mixed in with heavy proselytizing for the libertarian movement.

Pardon. I am drawn away from my main point, to great excess, I fear.

The Eugenics Wars are brought to light in "The Seed", "The Wrath of Khan", and touched upon very briefly in "First Contact", and one other episode (my brain fails me), where the characters are thrust into that time-period, very very briefly (might have been "Encounter at Farpoint"). Now, initially, the premise was that humanity, through genetic manipulation, decided to play self-appointed deity, and created a race of supermen that wanted to wipe humanity out, so the "supermen" and women were exiled to the deeps of space via sleeper ships. That was how it started.

Once The Next Generation started airing, there was more than one reference to how "all major genetic diseases have been cured in our time" (convenient, that), which is the shiny-happy-people philosophy that most fundamentalist Trekkies buy into unthinkingly. Yet, we have that unsettling glimpse of the time referred to by Trek canon as "the Dark Ages", where mutations ran rampant, and genetic manipulation was apparently as common as plastic surgery is today.

The question I would pose is, *how* did the universe get from "the Dark Ages" to the highly sanitized Starfleet-run version of the UFP?

(First one what says "the Vulcans helped them do it", gets the neck pinch.)
I'm put in mind of those preserved brain cultures and samples that were discovered in that Nazi storehouse some years back. Does anyone else recall the case? The medical insights gained through the use of human experimentation (a fifty-dollar word for medicalized torture) were apparently quite valuable, including everything for a possible cure for Alzheimer or Parkinson's (or some other ailment which I am fuzzy on), as well as a host of other things, discovered at the unbearable price of human suffering. Needless to say, no one wants to touch the research, or the related specimens, no matter *how* great the benefit to humanity might prove to be, for the simple reason that it is morally and ethically wrong, and defiles (quite literally, as the specimens in question are mostly brain tissues and cultures) the memories of those who died so horribly, just so the doctors could make medical advances, which would conveniently be applied only the Aryan race.

I would like to submit the argument that the Star Trek universe failed this ethical litmus test, and failed it spectacularly. Don't believe me? There *are* hints of it, although you'd have to look hard, to get past the "it's a wonderful universe after all" brightly-smiling-even-when-we're-in-not-really-deep-shit-at-all characters, to get to the rotten kernel of the truth.

Take the character of the doctor in Deep Space Nine, who was genetically manipulated from birth. Yeah, sure, they touched on the "What if I was better off the way I was?" angst plot device (used solely for dysfunctional family conflict and nothing else in the episode), but it failed to probe into the issue in any kind of depth at all.

For example, we're spared the graphic details of what, exactly, kind of medical procedures the child would have had to undergo, in order to have his genetic code entirely rewritten, to preprogrammed specifications. (Next one what says, "They did it with replicators!" gets the phaser NOT set on stun.) A sneaking suspicion tells me it might not have been pleasant at all. Also mentioned are other children churned out by "the hospital" (which, it is not quite clear, is somewhere between illegal and quasi-tolerated, since the doctor actually did get into Starfleet, even with that on his record), along the same lines.

The same would seem to hold true for the engineer from The Next Generation. It's touched on in the first episode that he was implanted with the optical version of the cochlear implant from a very early age (although, IIRC, at the time TNG premiered, cochlear devices hadn't even been patented, let alone released as safe for public use, and therefore TNG didn't really get to touch on that part of the issue at all). Again, sparing the graphic details of what, exactly, extremely invasive surgery would have been like for a very young child.

They quite neatly cleaned up all of the engineer's "troubles" with the imperfect (unthinkable!) device (which gave him headaches, and he couldn't really "see" in the way a functioning human optic nerve would) by giving him perfect vision with perfect implants, around about the time of the movies. Yeah, no guide dog for Geordi, suffice it to say.....And a shiny, happy people ending, naturally, thanks to the wonderful advances in absolutely perfect technology, which invariably works right the first time, and almost NEVER breaks down.

Yes, Roddenberry's universe really was a study of perfection, wasn't it? Even its "outcast" characters (from Spock, to Data, through Odo and whatever character they decided would hold the mantle *this* episode, on Gilligan's, Voyager), yearned for nothing more than belonging completely to the perfect world they saw around themselves, but didn't see themselves as a part of. Kindly note, these were the characters the fanbase was expected to most closely identify with.

As with all organized religions, the perfection of Star Trek was never questioned by its internal characters (or by its creators), never subjugated by the feel-good parables of "even the outcasts want to belong", nor was it ever considered what, *exactly*, the price that particular universe had to pay for its inherent perfection was.

Start breeding *that* particular Tribble, and you'll have a Star Trek series I would consider worth watching.

Of course nobody will fucking watch it. It would just be nice, if at last, that particular sacred cow of science fiction television was finally gutted for all the world to see.

