The new edition of The Essential Ellison is scheduled to be out in November. It will be $24.95 for the paperback and
$34.95 for the hardcover. It will be 1200 pages. There are 16 stories that weren't included in the first edition.
The winners of this year's Audies were announced on friday
including this:
Audiobook Adapted from Another Medium:
"The Dybbuk" by S. Ansky, read by Edward Asner, Theodor Bikel, Harlan Ellison, Marian Mercer, Kristoffer Tabori and Carl Reiner; (NewStar Media Inc.)
It was produced by Yuri Rasovsky who does Beyond 2000.
More info is at
http://www.irasov.com/dybbuk.htm
Unfortunately, NewStar Media, the parent company of Dove
Audio is having major financial problems. They were scheduled to be at Book Expo, but I couldn't find their booth.
Anyone know of any appearances by HE in the near future? Some of the info here seems a bit, er, um, out of date.
UPDATE on Strange Attraction. Rec'd e-mail from publisher, who clarified that HE only wrote the introduction, not a short story. However, he does sign both editions of the book. Book due end of June. If interested, call him at 703-222-9387, to order a copy.
I must be on a roll. The Morpheus Int'al site indicates the 50 year retrospective is due the end of 2000, with over 200 additional pages. They have a photo of HE w/Terry D. reviewing documents. The hard cover of HE's & Yerka's collaboration is still available for $50. Seems reasonable. The ltd. is $175. Ouch.
Infoman- Followed your lead and went to the publisher's site. They do mention HE as a short story contributor, but list no story. There is a ltd. ed. for $75 (signed by all contrib.) and a deluxe for over $200.
Infoman-Found info. at sfsite.com
CHARLIE: I saw a review of STRANGE ATTACTION(S) in Publishers Weekly, but it only mentioned an introduction by Ellison -- not a short story. Where'd you get your info from (if it's from a publisher's website, it may be correct).
There's an Ed Kramer anthology due out in the summer called Strange Attraction, which promises a new (?) HE story, along with others, centered around a Ferris Wheel. Anyone have an idea what the story is?
Dove Audio is offering Harlan's The Voice From the Edge, Vol. 1: I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream at(45% off): $13.75
Retail Price: $25.00
http://www.audiouniverse.com/BookTemplate.asp?BookID=0787122661
I am trying to locate someone who has an audio tape of Harlan's appearance on KGO 810 AM radio, on the Shann Nix show, taped or aired around 09/03/97. If anyone can help me with this I'll make it worth your while.
Thanks,
Shane
Damn! I **HATE** losing track of where my margins are supposed
to be!
Wow -- the very air abounds in novels! ALEX: Glad to hear you
finished the initial siege; good luck with finding an agent for
it. I'm told that deals with the Prince of Darkness are helpful
in that area. I'm told also that dealing withthe Prince of
Darkness is almost like dealing with an agent in itself.
PETER: Yes, there does seem to be some jiggery-pokery going on
with KQED's scheduling of "Beyond 2000." The premier episode
was supposed to be the Heinlein story, but we got the LeGuin
instead. No problem with the story itself, but it is a nuisance
when you're recording them and marking the tapes in advance. I
have no idea whether it's KQED's doing, or if that's just the order in which they get the shows. Personally, I'm just grate-
ful that the Bay Area gets 'em at all.
In case anyone's interested, I'm in the home stretch on my own
novel. Then there'll be the probably painfully necessary
rewrite. At this stage, I worry more about getting them written,
than about getting representation for them.
Lately, that hasn't been so challenging, per se. With the move,
however, I have too many distractions to work on it, and don't dare start anything new. I *want* to write; I feel the
inspiration; but I can't give it the time it rates, right now.
It's awful frustrating.
Oh, yes -- the move. Did I mention I'm about to move to LA? No,
not Louisiana, but the City of Angeles! Who knows, maybe I'll
finally be able to get that screen-writing thing going. Let's
none of us hold our breath, though. Although Fox has announced
an anthology show (e.g., Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, Night
Gallery) called "Night Visions" (sound familiar?) for the fall,
and I must admit, I have a stack of ideas that might make it
through the teevee quality sieve.
Well, that's it for me. I'll be busy packing this week, then
who knows when I'll get to a computer terminal again. So be
good while I'm gone -- "I will turn this site around and we will
go right back!" Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of the
web? The Shadow -- and Doc. (Thanks for noticing, Finder. Just
trying to be a force for good in the web.)
Muchas Smoochas, Doc
I'm trying to track down a story, and if anyone can tell me the title (and if Harlan did or did not write it, and if the latter, who did), I'd be most appreciative. Basically, the story deals with a young fellow who goes to see a distant uncle in Scotland. It turns out that this guy is keeping a gold sea-chariot for some god, and the Loch Ness monsters are used to pull the chariot. The uncle asks the nephew to take over the reins (pun intended) because he is dying. If this rings a bell to anyone, could you please send me an email? I'd be most appreciative.
REGARDING the movie mentioned below: I recently heard (at the WHC 2000) that the director mentioned below is supposedly mulling over a big-screen version of DEMON WITH A GLASS HAND -- which would explain the copyright problems.
There is an interview with Harlan at
http://www.audiobookcafe.com/frankdet.cfm?f_id=13
harry has an email from David Twohy who directed
Pitch Black
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=6022
it says the second movie he is doing as part of a 3 pic
deal with miramax is:
After that, I'll shoot a Harlan Ellison piece that he'll script for me.
Classic science fiction, towering ideas, terrific jeopardy -- it's a fast
ball right down the center of the plate. Can't name the title just yet, as
we're just now in negotiations and the rights are complicated. But stand by.
This one'll be a beaut.
A quick update: I sent out the query/synopsis/sample chapters of my novel to a high-powered agent--one who reps a lot of really good sf/f writers--as the Post Office was closing on Monday.
Today (Sunday) I get an e-mail at one p.m.:
"Dear Mr. Berman,
Thanks for your letter of the 10th. This is a pretty good letter and you do make the novel sound
interesting, but unfortunately we're swamped with reading, and with fantasy projects, and really aren't
open to new submissions right now except from established writers.
Good luck, and all best wishes,
"
Kinda weirdly heartwarming that he'd reply at such a non-business hour, but I dunno. It is, after all, still a rejection.
So tomorrow, I go research and decide which of the NEXT few high-powered agents (I am, admittedly, shooting for the moon--and I hope that, unlike Werner von Braun, I don't hit London in the process) I'm going to submit to THIS week.
Not Harlan-related, but there you are ...
Hmm.
One thing I note--except for perhaps "Glowworm", I don't think I've seen Harlan talk much about his stories being rejected.
Anyone want to correct me on this?
My wife and I were sitting having coffee this morning. (Sunday). And, I got this far away look in my eye's and she asked me. "What are you thinking about Hon?"
"I use to always start my Sunday mornings with the SciFi Buzz," I said. "I miss Harlan's commentaries."
She looked up and said "is he still alive?"
Just thought I would share that.
THNX. Gary Cloud.
Jeez,Charlie,I thought Pokemon was the little red pony that hung around with Gumbymon.
Speaking of Jokes, (for those of you w/kids), what do you call a Jamaican proctologist? (Pokemon) Yes yes, 20 lashes.
Just a heads-up - Harlan's Commentary #8 (titled "Jokes") is up at Galaxy Online. Can't tell you how it is, since I can't get Windows Media Player to recognize its own file format. Go figure.
I ment Charlie and PETER. Sorry.
Charlie & Alex: I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer. Harlan was awarded the Grand Master for the World Horror Convention. Horror Writers of America award the Bram Stoker Awards. I wasn't referring to the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America when I was speaking of the Grand Master Award.
Best,
Shane
... er. Actually, Brian Aldiss got the Grandmaster award (were talking sfwa here, right?). Harlan was awarded for I HAVE NO MOUTH on audio but that was an HWA Stoker award, which is the only award I know of given out on the 13th. I don't think HWA has anything as like (or as controversial) as the Grandmaster award.
Alex--- I was working on a novel, and getting quite far into it when life caught up with me and the book died. Oh well. I've still been writing, but now with summer approaching I'm gearing up for my annual game of manuscript boomerang toss. I'm going to toss out several stories I've spent the year working on and seeing a) which ones bounce back fastest b) which ones bounce back hardest c) if any are actually caught by the editors I send them to.
---Peter
furor scribendi
Charlie: No, it was Harlan. The presentation was made on 05/12/00 after 9:00 P.M., following the WHC Story Contest and the IHG Awards. He didn't actually receive his award until the Bram Stoker Awards Banquet on Saturday 05/13/00 07:30-10:00 P.M.
Best,
Shane
Shane- the site isn't closed, however, I don't think the article is posted. You can order a copy of the magazine for about 4 or 5 bucks. Go to their web page sfwa.org. I thought Brian Aldiss got the grandmaster?
CHARLIE: Is the SFWA area a closed website? Is Harlan's article available to be read by the Internet community-at-large?
BTY, Harlan was also given the Grandmaster award.
Best,
Shane
Shane- I wasn't there. Read about it on the SFWA news web page, of all ironic places. Also, speaking of irony & SFWA, HE wrote an article for their magazine on the 50th Anniv. of F&SF. A great little article entitled Dostoevsky Never Wrote For Tony (Boucher), either, So Get On With Your Life.
Charlie: Speaking of "i have no mouth and i must scream", I was standing nearby when Harlan was signing a copy of the tape and the recipient mentioned that H.E. was nominated for the Bram Stoker. Harlan turned to Susan and said, "I am?" Susan confirmed that he was nominated and he replied, "Hot Damn!"
Were you at the awards ceremony?
Modern Literature Unabridged
The Voice from the Edge, Vol. 1
"i have no mouth, and i must scream"
"Laugh Track"
"Grail"
"'Repent, Harlequin!' said the Ticktockman"
"The Very Last Day of a Good Woman"
"The Time of the Eye"
"Paladin of the Lost Hour"
"The Lingering Scent of Woodsmoke"
"A Boy and His Dog"
$25.00 ($30.00 Canada)
Total playing time: Approx. 6 Hours
Dove Audio/New Star
8955 Beverly Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Four Audio Cassettes
HE won a Bram Stoker for the IHNMAIMS audio tapes.
Oh Alex! You wonder where the rabid fanatics come from? Well, without in any way meaning to restart the conversation on religion that I mangled so badly previously, this relates to a theory of mine. I think that humans are hard wired for belief. Not neccessarily in a deity mind you, but something about which they can be passionate and have faith in. Some people believe passionately in their own destinies (which is where I think most politicians come from. . . ), some people believe in some great cause and put all their energies into that. But I think that for the vast unwashed masses, wandering rootless far from the church or synagogues of their youth, being a fan (as in FANATIC) of something fills that void. Personally, no matter how much I admire/enjoy the works of a writer or artist of any type, I have a certain amount of distaste for being identified as a "fan" for that very reason. I refuse to be fanatic about anything. As to why some writers inspire more of this than other writers - look to the adolescent psyche of the fanatic. I don't know all the writers you list, but if they're like Octavia Butler, she writes wonderful fascinating stories, but to my knowledge, she hasn't created a "universe." Someplace where a reader can go that seems real and full and independent. Harlan has a very strong public persona. A person with a juvenile/underdeveloped personality will often be attracted to someone with a strong personality. Face it. It's much easier to find somebody to emulate than it is to do all the work of figuring out your own opinions and ethics, etc.
Well, ok, that doesn't seem to be true for all people - some of us are just naturally gifted with an over abundance of opinions!
Thanks, Maggie--and Large lumbering luck back atcha!
Thanks as well, Peter--but don't I remember you being close to completion on your own novel? Whass gwan on widdat, huh?
In all honesty, I really don't expect this agent to take me on--see, I'm shooting for the moon; this agent is probably the second-best around who takes sf/f (Richard Curtis, sadly, is taking NO unpublished writers). The next few I plan to query if this one doesn't bite are also way, way up there in my list.
Oh, I'm sure that if I shot low to begin with, I'd get a passable agent, but, as I used to instruct my callers back when I ran fundraising centers, "If you don't ask, you don't get!"
Okay. Harlan-type stuff.
It occurs to me that Harlan is, like, say, Ayn Rand (and won't he just hate me for that comparison), a writer who has both a rabid following (what, us fanatical? ) as well as a large cadre of people who absolutely despise anything he does or writes.
Now, Harlan is a pretty confrontational guy, both in personal legend and in his writing (yes; he's a widdle puppy dog in person. I know. Most, however, just know Harlan Hellraiser), so that's easily understandable.
But what about others who inspire such fanatical devotion? I know, through my sister, that fans of Dorothy Sayers are as nutsoid about Lord Peter Wimsey and Harriet Vane (often overlooking the amazing work Sayers did in translationg and discussing the classics) as that guy who staked out the theater 'round the corner for two months--dressed as a Jawa.
Likewise Vorkosiganians, the fans of Lois McMaster Bujold and her books about Miles, Cordelia, and the rest.
I can't say much about Ms. Sayers, but Ms. Bujold is an absolute doll. I don't know what, aside from DAMN good writing, she can inspire such fanaticism.
Then there are the Pernians after McCaffrey, the Thomas Covenanters after Donaldson, the fans of Anne Rice, and so on.
Just what inspires readers to so closely follow the lives of their favorite characters and of those who write them?
It can't be infamy and notoriety--witness Bujold and Sayers. Nor can it simply be through the grace of good writing (witness Rice and Donaldson)--if so, there would be packs of groupies following Lawrence Block, Donald E. Westlake, Octavia Butler, Connie Willis, Mario Vargas Llosa, and such wherever they go.
So what is it?
Huh?
Huh?
05/15/00 12:21 MST
I got back from World Horror Con Ten and want to tell you folks that Harlan was the star of the convention! I hope to have comments worth reading soon, but let it be known that H.E. was all that AND a bag of chips.
Later,
Shane
Hey Alex, good luck there. Keep us informed on your progress (even if it isn't Harlan related) 'cause I for sure want to be one of the first people in line to buy your book. Again, good luck.
---Peter
furor scribendi
Alex!!
Oh, GOOD LUCK!! I sent off a very small piece to one of the local papers last week, so I'm wishing you LOTS of LUCK!!
I realize that this isn't really Harlan-related, but ...
Wish me luck, people. In about twelve hours, I send out the query letter, synopsis, and first fifty-odd manuscript pages of my novel to an agent in the hope that he might actually like it.
(Oh, and Happy Mother's Day to those for whom it applies!)
Okay, I got an email from someone who wasn’t familiar with installment 28 of THE HARLAN ELLISON HORNBOOK (to which I made reference to in an earlier posting, about a week ago), and they wanted to know what I meant by “personal ambience.” So I went and dug up my fire-damaged copy of THE HORNBOOK (Penzler Books, NewYork: 1990), and re-read installment 28. Good installment. Hadn’t read it for awhile. Did me good. A hell of a lot better than either of my previous postings. I didn’t realize how close to repetitious my words were of HE’s words, but that’s just evidence of two things. First of all, HE words for me have played a constructive role in the development of certain thoughts. And secondly, I may have repeated some of HE’s sentiments because they are similar to my own and because NOBODY ever listens to you when you have someone important to say, so most people (who have something important to say) end up spending a large chunk of their time and energy repeating themselves anyway. That’s just the way it is as far as I can tell. Anyhow, what you’re reading right now may not stay on the board for very long, because it might edge close to copyright infringement or something along those lines---because the next block of words you’re going to read are all HE’s, written in 1973, titled “A Rare, Kindly Thought,” and collected in the 1990 edition of the HORNBOOK, copyrighted by the Kilimanjaro Corporation---installment 28. But perhaps Rick and HE will let it stay; we’ll see. This is the heavily condensed version, so I recommend that anyone interested in reading the full version track down the Edgeworks edition of the HORNBOOK, or just order the original from the HERC. In this installment, HE says better what I tried to say in my previous two postings---and I think most of you will probably appreciate it more. It certianly seems relevant to some events which of have popped up around here recently...
Harlan says:
Waxing philosophical is not one of my favourite pastimes. Ever since I was let down by Eric Hoffer, I’ve realized virtually any clown with a sesquipedalian command of the English language can write a book of “philosophy” and get a following of dregs to chant his or her brilliance to the academic skies. Look at the Skinnerians. Saddening, really, how easy it is to dupe a large contingent of lames and wearies, get them to accept a “philosophy of life” *in toto*. The no-neck nits who followed Senator Joseph McCarthy into the witch-burning area... all the poor bastards who are into Jesus Freakism because they can’t face the world as it really is and haven’t the stamina to change it for the better... believers in Atlantis, flying saucers, reincarnation, Catholics who clap their hands in adolescent delight at the Reaffirmation of the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility... and all the phonies who went from dope to Zen to the Maharishi to Baba Ram Dass to macrobiotic dining to astrology and don’t know where their next saviour is coming from. All of them, the poor fuckers, washed here and there like flotsam on the inexorable tide of Life... One guy even wrote *me* a letter telling me I had The Word and he wanted to be my Follower. Sooner would I have the clap for a thousand years than stalk about spouting The Word. On him I wish a plague of toads in his bathroom... However, I did have an idle thought the other day, which I guess comes under the heading of “philosophy”... Those we call “phonies” may not, in fact, be phonies at all. They may merely be poor suckers who don’t know who they are. They may not be trying to “put on airs” but may simply be lost souls who haven’t established their own personal ambiences. The universe lets us know it ain’t easy; these day especially. Everywhere you look, someone is telling you how to dress, what to wear, who to associate with, what to listen to, how you should think and react and feel... and that’s an ugly pressure many people can’t handle. Whether you call it Future Shock, or Cultural Ambivalence, or Alienation, what it means is that most of the people you meet in a day---and probably the both of us, if we’d but cop to it---are spinning. They don’t know what to believe, or how to act to be “cool,” or what is currently in or out... The same for several dozen friends of mine, nice people all, who move from apartment to apartment and change their phone numbers so often they have a permanent deposit on file with Pacific Telephone. When it was drug culture time, they came around and espoused the joys of honking kitchen cleanser... [and] now that greed and taking care of number one are the in-trips, they have become the most venal and despicable slugs in the garden... For the most part, I can’t bring myself to hate them. Forgive them, Father, they know not who they am. They are searching for a skin to wear. For a hat that fits them comfortably. For a scene that won’t reject them in six months when it ain’t chic no more. In the truest sense of the word, they are seekers... So I have to separate the “phonies” into two major groups. Those who know who they are and find something loathsome in the self-image, and so *consciously* adopt another mien... The other group, and larger by far, is comprised of those who aren’t phony at all, who are simply trying to find a way to get through all the days and nights of their lives without suffering too much. They believe what is told them, they wear those gawdawful platform shoes that make them look like clubfoots, they read Jacqueline Susann or Kurt Vonnegut with equal aplomb because they’re #1 on the *Times* list... and the dreams they dream belong to others who have had them first and deserve them. They are the Wandering Jews of our Times. Someone said to me, the other day, about a woman we both knew, “She’s such a phony.” And I started to agree, and just as suddenly stopped, because the thought---the “philosophical” thought, if you will---I’ve explicated here hit me. She isn’t a phony. She’s just spent all her formative years trying to be the kind of woman one guy after another with whom she’s been involved *wanted* her to be. It’s made her sly, cynical, unhappy, undependable, giddy, a thing of bits and pieces. She isn’t phony, she just doesn’t know who she is. And when I thought that, it was as though someone had drained all the dislike out of me for that person. Try it. Maybe it’ll work for you.
---Harlan Ellison, “A Rare, Kindly Thought,” page 140, installment 28 of the HARLAN ELLISON HORNBOOK.
This Michael guy seems to have the same problem as someone else who recently said some snotty and stupid things last week.
Mike said: “You’re a very shallow reader and would find music, education, history, theory, philosophy, psychology, and politics missing from Shakespeare too probably. Another grad from the home for the educationally inept, which is American academia.”
First of all, it seems to me (from my own experience) that the academy world-wide, in general, has become a product of institutionalized mimesis, not of people actually thinking for themselves, discovering for themselves or acting for themselves.
A sense of history, and of grasping cognitive developments (things that *go forward*), is virtually non-existent outside and within the academy. Most students don’t actually want to know anything; they just want to memorize what’s going to be on the test next week. ---Because they don’t *need* to do anything else.
Clifford Geertz cuts to the heart of the matter when he says that it is only if we abandon that sweet sense of accomplishment which comes from parading habitual skills and address ourselves to problems sufficiently unclarified as to make discovery possible, can we hope to achieve work which will not just reincarnate that of the great men of the first quarter century, but match it. (All of my quotes here are approximate.)
Kurt Vonnegut also talked about this in the intro to the first volume of *The Unabridged Mark Twain*: Universities (schools, or perhaps any educational institutions---aka prisons) are “for people who are not nearly as gifted as was Mark Twain, who need lessons in counterfeiting gifts they do not have.”
It’s not enough to study and read Mark Twain or Shakespeare or Harlan Ellison (not that HE can hold a flame to either of them; and please don’t aim your guns at me because I said that---defending HE like he’s the great white knight of the written word is... well, it’s kinda goofy really; and as much as I admire HE, believe me, he knows where he stands in the literary canon, and it’s not nearly as high as most of his “fans” like to think; reiterating again, though, that I buy everything with HE’s name on it because he has taught me more about writing---and a few other things---than just about any other writer I know with the possible exception of Raymond Carver, Anne Sexton, J.D. Salinger and Tolstoy).
It’s not enough to study and read these people; if you don’t add to that some appreciation of your own capacity to wonder about the world, then you’re screwed. You’re just going with the flow of the monkeymass, as HE might say, just another sucker trying to talk like you know what you’re talking about when you don’t.
Sometimes I see this in people who copy the actions and behaviors and the words of others, of accepted masters (such as HE if you like)---but the only people they’re fooling are the other fools who haven’t got the guts to do their own thing and who instead spend all their time mimicking the mannerisms of their “heroes.” How many jerks have made postings to this board recently trying to *sound* like HE by being insulting and condescending?
HE can be a little bit in-your-face at times, but he’s not stupid; 99% of the time I think he knows exactly what he’s saying.
HE definitely has his style, but he also has substance---probably because he knows who he is. And that’s more than I can say for this assholes trying to sound like HE. Admiration is one thing, but this kind of hero-worship is... [fill in your adjective].
I might helpt to remember that guys like Raymond Carver and HE are *NOT* masters of the short story---they are masters of *their* short stories. That’s where they deserve our admiration. But using them to shit on other people, or copying their mannerisms or style, only demonstrates your lack of imagination, your unwillingness to think for yourself, your unwillingness to *be* intelligent.
So please, have some sympathy for the rest of us, and knock it off.
And if it's not too late, make mine a...
...cheese burger.
Hey all! Doc, great swat of an idiot post.
And Keegan? By the time I *finally* got out of college - and this was just your average BA, not a graduate degree - I read nothing but brain candy for weeks! Clearly, you're of a superior nature as King isn't exactly brain candy!
Brain candy - any piece of fiction where the reader knows exactly how it will end when they pick up the book.
Peter - yes, 120 minute tapes are available, although I haven't seen any recently. I bought a bunch of 110 minute tapes about 3 weeks ago at my local Target. I like to be able to fit a couple of albums on a tape for listening pleaseure in my car!
Peg! Won't be long now!!! Thinking of you lots!!!
I met Harlan years ago at a book signing at Michigan State. He made the comment "Life is alot easier once you admit you're an asshole". I thought about that one for years...and you know he's right. Once you're able to get over yourself it becomes so much easier to do what needs to be done. It's one of the few grains of wisdom I've managed to gather along my journey. I just wanted to thank him (although he may never read this web site-I'm hoping this will pass it along).
Harlen-I appreciate that you helped me put it into perspective.
Raffa G.
Hey Keegan, congratulations. No matter what some trolls may say, you've got a lot to be proud of. And I can completely understand about wanting a hiatus from academic reading.
Now for sharing a bit of unabashed self-pride: As some people might remember, I had a crisis of academic faith last year and ended up switching majors from engineering to philosophy. Well, a lot of my friends thought I was crazy. It turns out, I was crazy, but I was also right. It turns out that one of my professors submitted a paper I did for a department award, and this afternoon he told me that my paper won. So, I'm riding on a high note right now. Though, if I remember my brief time playing jazz trombone properly, it was the low notes that got me high. (induced tones make the best buzz)
alright, enough patting myself on the back.
As for beyond 2000... Doc, if you're still out there, can you confirm this?... my NPR (KQED in San Francisco) is doing funky things with the scheduling. Even, it seems, going as far as scheduling one show and then playing another. So I don't really know when I'm going to hear what. Though the schedule does say that the Twain story is next... who knows.
By the way, does anyone know if audio tapes come in 120 minute length? (60 minutes each side?)
---Peter
furor scribendi
Finder- whether it's true or not, I don't know, but someone in the newsgroup said the radio broadcasts would be released on Dove audio in a few months.
Locus is reporting that Ackerman won the case against his ex-partner. He rec'd a pretty hefty judgment. An appeal is promised.
Joseph - Glynn Turman played Billy in “Paladin...” (compliments of the Pete’s Twilight Zone web site - VERY thorough overview of all things TZ); and Doc’s belief is true - somewhere in this attic of an apartment, I’ve got the ep on tape - and not the syndicated version, but the original CBS broadcast, Charles Aidman narrating and all. Now all I need (provided that its shelf life hasn’t expired - fifteen years and eleven moves is a lot of milage) is a VCR to watch it on...especially since the credit I saw on-line identifies Alan Smithee as the director...why any director would disown that segment eludes me...
Doc - good to see you; and that was very Shadow-esque - sweep in from the darkness, empty the .45s, vanquish the villain, and disappear once more into the night. They just don’t build heroes like you anymore.
Alejandro and Keegan - I applaud your restraint. Might be the week I've had or the people I have to deal with daily, but I'd have probably responded with two smoking barrels if someone had tried stomping on me that way. I really need a vacation...
Anyone - I’ve been unsuccessful in badgering, begging or beguiling “Beyond 2000” from my local NPR stations, and will proabably have to resort to tape when it’s available. Can anyone who’s been tuning in offer an opinion on the show so far? (And as a PSA, I see “’Repent, Harlequin!’...” is slated for July 18).
Michael,
Don'tcha think you're being just a tad quick with the judgements there? Me, I admit to being a shallow reader. But Keegan? Okay, if you *really* think Keegan is shallow, please explain your comment further. You obviously found more to the book than Keegan did. Give us an example or two so we can learn.
As for the WSJ - say what? Why do you think it is stupid? And in just what way is it stupid - the main content, the facts, the theories, it's choice of contributors, financial advise?
Personally, your post reads as something written intentionally to tick people off. Since you're obviously more intellectually refined than us, maybe you have something better to do than drop in and insult folks?
PS: Hi, Doc! Glad you're around!
Michael, man! Alejandro got it right: I was in no way trying to belittle King nor do I fail to notice that he focuses some attention on the big issues like God, and fear, and the uncomfortable human-ness of relationships. I loved the book because, despite its simplicity, it was still intriguing, thought-provoking and I enjoyed the ride. I chose the King story BECAUSE King soothes me. I owe much of my literacy, (and hence, my education) to him because he dared to write about Maine and put some scary faces on the unnamed terrors of that (and every other) beautiful land. Stephen King is an icon to me: a Maine boy who made it when so many others end up in the mills, drunk, or dead. There but for the grace of God..... He inspires me.
I could have easily chosen to read something by HE or Shakespeare, but I wanted to read something new, non-academic, and fun. There was good old SK at the supermarket checkout, shiny, new, unread, and unknown. The NYT and other book reviews had been generally positive. I impulse bought it and don't regret it.
Now I'm reading a biography of Nat King Cole. It's career-related, but still fun.
I just like to read, especially if I get to choose the material....
JOSEPH FINN -- if I remember correctly, if you go to the Online
Works department of this website, you'll find stuff relevant to
"Paladine of the Lost Hour." I don't know whether it's avail-
able on commercial video, but I'm sure someone has a copy they
taped offa teevee. And Billy was played by Glen SomeoneWhoseLastNameEludesMeAtTheMoment. Lots o' luck
Michael -- Speaking as one of the people who used to post here
in search of informative and nourishing discourse,... perhaps
you could nourish yourself by eating shit and howling at the
moon (which would take care of the discourse for you). Much
might be discussed anent the difference between snobbery and
elitism, and whether either has a place here. On the other
hand, you're leaning on a friend of mine, and I ain't gonna just
sit there and have it.
You are aware, I presume, that Ellison's work has been endlessly
anthologized within the sf/fantasy field, as well as in Best
American Short Stories for 1993? You are aware that he has been
awarded the Silver Pen for journalism? You are aware that his
collected awards and prizes, masses together, would probably
out-weigh King himself?
Let's look at Harlan's chosen medium for a moment, shall we?
Are you then aware that Edgar A. Poe considered the short story
the ideal length for literary work? Are you then going to argue
with the father of the modern horror/mystery/crime/fantasy
story? One of the giants of American storytelling?
Harlan has written novels. Poe, for that matter, wrote a novel.
Why is that a measuring-stick for quality? Ray Bradbury has
written novels; by his own account, he prefers the short story.
I have nothing against King. I usually enjoy his work, though
as the years pass, it's getting rather uneven,from novel to
novel. BAG OF BONES, good; STORM OF THE CENTURY, stinkoid; THE
GIRL WHO LOVED TOM GORD, good; HEARTS IN ATLANTIS, so-so. The
fact is, King has not been writing professionally for the last
45-or-so years. He mentions Ellison in DANSE MACABRE, fine. He
wrote the introduction to STALKING THE NIGHTMARE, fine. King
and Ellison are both writers who are cognizant of their strengths and weaknesses, and labor always to tell a us a
quality tale **whatever the length**.
But I don't think Mr. King would take to kindly to someone
visiting the website of one of his inspirations and using his
(King's) work as an excuse to launch a diatribe, condemning
someone else over preferences, all in aid of building up someone
else's obviously needy ego.
In short, get stuffed.
Cheers, Doc (a sweep of his cape, and back into the shadows...)
Michael:
My good man, could you chill out? Your response was unnecessarily disrespectful toward Keegan. Snotty, even. She was in no way, as you are implying in your diatribe, dismissing those disciplines. She was practically confessing to a need we all humans share: the search for a good story, simply told. Something that most people are in need of after having spent months toiling and burning their brains out in the halls of academia (not to say fighting humongous bureucracies and bitter academics who believe that education should be a torturous exercise).
Unfortunately, people like you have been driving away the good people who used to post in this board in search of some exciting and nourishing discourse.
That's funny Keegan I never heard of Harlan Ellison before until Stephen King mentioned him in Dance Macabre.
Your a very shallow reader and would find music, education, history, theory, philosophy, psychology, and politics missing from Shakespeare too probably.
Another grad from the home for the educationally inept, which is American academia.
Since Ellison confines himself almost entirely to the short story while King writes novels and short stories
{one of which found a place in the O'Henry Best American Short Stories collection} its ironic that you would dismiss King's "pretty short words"
Xanadu, The Wall Street Journal is complexly stupid.
Thank to all for your kind wishes! It became "official" yesterday: I passed my comps and the paper follows.
One of the first things I did to celebrate was to read a work of fiction. I didn't care if it was good fiction or bad fiction. I just wanted to read something that a) was short and used pretty short words b) wasn't required reading c) had nothing to do with Music, Education, History,Theory, Philosophy, Psychology, or Politics.
I chose THE GIRL WHO LOVED TOM GORDON by Stephen King. It was there at the checkout: short 'n' cheap. And how I loved it (having spent some time "lost" in the Maine woods and having spent my youth spiritually connected to the Boston Red-Sox via radio broadcast, I could really throw myself into that book). It wasn't the high-order writing that I think of when I think of HE, but it was a damn good story. I read it in a day. So good to read something besides textbooks!!!
This is not intended to flame a recent discussion, but the tidbit I just ran across is too good not to post...
--------
Marvel Enterprises will increasingly move into film and video games and away from comics, Marvel CEO Peter Cuneo told The Wall Street Journal.
With comic book sales flagging, company execs acknowledge that kids just aren’t ready comics that much anymore, according to the Journal. The newspaper says the company’s "only chance for survival is to leap--right off the page."
"The simple paper medium of comic books just isn't cutting it in the age of video's flashy special effects, explosive audio and interactive action,” the Journal said.
Despite the move into celluloid, Marvel’s Cuneo acknowledges that the company won’t get a cut of ticket sales for any ongoing movie project except for Spider-Man. "[T]he other deals were made by past Marvel CEOs that sold the rights to the characters for cash," Cuneo told the Journal.
Web only comics and interactive games at www.marvel.com are also in the offing.
-------------
That should cut down on the number of superhero books out there quite nicely.... (Though, given their track record for movies and other "new technologies", you'd think they'd be a little more nervous. :) )
But, since Marvel almost single-handedly trashed the comic distribution system a few years ago, I can only wish them luck in all their future endeavours and look forward to reading about the adventures of Dark Horse's Spiderman character in a couple more years.
And is it me, or did anyone else catch the incredible arrogance in the phrase "simple paper medium"? It's only the medium that EVERY work of liturature has been preserved and distributed on for the last several hundred years... It's backwardly compatible with all previous versions, and platform independant... It won't care if Apple vanishes, Linux implodes, and Micro$oft get hacked into 2.7 billion pieces by the Justice department.
I like the electronic world, I really do, but give me the smell of a used bookstore and the feel of a "simple paper medium", any day.
Good Luck to Marvel
Hay, does anyone know if the New Twilight Zone production of "Paladin of the Lost Hour" was ever released on video? Relating to that, who was the gentleman who played Billy Kinetta? The IMDB, unfortunately, has not been a help on this one.
Charlie:
Got the same results as you on number #5. Number #6 (titled "It's ok to dislike me", frankly, had never heard or seen before. I am downloading number 7 tonight
Alejandro-Thanks for the heads up. #5 was a repeat of #4. #6 was another repeat w/o the video. Only #7 was new, about HE's friend who recently passed. Did you get the same results?
Allow me to interrupt the Sounds of Silence that have afflicted this forum by reporting that Harlan's fifth, sixth and seventh commentaries are up and running in the Galaxy Online website. Haven't downloaded them yet myself. Will do so soon.
Dear Alex and gang:
Let me try this one more time. Either I am submitting this message again or I did not the first time around.
You can find the Harlan Ellison Thread in the Warren Ellis Forum under the Transmetropolitan folder.
Speaking of Ellis: Planetary #10 and "From the Desk of Warren Ellis", a collection of his e-mail newsletter, is coming out this Wednesday as well as the once pulped now reprinted League of Extraordinary Gentelmen #5 (DC pulped all the originals because some editor or other took objection at one of the Victorian style-ads at the end -for "Marvel Vaginal something or other").
Alex and all:
You'll find the Harlan Ellison thread under the Transmetropolitan header.
Good hunting.
Forgot that carets are considered HTML tags.
So, of course, the actual URLs of the websites spoken of below show up as empty spaces.
Here you go, and go to it, if you please
http://www.thehungersite.com
http://www.therainforestsite.com
http://www.endcancernow.com
Couple things.
Alejandro: WHERE on the Warren Ellis Discussion Forum? The only mention of Ellison there that I saw was a throwaway ref to this lovely page and Harlan's interviews.
(Off-topic, but SF-related: Did anyone else know that, in addition to Ted Sturgeon's and Alfred Bester's labors in the 1940s comic book industry, Manly Wade Wellman wrote many of the wartime Spirit stories for Will Eisner? *I* sure didn't. Silver John, John Thunstone, and Denny Colt. Quite an unlikely trio, yes?)
Keegan: Many serried congratulations, all lined up as far as the eye can see. Of course, given the level of your discourse here and your obvious knowledge of jazz, it would only be surprising had you FAILED to fly your colors so flagrantly as you passed.
On the Filmland case: Though it might be fun to visit his colloection, I really haven't that much respect for Forry. In my opinion, I hold him and the works of his spiritual children (FANGORIA, STARLOG) as in large part culpable for the dumbing-down of SF/F/H in the public eye.
And lastly, a wholly un-SF-related appeal.
A while ago, someone here brought up The Hunger Site , a click-for-charity site which solicits sponsors who then pay a certain amount for each person who clicks onto the site (not on their banners, note) so that your one click (only one a day per person is allowed) buys anywhere from one and a half to three cups of staple food (rice, wheat corn) for a starving person somewhere in the world. Said donations of food are then distributed to the world's hunger hot spots by the United Nations World Food Programme.
(and yes; there are a lot of things about the UN that rub me wrong, but this one is an okay division, I suppose)
Recently, the site was taken over by one of its most frequent contributors, the Internet retail-for-charity site GreaterGood.com. Nothing of substance has changed, however, save that the site's graphics are ever-so-slightly more eye-pleasing and, I would assume, they now have a larger network for soliciting sponsors.
GreaterGood also runs a similar site that just started up, The Rainforest Site, located at--surprise!-- ; this one, while not dealing with a problem quite as near to my heart or important in my eyes as world hunger, is still worth clicking on, for all the time it takes out of the day--it takes but a second, really. I don't know if their sponsoring deals are different, but whereas The Hunger Site's sponsors each pay for one-quarter cup of staple food per click, The Rainforest Site showed that my one click, with six sponsors on board, gained 19.2 square feet of rainforest land to be donated to (and to be protected by) The Nature Conservancy, a HUGE conservancy group.
Plus, there's another click-for-charity site that's started up, inspired by the efforts of The Hunger Site, called End Cancer Now.
Predictably, it's at .
This one usually has four or five sponsors, and every click is valued at about two to two and a half cents that go to cancer research.
From things many people on this board have said, we're a very giving aggregate here, so I thought it might do to publicize these sites again. Ten seconds a day is worth it, you know?
You know, that last time I lurked around these parts, there happened to be some other unpleasantness brought about by “Jim.” I recall him making too many references to Harlan, as if Harlan was on his side with some juvenile arugment he was trying to mke. Then today I take a peek and find Jim saying to David, “Maybe if you were a real writer like Harlan Ellison you would be interesting as a person. You're not a writer.” This is exactly what I remember from the last time. This guy is using *Harlan* to beat up on other people. My first impressions told me that this was just some self-righteous junior high school kid spending most of his time writing bad science fiction and looking up to Harlan like he was the messiah. Poor fella. But now it’s quite apparent that Jim is an adult, but an adult who stopped taking his medication a week or so ago. That’s all it is, folks. It’s probably just a temporary mental instability which is normally kept in check by medication and therapy. Jim’s probably going through a stressful time right now; it doesn’t take much to go over the line. I can relate. I recently lost everything I own in a house fire (e.g., all of my HE books), and in these past months I have on occasion gone over the edge and done and said things to people which I would normally never come close to doing---completely over the edge, irresponsible and erratic behaviour related to post traumatic stress. Only a couple times, but I know it well enough now to recognize similar behaviour in other people. And it looks like something similar might be going on with Jim. I’m not defending him---if I was Rick, I’d delete his postings and tell him to go away---but I am offering a thought of sympathetic consideration for the guy. Or perhaps Jim just needs more time to discover his own personal ambience and in the mean time leave everyone else alone (see installment 28 of the HORNBOOK). I wish him well.
Ooooooops, forgot to add the URL. Its. www.delphi.com/ellis. or go to Warren's website at www.warrenellis.com and pay the man a visit.
Okay, kids, listen up and listen good. You'll love this. Visitors to The Warren Ellis Forum started a thread on Harlan Ellison, the man, his influence on Ellis' work and…well, all things Harlan. Hop over there and check out what others are saying about DA MAN! including the rightful heir to Harlan's throne (I mean, if there is such a thing), Warren Ellis.
KEEGAN!! WOOO HOOO!! *suddenly feels the need to sing scat in celebration* Way To Go!! Congrats! *HUG* man-o-man been some long haul, and now you have The Paper.. (note: not all papers that count are newspapers) Go forth, and kick butt with that fabulous sultry voice. Can't keep a good woman down.. :-)
PEG - dangit sure wish I *could* be there to party down..err..socialize.. Dontcha hate it when geography defeats you? I'm sure you know how I feel.. ;-) *hug* I'll be there in spirit.. Dance on the table once, and think of me...
ALL - Yes I still haunt Webderland, reading every word posted. I stopped posting much when it became clear that perspectives were being responded to as challenges consistantly by a few. Not being into getting "set straight" and chastised for having POV which didn't meet someone else's criteria of worthiness, and therefor having to defend myself for having had a thought, I decided it was less wear and tear to simply not post if posting means I have to clarify for days and wind up "agreeing to disagree" at best.. Yeah, I know.. I'll be told it's all in my head again.. yet another "proof" of how badly skewed my POV is (because whatever someone thinks they are, and says they are, is what they ARE.. isn't it? And if like minded people agree, then it's a FACT.. right??).. And that still won't explain why so many old-timers on this board just lurk now..or why so few newcomers don't post anything to spit at. Chew on it.
*Turns on Lurk Mode*
Keegan - Go, cat, go! Now step out and have that jumpin', jivin', be-boppin' celebration you richly deserve!
David - This is just a supposition regarding the trial, but given that part of what Ferry is claiming is that Ackerman harassed him via fax, I can see HE testifying to his own experiences with Ackerman in that regard. As for the other elements of bad blood between Ellison and Ackerman, I have no clue if they even would have come up; I suppose it would depend on whether counsel and the judge felt allegations of pilfered royalties, disdain at Forry's final autograph requests, or the dismissed case between the two were in any way germane, which I doubt they would be given what I've read about the Ackerman/Ferry case.
Again, this is merely conjecture on my part. And as an aside, having been a reporter for some time in the past for the Catskill Daily Mail (which, last I checked, wasn't a Gannett newspaper nor had a preoccupation with Bill Clinton, lest someone fall on MY head like a listing chimney), I for one feel you've done it all straight-up from the journalist's code. It never ceases to amaze me how some people think the press pass is carte blanche to get any information from anywhere for any reason at any time. It's never made anyone Superman...well, except maybe in one case...so welcome, pull up a chair, sit a spell. We don't bite. Except maybe Rick. But only if you yank his tail - and that's what you deserve in that case anyway.
Just read what I posted. Oh yeah, still on that first cuppa joe. I am SOOOOO not ever going to be a morning person. A decade of getting up before birds (and yes, I would make a ROTTEN farmer type person) hasn't changed that AT all.
Sorry!
KEEGAN! WOOOOOHOOOOO!!! Hey, let me be the first of (undoubtedly!) many to you offer you congratulations! Most excellent news! WOOOHOOOOOO!!!!
I don't have much to say but that Jim doesn't seem his normal, sane self. His normal sanity was always a bit close to the edge, but now he seems to have gone over. It shocks me. Like a tornado out of left field or some such cliche (I don't write for a living. I sing.)
Jim, man, I knew that you were referring to HE's B/D, but I have a mind for that sort of weirdass trivia (hey, don't knock it. That skill helped me bullshit my way through graduate school). It was rather cryptic and easily misconstrued. I mean, we like Harlan, but it ain't like his birthday is Christmas or somethin'.
BTW: for the lurkers and Webderfolk who care about such things (esp. Sue Luesse):I MADE IT. My degree will be mailed to me shortly (God willin'and the creek don't rise, like da man say). Now about that job....
Yikes!
Why do I have this image in my head of Harlan saying "Hey, Jim! Get offa my side!"
JIM: Gotta tell ya bud (and this comin from someone who holds no grudge and thinks -- though we haven't met in person, or communicated with you through the mails -- you're probably a nice guy). Lately your posts have sounded like someone whose cheese just slid off his cracker. Really. You don't seem to be making anything close to sense (forget logic, even the folks in the Looking Glass World would be confounded). Perhaps it's time for a little respite. Take some time off, away from the computer and away from the maddening crowd. I just had a getaway weekend myself, two weeks ago (at THE ELMS HOTEl, in Eureka Springs, MO), and it was perfect. Fresh air, ambiance, hot tubs, spring water, hiking, biking...it cost a bit of money, but the restoration of the mind and spirit (note for Peg and Others: I _didn't_ say "soul" in that born-again sense) is a priceless commodity. Go, now. Cleanse yourself. And return a new man (before Rick kicks yer butt outta Webderland). Out here, DTS (alias Ghandi, Phillip Habib, etc., etc.)
Geez-us. One time only: IT IS NOT MY BIRTHDAY. The SOMEBODY I referred to Harlan Ellison. According to the records I have HIS BIRTHDAY is coming up.
As to when my b-day is, I'm not egotistical enough to announce it because it doesn't matter to anyone except me and those in my inner circle. And I get ticked when people suggest I am being egotistical about such things. I mentioned this because Harlan has, in the past, noted his birthday. Why he does is NOT, as far as I can tell, egotistical, but merely a mentioning of a certain fact given the often nature of his non-fiction writing.
As to Colton, well, speaking of egotistical, his remarks that the only writing that matters is that which occurs in print goes to demonstrate his bigotry, his discrimintation, his prejudice. I guess this no-talent hack, based on these remarks, thinks Stephen King's trip into e-publishing is inferior. Really? Gosh, I'd like to know MR. Colton's credentials that allow him to make this pronouncement.
Oh, right: He's a hack who works at a tabloid rag that is too damn lazy to send someone to a trial or to pick up the phone and make inquiries that way.
Which is reflective of the news media at large. Including his god and master, GANNETT.
As to World Horror Con: One time only: I am not withdrawing my remarks previous. Nor will I apologize for your incompetence. I have yet to get ONE thing that answered my original inquiry. Fine. As I have noted before I know when I am not wanted or welcomed. And if discriminating gives you jollies, go for it.
As far as liberalism today goes, what a crock. Almost anyone who claims to be a liberal isn't. Like Colton.
Incidentally, last time I looked Harlan was in the phone book. You could always call and find out the status of the trial. But I wouldn't suggest doing so because Harlan Ellison, unlike Colton, is a WRITER and he is very busy actually working for a living.
Have a nice day, everyone.
Until next time. . .
Jim Hess
Jim - I'm going to second what Peggy said. You need to back the fuck down, and fast. While I support the free exchange of opinions, this is not the place to tee off on someone based on your feelings about institutions including newspapers and conventions.
Previously you accused someone of being racist with no evidence, and that person turned out to be in a mixed marriage. Now you're calling someone names merely because of where he works and what you SUSPECT as his motives.
You are correct in that few people here care that Mr. Colton is an editor at USA TODAY. But I, for one, DO care about the abuse you're heaping on him and I am serving you notice that behavior like that won't be tolerated here. There are plenty of outlets for personal and political bile on the Internet. I don't intend for this forum to become one of them. Protecting personal speech also means protecting people who speak from being attacked for no good reason.
Since you are a frequent and valued contributor to this forum (and since you have a birthday coming up), consider this a friendly heads-up. But know that no matter what your contributions have been I do not intend to argue about this.
Re: Famous Monsters of Filmland. Have no idea about the current legal story connected with the magazine. All I have to submit is that, no matter how legendary it may be, it's a crummy mag. Its writing staff doesn't seem to care what facts it gets wrong. Dates, names, titles, you name it - I've never seen a magazine get more info wrong in its features than this one. It may pander to kids, but there are even kids who know accurate and inaccurate reporting. Upon embarrasing mischance, I picked it up maybe 3 times in my life, browsed through, and saw the sloppiest work ever. I'm only surprised legal problems took this long to come up. In summary: man, what a piece of shit.
Yes, Peg, that is precisely the case, and thanx for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not going to call a court or ANY source and say I'm so-and-so from a publication when I have no intention of writing a story FOR that publication. THAT is a misrepresentation.
I truly and honestly wanted (and still want), the trial information solely for the AOL Horror group (a board similar to this), and I thought posting here was a legitimate way to gather information for our group of fans there. I'm not going to put on my reporter hat and bother lawyers and witnesses and court clerks who have plenty of other things to do than to help me post something on a horror board. I could find out EVERYTHING about the trial in about an hour if I did that. But that would be misrepresenting myself.
If I somehow came across as posturing it was not my intent. I was telling the total truth about who I was, where I work and what I was requesting. Gee whiz. So again, thanx for considering my side of things. It is appreciated and I don't know why I had to be so viciously attacked. I'm actually quite a good guy. later...
David - I'm sorry you got such a vicious welcome in public. I don't know you from Adam, and wouldn't know how you could get the info anyway other than a generic internet search (having had no involvement with the court scene ever, thankfully!).
Jim - I can see some of your point, that is, if David is a journalist why doesn't he just get the information in a normal journalistic manner. Seems like scamming for free info on behalf of the paper.
For my part, I gave him the benefit of the doubt in that I didn't assume he was an editor in the portion of the publication which would cover the trial; I figured he was an editor of some other part (oh, say Sports) and couldn't legitimately justify any possible costs of tracking down the on a professional basis as it wasn't his area of responsibility, not his job to cover that story. Maybe he was only asking out of personal interest and not in info gathering for the publication.
I must say, though, that you really did flame him most severely for a first-time poster and didn't really give him any chance to explain himself. Usually folks tend to try & avoid the worst flaming on the webderboard. If you want to lambast him personally, hey, no problem, you're entitled to think he's scum of the earth. And I have no beef with you saying he's full of it on the board. But maybe next time you can send all the long-winded highly personal insults via email instead of posting them?
Peg
OOOOPS - forgot to mention, that party is on Monday May 8th!
Thanx DTS. I'll only say this. I'm not posting as an editor or reporter for a publication, but simply as a horror fan who wants to find out what happened at the trial. I'm perfectly aware how to cover a trial, even by phone, but was hoping someone had some information -- for use on the horror boards over at AOL. That was all.
I mentioned the name of my paper because it's precise and truthful (that's where I work), and I wanted no confusion about me being some trojan horse or something.
And if it matters, USA TODAY is in all caps because that's our style at the paper and that's how I type it.
All that said, I don't know Mr. Hess at all, can't possibly imagine what I might have done to provoke such a response, and will happily move on. Any problems you have with Gannett (two Ts), has nothing to do with me or the work I do. So someone who might have enjoyed spending a little time here, and who smiled when he discovered this page, will instead say goodbye. Thanx for your time.
david
JIM: Ignore the question about the banquet -- just reread your first post earlier today. Have a good one. Out here, DTS.
JIM: Personally, I know (from your past email and comments) that you're a good guy. And regardless of your political view (though I gotta admit, it does sound like yours sit further right than mine -- but so does my brother's and I still love 'im), the way you jumped on Colton _did_ seem kinda brash. Yeah, he might've been wearing his credentials a little to high on his sleeve, but since we've never met the guy I figure it's best to give him the benefit of the doubt and figure he was just briming with a little excessive pride (not gloating or boasting). (And, though I wont repeat any names, I've seen a couple of postings by Webderlanders recounting messages and conversations with Ellison in which he told them they had "the right stuff" to be a writer -- that may have seemed overly boastful to some, but I think most of us realized it was just unabashed pride). As for the information, I know it's (fairly) easy to get the info he wanted (in this case, what Ellison said, etc) via internet -- but sometimes the news story on such events isn't posted until the next day (speaking for myself, I'm pretty impatient -- and sometimes my searches on the internet don't turn up what I'm looking for within the first 30 minutes or so). If he was calling from home (maybe he works the nightshift), or checking on his own, personal time, then using the phone might have been too expensive or too costly job-wise (especially if his bosses watch records like mine used to when I worked for THE CORPORATE WORLD). Anyway, the whole point is that I'd never seen Colton post before, and your attack on him seemed to come out of the blue. I see, now, that you've had a problem with Gannet, and maybe that colored your initial reaction to him. Guess I was feeling like Ghandi today, hoping to smooth things over. Shalom. Peace, man. (By the way, if you decided to purchase tickets to the Stoker Banquet Awards thingee, let me know -- I'll keep an eye out for you and be sure to say Hi). Out here, DTS.
DTS: Have you lost your mind? Right wing? Balls. I haven't use for any of them. As to Mr. I'm-So-Important-Cos-I'm-Traitor Colton, you missed the point. (And I find that hard to believe because you seem to be right on usually.) This bozo claims to be a professional journalist. (Which makes him better than YOU because he works full time and gets to violate the First Amendment by way of a six figure salary and six weeks paid leave each year.) And yet here he is, here, wanting US to offer up, for free, info on Harlan Ellison, John Landis, and the likes. Why? A) He's lazy. B) He's cheap. C) He's a self-righteous dink. D) Oh, why bother to continue. The point is, anyone can get the information he claims to want. How? Well, last time I checked you call information and ask for the judicial system in your neck of the woods. Then you call the court system. In this case, I take it to be the greater Los Angeles county. And you ask for information about where and when and how a given court is being heard. Then, if you happen to be in that part of the world, you go to said courtroom. See how easy that is?
As to Mr. Colton citing dangerous visions, well, he and his gang of scum at Gannett oughta know. They violate the First Amendment rights of people all the time. They don't give a damn about the Constitution and the only time they care about the law is when they can exploit it for their personal gain. You want an example of Gannet's upstanding citizenry? Here, where I live, there is Gannett newspaper. It refuses to report on Hunter Safety Workshops, firearm safety, preventive gun stuff, etc. Why? Well, hell, if people actually understand the destructive force guns weild they might not pick one up and blow someone away. And if that were to happen, well, no crime, no news.
And we can't have that, can we? How else to advance Mr. Colton's political agenda except by ignoring the facts and the truths?
Enough. Colton is a pissant with an ego the size of Texas and a brain the size of a pea. Back to Harlan Ellison:
I see at Ebay there are a number of volumes for sale by Hisself. Regardless the physical condition I opine they are worth the money laid down.
Have a nice day.
Until next time. . .
Jim Hess
I have no specific agenda in posting this addition, however I just wanted to let everyone nkow that I saw Harlan Ellison at the LA Times Festival of Books last Sunday (April 30th). Although it was supposed to be formatted as an interview, where Harlan would be questioned by Digby Diehl, it ended up more along the lines of Harlan recounting anecdotes in response to questions mostly from the audience.
I had never had the opportunity to see Mr. Ellison in person, and I can say that he met and exceeded my expectations of him. In person, he is everything you would expect after reading his essays and introductions. I was also fortunate enough to have two of my books signed by him and to shake his hand. I look forward seeing him again.
-Matt
DAVID COLTON: Thanks for the interesting tidbit of information about Ellison. I'm sure if anyone living nearby in California (who frequents the board)reads or hears anything, they'll pass it onto you. As for the "greeting" you got from fellow "poster" Jim Hess, I'm at a loss for words. One can only assume that his far-right, Attila-the-Hun style political beliefs have finally driven him over the edge (or else he ate a bad twinkie). Whatever the case may be, hope you don't take Jim's rebuke as representative at all of us here in Webderland. Some of us actually think liberal is beautiful word. Out here, DTS.
Well, seems Webderland is a very happy, open place. Good luck, Jim. Hope someone returns your fan calls...
Dangerous visions are not just in books, my friend, and great writers such as Harlan and others I respect know that life is delicate and nuanced, not the pulp-army viewpoints of political adolescence that you espouse. So spare everyone here from YOUR self-importance. And if you'd like to read some of my work, which appears on paper, not in pixels, send me a stamped, self-addressed envelope...
Oh, spare us. The only reason you mentioned that you work for USA Today instead of saying you are an editor for a major daily and leaving it at that is because you are, like your fellow goosestepping, no-talent hacks, an egotist who thinks, because he kisses Bill Clinton's ass, you're better than The Great Unwashed Masses.
Maybe if you weren't such an overbearing, pompus, jerkoff, maybe if you were a real writer like Harlan Ellison you would be interesting as a person. You're not a writer. And you're not interesting as a person.
As to information, odds are it can be had (IF that is what you are really after) from wire services and local reporters who might be in the neighborhood of the trial at hand. Of course, you're not after information, just like you and your anti-American fellow scum at Gannett are not after truth and fact. You're just here to show everyone how important you think you are because you're a whore for the traitor Bill Clinton and because people are sick of the propoganda you call news. So do the world a big, big favor and kiss off. You won't, of course, because, like Bill Clinton, you're a coward.
Have a nice day.
Until next time. . .
Jim Hess
Thank you, Mr. Hess, for your friendly message. I'm sorry you don't enjoy the nation's newspaper, but I only mentioned my affiliation with USA TODAY to avoid any suggestions that as a journalist I was not being forthright about my background.
But yes, we have reporters and yes, we will cover the trial eventually in a wrap-up piece (I hope; i'm only one of many there). For now, though, all I really want to know is what Ellison and the rest have been testifying, and this seemed a good place to begin my quest. As a fan and follower of most everyone involved.
I'll only say that Harlan Ellison and John Landis and Ray Bradbury testifying in a trial about Forrest Ackerman and Ray Ferry is a heck of a moment for the horror, science fiction and fantasy genre, and why this should provoke such an angry response is beyond me. It's just plain interesting, this horror trial, and it's morning on the East Coast and all I'm trying to do is find out what happened. Again, anyone who has information to share it will be appreciated. And thanx for reading...
david
A quick aside - I'll be in the LA area briefly next week. Any local webderlanders who'd like to meet, we're having a going away party at TGIFridays at the Brea Mall (57 fwy @ Imperial Hwy exit, ~5PM start, end ???). Feel free to drop on by and say hello and so long,have a drink, a snack, a chat. (I'll be the short, brown/auburn haired vocal woman with the tall, lanky, sandy-haired husband).
Peg
RE: David Colton's remarks about USA Today not covering the trial: Yes? And? Like this is 'news'? USA Today, and its parent company Gannet, won't cover something unless has to do with the first pervert, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, or his member, and how it supposedly bends to left, and is rather prehensile, possessing the means to grip and grasp green M & Ms. Give it a rest, Colton. No one cares you're a so-called editor for the biggest pro-Communist rag in the country. If you want to do something useful you'd get off your lazy ass and go cover the trial yourself. Failing that you'd hire a stringer. Geez-us. Yet another journalistic jerkoff strutting around the barnyard, getting ready for a self-serving pissing contest.
In another news, about Edgeworks V. Patience, folks. It happens when it happens. Harlan has things to do and appeasing us ain't necessarily one of them.
Onward.
What else? Oh, right: Gotta nifty note from the lovely Susan about the World Horror Con, assuring me "I will hear from them soon". Riiiiight. Well, I'm off groups like that and am taking dear Mom to dinner that weekend and doing a workshop for the kiddos. (Unlike Colton, who apparently thinks pleasuring himself in public serves a higher purpose.) Many thanks to the beautiful Mrs. Ellison. But, never mind. Maybe some other time I can catch up the Unca Harlan and thank him proper like.
And speaking of thanks, don't forget SOMEBODY'S birthday is coming up.
Have a nice day, everyone.
Until next time. . .
Jim Hess
Hello. Word is that Harlan Ellison testified yesterday (5/2), at the Forrest Ackerman vs. Ray Ferry trial in Van Nuys, Calif., concerning the dispute over Famous Monsters magazine.
He was a defense witness (called by Ferry), but it is unclear if he was subpoenaed to testify or volunteered.
Many of us at the Classic Horror Film Boards at AOL and elsewhere are keenly interested in what Harlan had to say, his take on the case, his take on Ackerman, Ferry, or any other details about the testimony.
So if anyone has info, it's appreciated.
The trial has received only sporadic press coverage (the L.A. Times had a piece about Bradbury's testimony on Monday), but no one is covering it day to day that we have found. (For the record, I'm an editor at USA TODAY but we are not -- so far, anyway -- covering the trial and this query is as a horror fan).
Anyhow, again, any help appreciated and if anyone would like to visit the AOL Classic Horror Film Boards we can be found at Keyword: Movies, and then follow the horror, fan and message links til you get to Horror Boards. We're in there.
Thanx again...david
DTS - Saw Dogma a while back and loved it - thought it was *hilarious*. What we particularly enjoyed was that it managed to parody or otherwise berate organized religion (esp. catholicism) in both obvious and sly manner, but at the same time portray some of the more fundamental characterics (e.g, love and forgiveness) of the basic faith. I also thought Ben Affleck did a great job of showing his characters evolution from one position to the opposite, and eventual repentance.
(Wow, we both actually liked this movie. Who-da thunk it.)
I know many of us have been disappointed several times by watching a release date come and go, but it may be worth noting that Edgeworks 5 is scheduled for August 1, 2000 according to Amazon. I thought it was last classified as being in backorder limbo, so something may have changed...?
Keep hope alive!
Corey
ALL: Boy, there've been a lot of weird postings lately (see below -- a few times). Must be something in the water. Have you guys seen "DOGMA?" I know it came out in theaters last year, but it just hit video tape, and I caught it in that form. Hilarious. And casting Alanis Morrisette as "God" was inspired. (Kevin Smith is one of my favorite writer/directors). Wonder if Alanis got the joke -- if she did, she's got a good sense of humor. Out here, DTS.
WHAT HARLAN ELLISON MEANS TO ME
I was in my second year of college. I had long ago decided that science fiction was a childish thing best put away.
I found this book. THE GLASS TEAT.
Man, this guy was talking my language.
I wondered, had this fellow written anything else?
Oh, a few things, I found out. Oh, I won't say what affect those books had on me, from the looks around this site Harlan Ellison is rightly intolerant of mushy stuff.
He made me realize that you weren't necessarily a crazed malcontent if you didn't like commercial tv or radio,or movies, that popular fiction didn't have to be, I think a word he sometimes used, "dreck", that there was good stuff out there if you wanted to work at it and sort it out, that there were . . .possibilities.
He made me realize with regard to the herd, or what he sometimes termed "scuttlefish" that maybe it aint me, its them. And , best of all, he came up with a bunch of cool words and phrases that even today I shamelessly admit I am still stealing today and passing off as my own.
Don't worry. I aint made a nickel from 'em yet. But when I do I'll remember to lay some bread on him . . .real bread. Pumpernickle.
Did you think I meant money?
Chris Hayden
And now for something completely different. You will find an excerpt of Unca Harlan's unplished novel, "The Man who Searched for Sweetness" at:
http://www.calendarlive.com/calendarlive/books/festival2000/lalit2000.htm#
Where's the nearest exit? This is becoming way too modernist and existentialist for me. Come on, folks, we need some greedy capitalist dissertations here. Pleeeease!
Aaaahhh!
Overwritten self-referential literary masturbation!
Aaaaahhh!!!
On a discussion board!
RUN!
Run while you still can!
Darn Rick, how come nobody is posting on the board?
---Peter
furor scribendi
I tried to feel the Other's hand in the glass.
I pushed toward an imagined warmth and consummation.
But the glass shattered and I bled.
Nothing left but to bind the wounds,
Sweep up the pieces
Restore order and health
Learn
Be
Nobody was in a quandary. He really had no idea what he wanted to do in life. He had reached the point in self evolution where he no longer felt bound by the traditional constraints of most men. He knew that in any situation, he could take care of himself and his needs, he had trained himself in those arts. But this wasn't any situation and it wasn't any environment. It was the one in which he was bound now. And nothing told him what to do.
He had tried listening deep inside himself for that voice which tells one what to do, but it had been muted long ago, a punishment for serving the forces of the outside environment, however unwillingly. And so the cage had been continually crafted, finer and finer, but there was no bird left to sing in it. Nobody was now a drifter, passing from point to point of moderate interest, but never feeling driven, and never feeling attached.
At times, he was lonely. This he viewed as one of those necessary factors of existence. To him, no matter how much one felt love, the object of affection always remains an external thing. You can wrap yourself up in it, use it to keep yourself warm; blindfold yourself with it, so that it is all you see, but in the end, you are still you, unchanged. Nobody's favorite image of love was one of trying to touch the other hand in a mirror: you can push as hard as you like, and the harder you push the closer you get, but the returns lessen with every increment of force you apply, and in the end you will never be able to touch that other hand. So it is with souls, and no matter how hard you hold someone, how much a part of your life you make them, or how deep you penetrate or are penetrated, the two will never quite be able to touch.
His primary view of spirituality also remained unfulfilling. His theology was best explained as this: That there was only one thing, (God, matter, whatever) but we shall call it the universe. The universe is it. There is no more, there is no Other. To this end, it is a bored and lonely creature. So to entertain itself, it breaks itself up into pieces, and places constraints on its own knowledge. It then experiences itself through consciousnesses, one at a time, and each time having a limited amount of free will. The easiest way to explain this part is to draw on the idea of reincarnation. Imagine first, that you die and that your soul gets reborn into another existence someplace else. Secondly, imagine that this rebirth is not constrained by the forward motion of time, so that it is entirely possible that the succeeding birth occurs prior to the previous death. Under this constraint, it is entirely possible for the same soul to meet up and have a conversation with itself. Now imagine this process repeating ad infinitum, and you get the general idea. In this way, it fills itself with experience, thus nullifying (in the short term) the feeling of being alone. Because of this, no experience is necessarily any better or worse than another. Killing or being killed, loving or being loved, rises and falls of civilizations, the joys of the crowds and the joys of the hermit, small things and large, all are experiences, and all are inextricably bound together. Degree or scale cannot be a one sided equation, since it needs a point of reference. This is why experience is the opium of the universe.
But two major questions loomed before Nobody's mind. Why had he been able to figure this out? And what would be the repercussions? Surely, if this theory was correct, then to expose the charade would end the game; but the game had not ended. Instead, the game had gone on. And by the continuation of the game, then the theory could not be believed, and the charade could continue.
Or, he was just wrong, but to all the people he spoke of this theory to, almost all admitted that it seemed to smack of some truth on some level of their soul… and so he continued to wonder….
The practical upshot of all this theorizing was that Nobody was freed from the concept of morality, one of the last bonds of his soul. It is not that he felt that he could go out and kill and not be punished, (he did still believe in the rules of society around him, and he still generally liked to see people happy) but there really was no value to him either in creation or destruction, since one experience was just as valid as the other. He began to see the world operating in terms of "situational ethics", where he and those he observed around him would perform an action as it seemed right at the time, and if asked about it later, would try to reconstruct a logical paradigm using the ethics at hand (often a ludicrous project). This is not to say that the ethics of the past do not influence later ethics, but instead that they are much more loosely defined than most people would admit, and that they are constantly shifting.
However, the freedom he found was unfulfilling. He was squarely in charge of his destiny (to a point), but without ambition and without a set of guidelines. It made no real difference to create a temporary goal and follow through, or not. To paraphrase a saying he once heard; no matter where he went, there he was. And still is.
For people in LA, Harlan Ellison will
be interviewed at the LA Times Book festival
on Sunday, April 30 at 1:30 pm. More details at
http://www.latimes.com/events/fob/
PEG: We'll definitely have to agree to disagree, since neither of us is giving ground at this point. Like me, you seem to enjoy a good theological/philosophical debate, but (as you pointed out)I'm not sure others share that love. As for making it over to Scotland, my wife and I have been talking about taking our daughter along on a visit to "old blighty" within the next year or two, and Scotland is only a hop and a skip away, so I'll keep in touch via email. I'd definitely enjoy meeting you (and I'm glad I haven't alienated you with my bull-headed opinions). If we do decided to have at it in person, we'll have to do it at some distance from my wife, whose tolerance level for my B.S. is finite. Take care, and, to borrow from Ellison's oft-borrowed Egyptian blessing, "God be between you and harm in all the empty places you walk." Out here, DTS.
I don't really want to get too deep but I would like to clarify further (and even concede a point or two). Last post - promise. Any further discourse, just send me an email (don't want to bore the good patrons). Uninterested people should skip this dissertation.
Regarding predictions - sorry for being unclear or misusing words. Evolution, as a theory, ought to be able to "predict" or explain the behavior of the past, what should have happened during the course of natural history if the theory is true. What my previous statement was meant to say is that according to the theory of evolution, things should have happened in a certain way, and historical and experimental evidence should support it. But that is not always the case; and there seems to be the same reluctance among it's proponents to question the tenets as you would attribute to people with religious beliefs in regards to their faith.
To use the previous example, there should be some, if not an abundance, of fossil records of transitional forms between a monkey and a man, or an amphibian and a dog, etc., as genetic mutation into superior forms is the critical supposition of evolution. There is a serious lack of these forms in the fossil records, though there is no shortage of records of the non-transitional forms (many fossils previously thought to be transitional have eventually been classified otherwise). As you say, the theory is always being revised to fit the evidence, which is good; but on this point, it seems researchers continue to look for evidence to support the theory rather than to say what theory fits the evidence. Might there not be a position to at least consider the implications of the lack of such evidence?
Facts which support creationism - you are right; if you are looking for facts that support the existence of a supernatural being who created the universe, then you will probably be disappointed (to me this is akin to the scene from "Contact" where Matthew McConnaghey's character asks Jodie Foster's character to *prove* she loved her father; of course she can't prove it). [a further aside - that does not necessarily make creationsim defacto myth or fable. But if one doesn't believe in a supernatural being or is unwilling to concede that such may exist, then from their paradigm or perspective it *has* to be a fable. At least you are willing to concede that if you did receive hard evidence of a supernatural being, you'd reconsider. I don't know that other atheists would be so willing; I think there would be reluctance to question their beliefs; that seems to be human nature rather than dogma - almost no one likes to admit they are wrong. Instead I think they might say that science just hasn't explained away the new evidence yet. I'm giving you a run for your money on the parenthetical length! *laf*]
There are more differences between the theories than who started the ball rolling. Age of the earth, for example. The role of natural adaptation vs the role of significant genetic mutation. The speed of significant climatic or environmental changes. It is not uncommon in science to find evidence of the effects of a particular phenomena which support the phenomena, without directly observing the phenomena itself. [To be fair, this could be used to some extent to support evolutionary theory if one thinks that it is impossible to "prove" the existence of transitional forms; but most scientist think it is possible to prove that existence and just continue to look for evidence in the fossil records]. This gets back to what does the evidence support? There *is* evidence / facts which support aspects of Biblically based creationism (or evidence which disputes opposing, commonly accepted aspects of the theory of evolution). I *do not* claim it is comprehensive or conclusive. [For myself , its not that I want everyone to be convinced of creationism; it's just that I would like to at least have the opportunity for it be given it's own consideration as a theory just as evolution is a theory (even though evolutions is frequently taught as fact)].
As for the laws in the Old Testament - or similar statements in the New Testament for that matter - you are correct. If you don't believe the Bible or agree with it's principles, then by defacto you might not find those acts sinful. FYI - as I understand it, the definition of sin is anything which separates you from God or which is against His will. There are acts/behaviors/beliefs clearly stated in the Bible as being sins (ala the 10 commandments), but there's more to it than that because your relationship with God is a very personal matter. E.g, there is nothing in the Bible that says making money is evil and sinful (in fact there are hundreds of promises of prosperity). But the love of money can be. If your love of money distances you from God and influences you to live in an ungodly manner, if you love money more than God, then it would be sinful. Same with drinking, etc. Okay, didn't mean to go on that long there - sorry for the tangent.
Also, if one is of the opinion that there is no absolutes of right or wrong (this is a philosophy that is gaining popularity), then Biblical laws are narrowminded. Unfortuantely what one person might think is fine, another would find offensive or hurtful. What defines a "good" person? Just not hurting others?? Personally, I believe there are absolute truths, absolute principles of moral right or wrong. Some of these are even built into governmental laws (e.g., thou shalt not steal). I choose to base those truths on the Bible.
Good gracious, this is just waaaaaaaaaaaaay too long at this point anyway. Well, DTS, one of these days you'll have to wander over to Scotland and we can sit in a pub and enjoy the debate over a pint or three.
Cheers, and thanks for the lively debate!
Peg
PEG: I don't _think_ you'll be walloped for being gullible (although I feel that folks who give money -- tithings -- to support a guy who basically "interperets" their bible for them do fall in the P.T. Barnum category of suckers, but that's just me being cynical -- and yes, I know that some of the money put into collection plates goes toward maintenance of the church, etc. -- by the way churches are another gripe I have...they're popping up like McDonalds here in the heartland...what a supreme waste of space -- but that's another rant for another time). I don't think you'll be maligned for being narrowminded, either (although, as I said before, the rigid standard that fundamentalist believers must stick to, whether it be the King James version of the Christian bible or otherwise, necessitates a sort of narrow-mindedness -- that is, my beliefs are right above all others -- as an atheist, I can say that while I don't believe in a supernatural, creator-type being, I'd be willing to admit I was wrong [not beg for mercy, mind you] if undeniable proof -- like a big foot or eyeball -- suddenly showed up one day; but I'd bet dollars to donuts that if a faster-than-light spacecraft landed in Times Square with documents and proof that they had "seeded" earth and started rumors which led to religions, very few believers would rethink their faith and/or relinquinsh it). (whew! That could be the longest parenthetical aside in the history of post-it-note boards). I also don't think you'll be accused of being a blind fanatic. But you might be called up for having your "facts" wrong. The theory of evolution doesn't predict _anything._ And scientists have long admitted that all the pieces of the puzzle haven't been found. But that doesn't invalidated evolution. Hell, the theory itself has evolved over the years as some of us have grown smarter and been better able to understand it. As for creationism...I'm not sure what "facts" you could submit (other than those cobbled up by proponents), but the bottom line is that creationism is centered around a supernatural creator. A god, if you will. Which means creationism falls into the realm of myth and or fable. Not science. (Sorry, don't mean to sound like I'm slamming you, but I'm sticking with the facts, m'am). As for your other points, I really don't believe that all believers are meanspirited or hateful. And I know that many church-goers are loving people who would invite the "sinners" into their pews and pray for them. But what is it, exactly, that makes (and I hate to belabor this point, but it makes for the perfect example) homosexuals sinners? Are they hurting anyone? Taking bread of their tables? Or are they not conforming to laws laid down (mostly for survival reasons) over 2000 years ago? Furthermore, why would you need to forgive a person whose sexual preference is different from your own? Is it because your guidebook (the bible) tells you so? Or perhaps your preacher? And all though many pastors or preachers refer to the New Testament, they still hold the Old Testament close to their heart. The 10 commandments, etc. They still preach hell-fire and damnation (even if it is soft-peddled) for those who wont give up their "sinful" ways and/or accept Christ as their savior and thereby be granted everlasting life (which brings us full to that "exclusive" club atmosphere) -- you even mention in your post that "it's up to God to judge them." I don't mean to go on and on, Peg, it's just that...we humans have enough going against us already. Our own stupidity, our own mean-spiritedness that rises up in the best of us, our petty grudges and our racial prejudices, our inability to sometimes see beyond the borders of our own yard (thereby missing the big picture)...we don't need the "help" of religious dogma and questionable "wisdom" that is thousands of years old giving us more reasons to dislike, distrust, disavow, disjoin or just plain or "dis" each other. We do just fine without the help of organized religion. And, really, after more than 2000 years don't you think it's time the adults among us (children should be exempt) stopped believing in Santa Claus? (Not the spirit of Christmas, just the icon and all of its trappings). Out here, DTS.
As the token, lurking, fundamentalist christian on the board, I feel compelled to add my 2 pence worth. My opinion, my experience, my learnings as a christian, take it for what you will. Please don't beat other people over the head with it. It's long so if you're not interested, just skip to the next post.
I think my main problem with what has been said is that most folks attribute to Christian faith or religion what is attributible to people. It is sad that so many folks act in such an unchristian way in the name of Christ. There are just as many corruptible people who are Christians as aren't.
I've listed below a few things I've been taught as a Christian. It departs so radically from what several people have described in their postings.--Christianity is a faith based on the Bible, founded in belief in Christ as my savior. It is not ritual or religion. Religion is what people do to faith. As the saying goes, the only problem with religion is people. There is nothing in the Bible that says thou shalt genuflect at an altar - that
was added by people. In fact, there are only 2 key "rituals" in the New Testament actually proscribed by Christ; baptism and communion. (This is also why I usually attend non-denominational churches).--I have not been taught to be intolerant. The Bible has taught me to love my neighbors and my enemies and myself. It has taught me to despise the sin but love the sinner. (For example, I do not hate individuals who have chosen to be homosexuals. I do, however, disapprove of their lifestyle). I
should judge actions - such as abortion - and not people; so at worst I amintolerant of the sinful acts but not the sinful person. --We are all sinners, believers and non-believers, and I am no better than my fellow man. The Bible has not taught me to feel superior to others; I cannot boast in my own works, only in God. Hence the familiar "There but for the grace of God go I".
--Anger can be justified but hatred cannot. The Bible has taught me to forgive others as I am forgiven. It has taught me to not hold a grudge or seek revenge. God gave man free will, so it is up to each individual whether or not they will act in a Biblical, christian manner. And it will be God to judge them, not me. I can only try to influence. --As to separation of church and state, the Bible has taught me I should follow the laws of man except where they conflict with the laws of God.
E.g., if the law required me to deny God, then I would be compelled to disobey. But there's nothing in the Bible that tells me creationism has to be taught in school, or that prayer (or, more correctly these days, a silent meditative moment) is required, though I may want these things based on my Christian and political beliefs.
A couple of last side points - The basis of the Christian faith is clearly the New Testament. Many pastors do refer to the Old Testament as it is part of the Bible and serves as a foundation for the New Testament, telling of what came before and having valuable lessons and examples. My experience has been that the Old Testament is referred to in context of the times and situations of when the text was written. - The theories of evolution and creationism. Not going too deep here. There are facts & evidence which support creationism and don't support
evolution. There is far more evidence which supports natural adaptation (e.g., color changes) than there is which supports major evolutionary steps. (Given what the theory of evolution predicts, there is a serious lack of transitional form in the fossil records). Natural adaptation is not mutually exclusive from creationism.
Okay, I'm sure I'll get walloped for days as being a gullible, narrowminded, blind fanatic, so I better stop while I'm alive...
Peg
Science has brought me closer to religion. That comment about Sagan's COSMOS being contemplative rang clear to me. Whether you're considering the supermacro or the submicro, the "design" of stuff (the life, the universe, and everything) which allows enough flexibility for chaos is mind boggling. That we walk in it, breathe in it, sing in it, and love in it is amazing grace. It's amazing we haven't screwed it up anymore than we have.
If it's merely a random thing instead of a finely planned arrangement, well, we're still in a state of random grace. Sometimes, random grace is all you can hope for. Blessing or Luck? Same thing.
But then again, I'm not a Biblical literalist despite my parents' best efforts to raise me as one. I'm a lapsed Calvinist/Baptist turned Episcopalian with Unitarian leanings. Church to me is a meaningful ritual of play in the face of a something my puny little brain can't really grasp.
"I believe in G.., the progenitor, the Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth; of all that is seen and of all that is unseen...."
Works for me, but I realize it's not everybody's way.
'Demon With A Glass Hand' response: Well, I'm glad you straightend it all out for me. But I'm still glad I asked. The equation works, and the Kyben definitely knew where it was at!
As a rule, I don't like comparing the hour-long OL series and Twilight Zone, the latter mainly being fantasy, with SF episodes mostly inferior (couple of good exceptions). The intellectual style of the OL, with a cold control voice that sounds like a university science professor (Vic Perrin) set a new standard in tone for SF on TV (it was also more violent). I liken the OL more to early Star Trek episodes, like 'The Cage' and 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' (for which, of a matter of fact, several Outer Limits people had worked). In some ways 'The Cage' was a revamp of OLs' 'Nightmare' episode. It also shares a little with Britain's Quartermass series. I realize this is quibbling, but that's my angle on it as a fan. I watch Twilight Zone more for its fantasy shows. Also, characters in OL were more dimensional. (Side-note: I also believe Outer Limits was the only anthology series in history to have a two-parter, the brilliant "Inheritors" - unless there was one in recent years).
The reason I dislike the knew version is because of a ridiculous religious tone it often tends to have (ending with messages like "it should be left to the all-mighty", the original respected science); and a stupid-sounding narrator, meant to sound "chilling" (campy as hell); and an abysmal single-layered music score (a let-down when you're familiar with Dominic Frontiere's stuff in the original, and Lubin's theramin in the second season).
Oh yeah, there are a couple articles by HE in latest Absolute Magnitude. I believe they are reprints on writing.
HE is listed as a performer on Bova's latest, Venus, out on audio tapes (abridged version) in May.
Rob - Just wanted to note that for many people (myself included) praying is a form of contemplative thinking, as well as worship. Think of it as a intentionally set-up dialogue where you have to assume the other person is listening, so that you're basically bouncing ideas off yourself (yez, I realize is this not very orthodox praying - sue me, I was taught by Jesuits).
Rob asked me to post his original response to Maggie as it was sent accidentally as an e-mail. Here is is:
==================================
I saw no forwarding address from Maggie, so I'm responding quickly by this route.
Maggie, the argument in my ramblings had nothing to do with reductionist concepts like good v. evil (I was just using exemplary retorts in typical arguments defending religion), I'm just stressing the tragedy that superstition remains such a great need for people - that seeking knowledge scientifically can't bring them the bliss that worship can. (A long time ago when I saw Sagan's meditative 'Cosmos' as a kid, I recall feeling more inspired and spiritually enhanced than any religious sermon could ever give me; it inspired me to think, not pray). It's what I was thinking about when I was watching 'Inherit The Wind'. Diversity of ideas is something I'm all for. But pursuing knowledge through rationalism and accepting things on blind faith are inverse processes, and I don't like the stagnation blind faith in superbeings tends to impose on our social evolution. In this respect, yes, my sweeping scorn for religion holds. It's true, I AM new on this site and I didn't realize this subject was beaten to death by now. But I should've known better.
Rob - Seeing as the time-mirror trip was one-way (unless one counts going up soft, like jelly), and seeing that the Kyben were apparently cautious about technology (witness grabbing the last finger from its courier as it comes through the mirror, just in case there's a problem with the transmission), this never bothered me: I figured bringing small, portable technology 1,000 years advanced into the past could - if such devices fell into human hands - shift the tide of war in the future. The Kyben had humanity smoked. Give mankind a weapon from that far in the future in the sixties, and who knows where their technology would be when the Kyben finally arrive from the stars? Why take the chance with a sidearm when the only thing between you and losing a war for your entire planet was a medallion attached to a simple chain, and the locals can just as easily be shot with a handgun as a fancy particle beam sidearm? Obviously technological components could come back - the time mirror and whatever created the force bubble around the building didn't build themselves; though if the time mirror was needed to arrive in the past, how did the first one get there? Ultimately, I figure 'why ask why?' because the answers will only lead to more deconstructive questions.
And "OBIT" was my first OL episode, long ago and far away; a wonderful series that doesn't often get its deserved accolades. The original OL struck the same chord in me as the original Twilight Zone - SF or fantasy, monsters, gimmicks or twists, there was always attention paid to the examination of humanity, good and bad. "The Architects Of Fear" is as noble and tragic a tale of sacrifice and man's good intentions run horribly awry (in which everyone loses) as I can recall. Too bad the Sci Fi Channel hasn't latched on to the series and given it a proper treatment. The new OL, while it has glimmers, seems to try too hard to be poignant. Or maybe I'm just growing old and cynical...
MAGGIE: You're right. Good things have been done by religious people. And if believing in a god keeps someone happy and well-balanced, that's a _good_ thing, too. But when religious people force their views on others, which christians (especially western hemisphere, fundamentalist christians) tend to do (just pick up a paper or turn on the news and you'll find evidence), then it's a _bad_ thing. Just as it was a bad thing for christian missionaries to force thier beliefs on other cultures in other countries, because they were dead certain that _their_ god was the one true god. Of course, western hemisphere christians aren't the only offenders. Islamic fundamentalists are just as bad...and none of those people wants to sit down and evaluate their beliefs or their bibles (which have been unchanged for thousands of years) because they fear such evaluation or questioning of their own faith will result in eternal damnation...yet they have no problem questioning the beliefs of others, even forcing others to relinquish their beliefs...But now _I'm_ repeating myself (hoping you'll get the point). To wit: most major religions are intolerant and exclusive, and therefore destructive in some way. (And while the New Testament of the christian bible is a lot kinder than the old testament, you'll find that most preachers and priests still refer the old testatment -- they haven't thrown it, and its teachings, out the way school systems get rid of old text books). But I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because it sounds like you're not giving any ground (after all, you actually said Mengele was a scientist and that things done in the name of religion -- what, the Inquisition? Burning "witches" or Joan of Arc at the stake? -- were done without malice aforethought, like thalidomide babies -- I could counter by saying the Rev. Jim Jones was a minister or a preist and that...well, you see my point...I hope). Out here, DTS.
This is a re-cap Outer Limits message I'd left earlier at the wrong e-mail address: I never knew about any negative sentiment between Joseph Stefano and Ellison either, then recalled negative comments Ellison once wrote about the first OL season, while extolling the second. First of all, I'm an OL fanatic (the original series, not the new one)- of BOTH seasons - and a huge admirer of both these writers. They're both driven by their own vision. Secondly, this was one of the rarer times I'd adamantly disagreed with Ellison. His disposal of the first season as "just all boogie men and monsters" (I read The Glass Teat in the early 80's)was unusually short-sighted and unfair. Those shows had many layers, were beautifully written, and comprised one of the most neurotic series in TV history. (X-Files, as a comparative side-note, is filled with boogie men and monsters, but makes up for it in content, as did the OUTER LIMITS; many of its sci-fi episodes are a lot like the OL, though not as deep, and I know the show is an Ellison favorite). Stefano IS an excellent craftsman. He did do a brilliant job on Hitchcock's Psycho. In fact, if you look at his shows in the OL carefully (basically, he wrote all of the first season, because he invariably re-wrote scripts submitted from other writers when not doing his own),and LISTEN to the dialogue,you'll see much of Psycho in the OL: layers of neuroses and characters coping with inner pain - their inner traps, if you will(monsters from distant galaxies often being used as metaphors). And then there was the brilliant Conrad Hall photography, something no other TV show ever had. (Sorry about all this, I used to be a film student - so, there IS a bit of fanaticsm brewin' here). Episodes like NIGHTMARE with Martin Sheen, OBIT, CORPUS EARTHLING, with our main man, Robert Culp, FEASIBILITY STUDY, THE INVISIBLES, and THE CHAMELEON, with Robert Duvall are really beautiful sci-fi pieces: dark, brooding, and meditative.
What I'm saying is I'm a huge fan of both seasons, of both these writers. And it's a drag this sentiment castrated what could have been a great event. Stefano's extreme demands were frustrating and disappointing, but he's still a talented man.
Now: I also tossed a semi-trivia question re: Ellisons DEMON WITH A GLASS HAND. Obviously, it's a great show. But I always had one question: What are technologically superior beings from 1,000 years in the future doing with primitive pistols in the 20th century? Is it that the weapons of the Kyben had some element that couldn't pass through the time mirror? So, maybe they had to break into an armory or gun shop in order to kill Trent? Who knows? There should have been some quick explanation somewhere in the dialogue, just so that it didn't look so peculiar, leaving us to stew in our own rationalizations and not let it be a distraction from a great plot.
Ok, this is undoubtedly all my fault for not expressing myself clearly. The point I was trying to make doesn't have anything at all to do with the rightness or wrongness of religion vs science. The point I was trying to make is actually more of a philosophical (sp?) one than anything else. Kind of back to that whole really stupid question about the tree falling. And this group, of all people, ought to get it. Unless I totally fail at explaining again of course!
I don't think that religion is, in and of itself wrong. Nor do I think that people who profess a religious faith are bad, or unsophisticated or any other word that we use to describe them. Yes, bad things have been done in the name of various religious beliefs, etc. However, you're all getting bogged down in the words (and don't tell me scientists have never done anything bad. Want to talk about Mengele? And you can make a case that some wretched things that have been done in a religion's name were done with the same good intent that led to thalidomide babies, etc, so just don't start! ).
The point is that ranting about the evils of religion and the stupidity/gulliblity of those who follow it, is EXACTLY the same thing as some bible thumper referring to non-believers as sinners. EXACTLY. It's the human need to be part of a group, and a superior group at that. It is fair of Sue to call it the religion of science, because if you say that this is fact and that is fact and that all these other people are therefore wrong, then you're are essentially engaging in the same behavior as the Christian who participates in the KKK. After all, Christ said love one another. It doesn't say in there anywhere, only love those who look just like you, therefore, they profess a faith they do not actually believe. Well, science and the scientific community tend to be sceptical, they tend to avoid pronouncements of definitives. Seems like we're having global warming to me, and it seems like we, humans, caused it. However, the scientific community seems a lot less convinced. Really good scientists, in my experience, tend to talk a lot in terms like probably and most likely, etc. And it's not like science hasn't, plenty of times, gone back and said that some previously accepted fact turns out to be dead wrong. That's the nature of science.
At any rate, now that I've completely garbled this and muddied the waters beyond belief, I'd just like to see less broad brush strokes here and more exactness. Some people are stupid and venal and mean spirited and cruel and narrow minded. And some of them are Christians and Jews and Hindus and Moslems and atheists and every other color, creed and gender on earth.
Religion and science have both been the excuse for evil things and good things. Do you really want to pit every piece of art, music, architecture, literature, charity, etc performed in the name of a religion against those in the name of science?
Again, if something - religion, science, the flight of a butterfly for pete's sake - encourages a person to be a responsible, civil, honorable and kind human being, then I'm all for it. I don't care if they're off worshipping toad droppings, if when they get up from their devotions, they go off and try to make the world a better place, then more power to them and hurray for toad poop. Nothing in life is black and white, not even science.
Ok then! Down off of the soap box, slink off into the night hoping that this time I've been clear and not hopelessly muddled things!
We interrupt this diatribe to bring you some Harlan Ellison stuff: On 24 April 2000, the local village idiot in Denver, Greg Moody, who works for KCNC, bemoaning the demise of Star Trek: Voyager, talking about the possibility of a prequel series, suggested, "They ought bring as creator and producer, Harlan Ellison".
We now return you to your regularly scheduled stuff.
Until next time. . .
Jim Hess
One other difference worthy of noting between science and religion: science is much more willing to challenge itself on its beliefs in light of new discoveries or advances that are contrary to the established doctrine. Religion retreats from such things with a vengeance.
Consider science: scientific opinion has held for a long time that dinosaurs were cold blooded. Last week, new research suggests that at least one dinosaur may have been warm-blooded, based on x-rays of well preserved, fossilized remains that yielded images of what appears to be a four-chambered, mammalian-style heart. The reaction? Science gets excited, begins to examine the new technique and the new data for validity, searches for corroborating evidence in what's know, theorizes the implications if the information is true, and will eventually accept that the hypothesis is true, or debunk it and sweep it aside. Science itself is an example of evolution of human thought, always seeking to understand.
Now, consider religion (and I use Catholicism as my example because it's what I know): as an example, one of the tenets of Catholics is that Jesus was a chaste individual. If the discovery of scrolls in the walls of Jerusalem was made today, scrolls that dated to 62 AD and presented information that Jesus not only had a wife, but had a son as well, how would the Catholic church respond? First, the scrolls would probably not be made public. If the church couldn't prevent that, they would be considered anomalous and dismissed as incorrect, unsubstantiated, or (my personal favorite) "uninspired". There would be little or no investigation of the validity of the claim the scrolls made, and Catholics in any way supporting them would run the risk of being excommunicated (less so today than fifty years ago, but the risk still exists). Because dogma that easily accepts challenge or change is not tenable as a "faith". Faith does not ask. Faith does not seek answers from without, only from within. It is belief without substantiation, and it doesn't want substantiation, for one risks refutation in that pursuit, and refutation is "bad". (So is history, in the case of Catholicism - St. Patrick's certainly didn't teach me in my twelve y