My apologies for the length. If my screed is deemed unwelcome heresy, or egregiously offensive, or just plain incoherent, Webmaster Rick has my permission to remove it from the board, with my apologies in advance.


Chris M. Barkley

Ellison Report

Postby Chris M. Barkley » Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:59 pm

Name: Chris M. Barkley
Source: unca20050524.htm
Hey Weberlanders,

If anyone out there attended todays Ellison Extravaganza at Case Western Reserve, please report in with all the details. Betcha dollars to doughnuts y'all had a great time...Of course I'm envious...

Chris M. Barkley

User avatar
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:59 pm
Location: Shaker Heights, Ohio

Harlan's visit to Cleveland

Postby AlexKrislov » Tue Mar 01, 2005 7:01 pm

Name: Alex Krislov
Source: unca20050524.htm
Just returned from Harlan's Cleveland gig a bit earlier this evening. Don't have a lot of time just now, but some thoughts...

Attendance was sparser than one might hope, as we were hit with a devilish explosion of Winter, quite unexpected. It's March, fer crissake, and the weather is usually letting up by now. Tellya, if it weren't Harlan, Robin and I wouldn't have come out to play.

Harlan's talks in these parts are always gatherings of the cogniscenti, and it was a pip to meet Barney and FinderDoug. Nice to see Bob Ingersoll, too--we must live all of three miles apart, but the last time we got to chat was at Harlan's appearance at the Rock Hall of Fame.

Harlan was in good form, spinning his way through two hours of questions so quickly that Robin and I were genuinely surprised when he mentioned that it was nigh on six o'clock. Something that struck me was how little he repeats himself--we saw him not long ago, and only one bit was familiar (that one involved Joe Straczynski and a producer, and I can't get enough of it anyway). He was also--dare I say it--a bit more mellow than usual, perhaps reflecting some appreciation for the fact that we'd all pushed through some nasty weather to enjoy his company. Hell, it was almost cozy. And he had a really nice pair of Keds for us all to admire.

Susan had the usual bunch of terrific books for folks to buy, but, damn, I've got 'em all. Inspired by Barney's mention of "Spider Kiss," I brought my ragged old paperback 1st edition of "Rockabilly," along with "Love Ain't Nothing But Sex Misspelled" and "Partners In Wonder" for autographs.

Alan Coil
Posts: 538
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:21 pm
Location: Southeast Michigan

Postby Alan Coil » Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:23 pm

Name: Alan Coil
Source: unca20050524.htm
Short one first: Dora, the IHNMAIMS game which you asked about is the complete version with mousepad. Harlan and Susan had some for sale at the presentation today in Cleveland. I would suspect there were some left over.

Harlan worked his usual magic with the crowd in Cleveland. He had me worried a couple times. He spoke mostly from a real stage. Where a handrail might have been was only a narrow strip of wood that he stood on a couple times. He is not senile, but for Heaven's sake, he is 70. Had he mis-stepped, it would have been a dangerous fall.

He answered questions from the audience. Many of the answers turned into 10 minute talks. The two hours went quickly. I didn't take notes, so I can't give exact details, but the audience loves everything he said. Well, maybe not the part about the roto-rooter.

Susan looked more beautiful than ever. Harlan asked her to tell why she watched the Oscar broadcast. Susan replied it was so that she could see who was dressed like a skank! Harlan loved the reply so much that he left the stage to give her a kiss. Ain't love grand?

The only negative of the whole day was the drive to and from the venue. The Ohio turnpike was snow-covered on the way in and merely wet on the way home, but the roads and freeways in Cleveland were dangerous. There were numerous accidents and there seemed to be no salt applied to the roads.

I had a great time and so did the three guys who were with me.

Thanks, Harlan, for a great evening!

User avatar
Jon Stover
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 8:52 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Oh, no -- it's a Star Trek rant!

Postby Jon Stover » Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:35 pm

Name: Jon Stover
Source: unca20050524.htm
Velvet's post, which was really nicely argued and would make a great pitch, finally nailed it for me. Or more accurately codified it. The dreaded 'It.' The Star Trek It.

Star Trek fans, at their worst, are indeed lame -- about as lame as the sports fans who paint their faces for Columbus Blue Jackets games or kept buying Leaf tickets when the Leafs were mired in the Ballard years. But frankly that's about as lame as they get, and the world gets a whole lot lamer. Millions buy Veggie Tales DVDs or subsist on a diet of facist (enjoyable, yes, but fascist) 24 episodes and Tom Clancy novels, but the worst fucking thing in the world is some dentist who did up his office like the bridge of the Enterprise. JMS notes that he actually would like to remodel Star Trek because he has an affection for it, and people either start cheering or bleeding out of their eyes. Dogs and cats start living together. Houses fall into the sky.

Enterprise, in its own bizarrely truncated Berman/Braga crapaverse of recycled ideas, was at worst a mediocre show. Not great, not awful. Its cancellation desn't provoke a great deal of anything in me other than wondering if Manny Coto might have managed to make it slightly better in an imaginary season 5, but that's about it. If you've got a legitimate personal beef with the avatars of Roddenberry (and God knows Harlan does), then you can be as pissed at Trek as you want to be, though I've noted that HE hasn't galloped out to do a jig on Trek's grave during all the proceedings. I'm not assigning motives to HE except to note that if someone on this board should do a jig, it might be Harlan -- but he hasn't. And during the weeks of danse macabre-Trek dancing, the ones who've tended to say 'I take no joy in this' have either been professionals (A-T Castro and Tony Isabella) or people who might as well be (Krislov, who's got one more story in a Moorcock-inspired anthology than any of the jiggers has, if memory serves). I'm not enlisting any of the three in defending this post, just noting an interesting phenomenon, btw.

If you're dancing in delight over Enterprise's cancellation, or coming up with a lengthy list of reasons why this cancellation is an important stepping-stone to true enlightenment...well, Trek beat you. It beat you good, and it beat you fair, and you should probably spit Trek's cum out of your mouth and get on with your life. Trek didn't drive out the good by existing, unless you live in a world where there aren't a lot of crappy reality shows on mainstream TV and crappier fictional shows besides. It didn't ruin science fiction. SF is a niche market, a very small one if it comes down to people like Delany and Malzberg and all the other fine writers who, thank god, don't write like Trek and never will. That's what it is. Asimov never got any new readers when Buck Rogers stopped being a cultural touchstone. It doesn't work that way.

Anyway, my harsh words are actually these: if you're faintly outraged that JMS would deign to work with Trek, then you're assigning your own imaginary values to someone who actually works in TV and in SF and expecting him to conform to your own vision of how things should work and how he should work. If it's that outrageous, then move to Hollywood and start pitching. And if you're delighted that Trek is dead because its life was an abomination that hurt 'real' SF, then you're a bigger, lamer stone-fan than any poor blighter who ever wore a pair of Spock ears to a convention. You're getting off not on Spock but on the absence of Spock. That's some fucked-up stuff.

Cheers, Jon

Karen Funk Blocher

Typowriters (sic)

Postby Karen Funk Blocher » Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:46 pm

Name: Karen Funk Blocher
Source: unca20050524.htm
As embarrasing as it is to admit that I started writing my first novel in 1974 and am just now getting the final draft tweaked (my role model is apparently the Camus character who's been writing the first sentence of his book for 20 years), I flat out could not have gotten even this far on a typewriter, let alone a manual Olympia.

In one of the boxes behind me are the first few pages of the thing, laboriously and badly typed on erasable bond using my mom's Royal. I found the procedure exhausting and inflexible. If I wanted *this* paragraph to go *here*, or to restate that bit of dialogue between Jamek and Dag, I had to start over. As a compulsive rewriter with lousy eye-hand coordination, I could never have churned out 400-plus pages of manuscript that way, let alone over a thousand pages of sequel. Could. Not. Do. It. (Perhaps one might argue that the difficulty would have forced me to be more concise, but I suspect that it would merely have forced me to get stuck at page 70 again.)

With the Mac or the Compaq, I know where the text is, and can add, change, or move stuff around at will. I can even paste deleted scenes into a file in case I change my mind. If my fingers fall into the "-sion" habit and accidentally type "Ellision" (this happened to me a lot in high school), I can fix it in a second, with no one the wiser. I can change Dag to Del, and Harisoni to Harisi, all through the miracle of find and replace. Lovely. And because the process itself does not thwart me, I can write more, and thus improve with practice.

On the other hand, perhaps someone who can get the words right in his head before banging them out, who works primarily in relatively short forms of fiction and nonfiction, who has spent decades pounding the manual keys with confidence and accuracy--that someone may have no need for what I find indispensable. But after all these years, despite explanations, and through all the changes in technology in this wide world, Harlan's writing method still goggles (boggles? both?) me.

Eh bien.

Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:57 pm

Postby StacyD » Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:33 am

Name: Stacy Dooks
Source: unca20050524.htm

You rule. But 'brute force typing'? It's not like I go at the keyboard with a sledgehammer for two hours a day. :p


Posts: 78
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 6:25 pm

Postby rich » Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:02 am

Name: rich
Source: unca20050524.htm
Before the masses start turning their pitchforks and torches his way, I agree with Jon. I thought Velvet's post was nicely argued also...but I agree with Jon.

Return to “The Art Deco Dining Pavilion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests