To Rick and 'Our Gang'
OK, now I’m forced to atone:
Now that I’ve HAD my lithium and I’ve a few minutes more to spare I can pick up the broken furniture and glassware I tossed around the forum earlier today.
I totally agree with you, that you don’t win people over when you hit’em with insults or scorn, or EVEN physical violence, and, of course it undercuts the discussion. But I WAS just kidding around part of the time, with, perhaps, a lame mask of conceit: I kinda LIKE to make people "wince". I was at work while I got locked into the Kubrick discussion and my time was short. I was really trying to rush it. I tend to take the easiest way out when that happens. And I don’t have time to do a whole thesis. Not even now. Still, when you feel passion for someone’s work you tend to get a bit fanatical (recall how many of us here go for the jugular when someone like a teacher slights Harlan’s work).
Having said that, when I took a shot at fellow forum-goers and their capacity to handle an "esoteric" approach to narrative it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s an insult (then, again, I didn’t qualify the comment either, so it can be taken as one). It COULD be true. Maybe it’s NOT. But there ARE sharp people around who simply may not be accustomed or "wired" for a specific approach to storytelling. It took ME a couple of viewings of Solaris, before my take on the film would turn a 180 degrees; I’m still not capable of watching Bergman; I often have trouble with Robert Altman (with Quintet - though this example is not being fair to the director - the tedium nearly drove me to suicide, or worse); reading Proust didn’t work for me at the time I tried because I’m visually wired and when I read I AM used to text that moves along. This was the concept running in my head when I suggested to some of you that you might not have been "wired" to accept Kubrick’s take on story structure, particularly in the final act. This may not be the case, but maybe it IS. Doesn’t mean you guys aren’t bright; there’s undoubtedly very complex stuff you’re into that I’d have trouble adapting to. But, speaking for myself, in every case I just mentioned, I will, at some point, come back to it for another try…simply BECAUSE I know there was great value in the output of these people. How we each learned to interpret someone else’s approach to time, pace, attitude, human nature and character often depends on how we developed our own sensibilities in our earlier years. I started watching Kubrick when I was pretty young and had time without any noticeable delay to develop my "empathy"; on the other hand, I was around 20 or 21 when I first saw Bunuel, and it required me to go back and explore his vision before I’d gotten thoroughly addicted, laughing my ass off.
All of these artists had a world view that determined how they would approach storytelling. Many are given to finding new ways of conveying their ideas and vision: they take to experiment and deliberately break the rules because the conventional methods of story structure have become too antiquated and rigid and redundant. (If we’ve already seen ideas conveyed in a certain way, how will an artist be able to tell us what’s so unique about his take on things, and in this medium, if he uses the same approach?). In effect, these are people who, as artists, are finding themselves through a unique approach - their own personal language, if you will. When they do break the conventions accordingly, their audiences, at least for a while, become just as secluded. That artist becomes the infamous "acquired taste." That’s why Kubrick was often ahead of his time. For two decades he turned out work that was either banned or misunderstood. Where his film would be castigated at first, a decade later it’d receive universal praise. Time always required audiences to adjust to Kubrick’s take on things. I can tell you now, I run into more people today on the street than I can remember at any time before who love his work, sometimes with mixed feelings but with very devoted sentiments.
Now, someone here mentioned that he felt Kubrick was poor handling actors (sorry, man, I forgot who you were). I DID crank out a cursory list of the director’s films to counter that charge. Since he said Spartacus was his favorite I’m going to cite it to support my argument (but, also recall I drew reference to an emotional high point in Barry Lyndon as well). There are many beautiful and intelligent performances in Spartacus, but among the most unforgettable is the gladiator scene in the arena between Douglas and the black warrior. The look on their faces as both men waited to go out and kill each other, etches itself on your brain; you only saw hints of action going on outside, but the camera was mostly fixed on their faces. It was Woody Strode - tense, yet sedate - whose thoughts you could almost feel merging with yours: "...to kill this man whose eyes I looked into and saw a friend; do I defy and die as a human being or kill for someone’s entertainment and live on like a thing of the lower animal kingdom? Which do I really want?"
I’ve seen Spartacus a LOT. Since my very first viewing, of all the scenes in the three-hour movie, it was Woody Strode’s, in all its subtlety, that stuck with me most. You know why the acting was so powerful? It was because of Kubrick. One: he, as always, did about 75 takes - a method he used deliberately to draw real emotions from his actors - often intense ones brought on by the irritability from the repetition - and lift them above the level of a memorized script. Two: when no dialogue was needed he played music on the set while shooting, pieces carefully selected to evoke a powerful mood. It was a method used commonly in the silents. Strode was listening to a piece while doing that scene.
The emotions Kubrick sought from his actors were meticulously timed against the deliberately icy absence of expression in other portions of his movies. In Clockwork, Alex and his Droogs are detached from the pain they inflict on others, interested only in having a jolly good time with the "ultra-violence," until Alex himself falls victim to the "wheels of justice" (remember, too, that the story is being told from Alex’s point of view; we see the world through HIS eyes. This is something people didn’t understand about the movie for a long time). The range of emotions we get from Malcolm McDowell after he’s incarcerated display the range of a symphony…because Kubrick employed the methods I told you about. Other actors around key performances were deliberately muted. Timing and contrast, and very calculated allowances for improvisation from the actors he felt could handle it, were the basis of Kubrick’s technique in staging actors and bringing out the best they could give and then some. (Lolita is also another textbook of brilliant performances achieved by the same means). That is why I believe few directors could handle actors as spectacularly as he could.
Finally, to justify my riposte over the ending of 2001 (I could go into an endless exposition over the whole movie) and its cohesiveness, I’ll recap the moment after Bowman had passed through the dimensional stargate. The most difficult thing about the end is that, like the flashes of bending light in the stargate, so many ideas converge at the same time. The dominant theme threading the film is mankind leaving Earth’s cradle; this culminates in the very metaphor of the final image of the movie. Bowman, representing a species that has become like the caterpillar - still playing with its little earthbound toys - on the verge of its evolutionary ascent, lapses through time eating with the quaint mundane utensils in a picturesque setting that keep us living but are no longer enough (think about it: at the beginning we were a species fighting and killing for something simple like food; now we sit quietly without a care eating processed meals. Watch how they eat throughout the film AND at the end). Bowman then becomes what will be the butterfly, the next stage in man’s evolution and his ascent to the stars: the human race, along, perhaps with its barbarism, is about to leave Earth’s cradle. That is the metaphor of the Star Child. And it closes the thematic loop perfectly, which began at the opening of the movie in The Dawn of Man. This was the metaphysical gloss Kubrick brought to his material. And this is why I say the ending is perfect in that every image is a logical, metaphoric extension of the entire preceding text. It is, in fact, a tightly woven meditation, or a poem, as the late Gene Siskel would call it.
The whole film, in all its layers to examine, is a stunning work and no other director in the world could pull it off. It is the ONLY film that really looks at the two forks in the road that await us as a species: ascent to the stars and continuing our evolution or complete annihilation, either at our own hands or by natural catastrophe (remember, if we were dumb enough to stay on this planet for another 5 million years or so the sun would nova and swallow us whole anyway; and that’s leaving out the glacial periods or greenhouse effects that would await us).
But, like killing (one of the things we still share with the lower orders), our tendency to explore and to discover and to tear from the old is innate in our species. This is what 2001 is about.
A director like Kubrick gives great density to his movies. It can be too easy to overlook their breadth. Kubrick was looking for new narrative techniques: "we haven’t even scratched the surface," is what he said with regard to the possibilities. So, I say, without any conceit, you may not be wired for his particular approach, just as I’m not for some things, and, therefore, may not be experiencing the great wealth of ideas and emotions his work has to offer. How you feel about a movie right now may not be the same as after a few subsequent viewings. It’s happened to me a number of times.
[Insert anguished cry]
Wish I could be there with everyone at Pinks. Hope you all have a great time.
Kerry - from the cold desert of arid Australia.
Harlan to Y'all, but Specially to Scot in Alabamy:
Yeah, I'm exhaustedly back from Oregon, Susan had a swelltacular birthday with me and Joe Straczynski and Kathryn Drennan, and now I'm running all over the house cleaning up mail and work, AND completing the last two pages of a brand-new story I'll be premiering at the Pink's Hot Dog Stand signing for THE ESSENTIAL ELLISON tomorrow night. Title: "Goodbye to All That"--written around the Kent Bash painting I conceived and had painted for the long-overdue HARLAN ELLISON'S DREAM CORRIDOR issue that I worked on with my editor Diana Schutz, and my Dark Horse Comics publisher, Mike Richardson, last weekend. Don't know fer shur, folks, because this one is even wonkier than my usual...but I have a wry and sneakful suspicion you may get off on this little ellisonion offering.
I'll read it for the first time in public, along with "Prince Myshkin, and Hold the Relish" tomorrow night.
Scot (at last, pantpantpant): not only do I not HAVE a copy of my late and sorely-missed pal Bill Rotsler's soft-core erotica, THE GODSON, but I've never even SEEN it. I would dearly love to have the copy you're offering. Let me know what I owe you, and I'll remit. What an unexpected bit of pop antiquity to crop up, when I'd foregone all hope I'd ever see the thing.
For those of you who scratch your heads that I would be in a film like that, well, folks, I loved Bill with all my heart, he was one of my dearest chums, and I let him use the house while I was working at 20th Century-Fox on VALLEY OF THE DOLLS. (I was the first writer on the project, though subsequent scenarists got the screen credit--which relieved me enormously.) And one day, when I came shambling through my own front door after an exhausting stint at 20th, I found the house filled with nekkid and semi-nekkid men&women. And Bill, my pal ole chum buddy, comes rushing up to me and grabs my attache case out of my hand, and thrust me down onto a big steamer trunk I used to have in the front hall, and he says something like, "I'm in a terrible bind; we've shot all the preceding scenes with the characters who get killed, and we need someone who hasn't been seen in the film just to sit and be a piece of furniture, wouldja please...?
So, wiped out and tired, I plop onto the steamer trunk...
And Bill deposits a pair of UTTERLY NAKED, very pretty women on me, one on each knee. And then he starts "directing" me to grab such&such a protruberance here, and such'n'such an appendage there, and the camera is rolling, and I suppose (because I've never seen a frame of the film and have no idea) I sat there fondling and mouthing inanities, looking the fool.
Subsequently, I had a brief liaison with one of the ladies, who was not (imagine my surprise) a rocket scientist (nor even a paleontologist for that matter), though the other woman, a very attractive blonde lady, became a friend. She was, in fact, pregnant during that scene, and told me about her other child, and her husband, all during the shooting, and I found myself more than a trifle awkwarded-out to be pawing a pregnant married person so sweet and pleasant. Bill, got done with the scene, said he needed me no more, and I went into the rear wing of the house, got undressed, and crawled into bed, and went straight to sleep at about six o'clock.
I was awakened, however, at about eight-thirty, when the OTHER lady, from the OTHER knee on which I'd dandled the duo, crawled into bed beside me. This was, of course, at least 15 years or more before I had even met Susan. But she's seen photos of the shoot, and knows-all of my sluttish past.
Further, deponent sayeth not.
Yes, by all means, send me the film, Scot. And thank you.
See some of y'all tomorrow night at Pink's. "Goodbye to All That" debuts. The 50th Anniversary Retrospective debuts. O frabjous day, calloo callay!
Yr. pal, Harlan
I couldn't agree with you more, Alex. But I'd like to think that both are linked in that they are legal victories for the creative community. And for that alone, I am so happy. Methinks this bodes well for Harlan.
The Napster decision was just upheld by the Federal Appeals court that rendered the decision. That leaves only one more venue for Napster to try--the U.S. Supreme Court. While today's SC decision on online copyrights was good news for all of us writers, the Napster decision is the really important one for Harlan's case.
Well, this is usually the point in a debate at which the logical recourse is a physical assault. So for all your boorish, myopic, blasphemous comments I'm comin' after all of ya. Thus, I win the argument, case closed. (Now I know why I won so many debate classes: everyone wound up in an emergency room).
Where the hell is my lithium when I need it?
Just as an aside, Rob - while I for the most part agree with your assessment of Kubrick in general and 2001 in specific, I'm going to have to back up Joseph that you're being a tich patronizing.
Whether or not you intended it, some of your comments about others being bound to certain structures or lacking perspective made me wince. And I wasn't even the one addressed.
If you want to convince others that your informed opinion is the correct one, do so with reasoning, fact, and example. It's not necessary to hazard any guesses or make any asumptions as to the intelligence, perspicacity, and/or experience of others; and in fact doing so will usually undercut the mutual respect which is vital to reaching them.
Additionally, if you're going to take the position that the end of 2001 holds together, it's better to do so with example rather than simply stating that that's the way it is and many others think so too. If I tried I could easily find fifty people who would agree that the earth is less than ten thousand years old. Rather than hearing who agrees with you I'd love to hear your thoughts on those closing scenes - especially the ending "Starchild" shot - and why you think they adequately (and hopefully even poetically) convey that Bowman has become cosmically aware and "unstuck in time".
First a note to those who might have a Gaiman tour visitation in their cities: don't miss Neil's reading. I saw him yesterday, and he's a delight. The chapter he read sounded very different from how I'd "heard" it in my head when he read it aloud. Besides, he's got great answers for the audience questions.
Now then, I can't resist wading into the Kubrick discussion. I admire Kubrick greatly, but I've got to join with those who find some large flaws in his movies. "2001, A Space Odyssey" was terrific, yes--but that light-show ending was too long by half even for the sixties. The symbolic evolution of Dave didn't worry me a bit. But the trip through the star-gate was bloody endless. I believe that it begins as an exiliarating trip, but ends as enough of an irritant to set the audience against that final display of evolution / aging in the finale. It's an example of special effects that draw too much attention to themselves, rather than to what they're trying to convey.
I always went to Kubrick films with a certain trepedation. What worked in one utterly failed in others. I thought the voice-over narration in "Clockwork Orange" was inspired, perfectly complementing the visual storytelling. The same technique in "Barry Lyndon" failed to convey the unreliable-narrator sense of the novel, and rendered it a boring story. How does the same filmmaker achieve so much with this technique in one film and flub it in the other?
David and Joseph respectively:
I feel like one of those samurai warriors in anime defending Kubrick to the end. I usually find a group anywhere who sides with me on this subject, so this is a "truly unique" experience.
Kubrick was brilliant with actors! (We'll pretend I just threw a lot of ad hominum insults at you at this juncture for that boorish comment you made). In fact, there aren't many directors as good as he was. You're just not "getting it": while theme WAS the dominant "character" in his films, he manipulated emotions or suppressed them, depending on what part of the film we're talking about and which characters. But in EVERY film of his, reactions, non-reactions and expressions are planned or "grilled" out of the actors with careful deliberation in conjunction with Kubrick's famous cold stoic narrative adagios, and the resulting performances are absolutely stunning. It happened in Spartacus, it happened in Paths of Glory (brilliantly), it even happenen in the Killing, it happened in Lolita, it happened in the comic timing in Strangelove, it happened in Clockwork, it happened in Barry Lyndon (particularly when the child is killed). Because he contrasts powerful emotions against cold, provocative "stasis" at very calculated dramatic points the impact is amplified. In the examples I just listed, you'll never convince me otherwise: the actors were incredible, and it was because of Kubrick's method. Few directors, and certainly not Spielberg, could do what was accomplished in those particular movies.
Incidentally, I suggest you listen to Martin Scorcese's comments and insights on Kubrick: he is more perspicacious and on the mark than either of you guys OR me; if you listen to what he says it may give you some perspective that you lacked before, which might make you see Kubrick's movies a little differently in repeated viewings. That happens sometimes. In the past, Harlan Ellison has also given us excellent insights on the subject (read his comments on Paths of Glory sometime).
And in 2001, NOTHING falls apart at ALL, much less the ending which has ALWAYS fascinated me. And, as I've stressed, I know people who disagree with your statement as much as I do.
Well, Harlan had another exciting day at the comics exhibition Saturday. (I can't speak about Sunday; I had to be somewhere else.) He was working on a story for Dark Horse based on a painting whose idea he had given the artist -- about the Ronald Colman character in "Lost Horizon" climbing the blizzardy Himalayas in an attempt to return to Shangri-La and seeing, in the distance, a pair of Golden Arches.
I remember him once kvetching about people not understanding his references to one of his favorite movies -- I think it was in the intro to _Slippage_. Sure enough, some stone-faced fellow in at least his late 30s, possibly even late 40s, stared at the painting, listened to Harlan's laborious explanation, and never even cracked a smile at the joke. When Harlan said, "Ah, I guess you're just too young to get this," the guy growled, "Maybe you're too old."
Later, a woman blew up at him in outrage and had to be escorted out by sheriff's deputies because she had been lurking behind him unbeknownst to him, and heard something that offended her, which she proceeded to express loudly throughout the room.
Just another day in the life of a gadfly. It's fascinating to see rubes bounce off the man and try to imagine the picture they'll always have of him henceforth, how they'll describe him to anyone else whenever his name comes up.
Mr. Ellison also apologized to me for lying the preceding Thursday. He had made up a colorful story to explain how he got his hands on official Donnie Osmond stationery, just to shock the bourgeois listeners around us, and it was a lovely, colorful fib. So I don't know how he came into possession of Donnie Osmond stationery after all. Not even he does. (But now we know how SOME of those crazy stories about him get started!)
As for Kubrick and Spielberg ... well, I've been deeply moved by the work of both of them, but I sometimes wonder whether either of them can direct actors, much. Kubrick seemed terrific at conveying big themes, ideas, at putting together stunning visual and aural mosaics; and Spielberg seems like a pretty cool if not terribly deep storyteller ... but I get the impression they kind of leave the actors to fend for themselves. If they get great, smart, inventive actors, they get good performances, but if they don't (consider "Barry Lyndon" and "Full Metal Jacket" in SK's case), then all the technical genius seems a bit wasted.
Soderbergh, now. Whew! I'll go see anything of his. "sex, lies & videotape" remains one of my personal faves, and "The Limey" was excellent. "Traffic" is not perfect, by any means; the writing is not anywhere near as good as the acting, or the direction which is even better, but it's certainly worth seeing.
Rob,
No, my being "used to convential structure" is not my problem with "2001." Believe me, I have no problem understanding experimental plot structures, chronological doohickeys, etc. I just feel the ending of "2001" meanders unconvincingly.
By the way, I know you probably didn't mean your post to sound that way, but it does seem a little patronizing. Don't patronize my opinions.
Regards,
Joseph
P.S. Happy belated birthday, Susan!
I think this could have some bearing on Harlan's lawsuit. Rick, could you pass a copy of the story to Harlan?
"Ruling against big media companies in an information age dispute Monday, the Supreme Court said free-lance writers may control whether articles they sold for print in a regular newspaper or magazine may be reproduced in electronic form".
Read all about it at:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010625/pl/scotus_free_lance_3.html
Susan,
May you have a great birthday!
Best Wishes,
Shane
Joseph
Obviously, the only line in your last post I agree with is, "what do I know?"
The end doesn't break down at ALL: it's a magnificent meditative journey. You're too used to conventional structure but the more you look at that film the more you see in it, believe me.
Rob,
My personal feeling about 2001? It's a great movie that just...breaks down at the end. After so much wonderfully painstaking dialogue and cinematography, we get scenes that somehow just don't work. I don't know if that was the point - if what is happening is something we can't comprehend, being only Homo Sapiens, but it leaves with a horrible disconnectedness that is less than satisfying.
Of course, what do I know? My personal favorite Kubrick is "Spartacus."
Jes,
I will read Kestrel and the Knave! I just got American Gods, so that is the top of my list, but Kestral is right after that.
Regards,
Joseph J. Finn
OK, to everyone who gets me razzled re: 2001.
Turning to drugs and booze to "cope" with the viewing of 2001 is a qaint idea. No one I know ever did it that way. AND I happen like commercial and artistic elements combined. I just don't like sacchrine mixed into it.
I first saw 2001 in 1978. A lot of people I know now saw it for the first time within the last 15 years (two of these guys are 21) and they share my sentiments. So, you can't really blame the period or generation anyone is from to judge how they'll respond to it. AND there have ALWAYS been people who had your reaction to the movie as well. Like I said it just depends on how you're wired. If you need movies with a break-neck pace or "a lot of heart" then a movie like 2001 or Solaris isn't going to work for you. I go for a pretty broad range myself, but I do like cerebral stuff often.
Well, I ain't from Alabama, so Full Metal Jacket was a terrific film as far as I'm concerned.
Howdy, all. (Sorry about the cornpone colloquialism - my inner hick was in need of release. But no more.) I'm a longtime reader, infrequent poster with a brief announcement, offer, etc. I'm preparing to move out of state soon, and I'm in the process of liquidating my video collection (everything must go!!). One of the videos is WILLIAM ROTSLER's 1971 "The Godson" (please, not to be confused with Jean-Pierre Melville's classic "Le Samourai," released in the States as, you guessed it, "The Godson" - go figger, but I blame Coppola). Rotsler's movie, though, was shot in Mr. Ellison's house, and if bad vision and the IMDB are to be believed, featured Mr. Ellison in a small role. I've seen the damned thing and don't know what to think. Uschi Digart's prtty great, though. Other than that, all I know is I have to slice my collection in half. So, the offer is: Anyone who wants the movie, can have it. I'll ship it out to you, and you can send me the postage back when you receive the movie. (No scam here.) Just email me if you want the movie. This is a first-come, first-serve deal, with one exception: If, for some reason, Mr. Ellison doesn't have a copy of the movie (doubtful), then he gets it, automatically. Just let me know folks, and I'll announce the lucky winner, let's say Wednesday.
P.S. I hope this doesn't sound like a creepy offer. It's just my way of paying someone, anyone back for all of the thought-provoking stuff I've read on this board.
P.P.S. Re: Kubrick. As a Alabama-type person, I hold a small grudge against the fellow for mostly ruining Gus Hasford's "The Short-Timers." I'm a petty, petty person. OK.
Lynn - I agree, "mainstream" and "popular" are quite undeservedly considered dirty words, but maybe that's only because they're associated with pop music so sugary it's liable to cause cavities and irritating sitcoms starring has-been stand-up comics? This is probably why many--myself included--reflexively shy away from movies or music or what-have-you that appeal to the masses; it's a gargantuan fallacy of an instinct, but an instinct nonetheless.
As for 2001 . . . My aunt tells me folks were doing some interesting drugs at the time it was made, so I wonder if an analysis that "gets" what Kubrick was trying to do at the end must be conducted while in a similar frame of mind, so to say? (Yes, I read that someone watched it drunk to see if it made a differece, but I don't think booze going to cut it.)
Also, because I was away for a while and missed Harlan's birthday, I'm going to wish Susan the very best of birthdays twice and ask her to please give one to Harlan. Tell him to think of it as the card that got lost in the mail and showed up a month late in one of those sealed bags with the Official USPS Apology Note printed on the side: even though the envelope is hanging together only by a few shreds of paper and there's no trace of whatever birthday money was once in it, the love is still intact.
~Jeff
And on another tangent, what did you comic book folks think of "Unbreakable"?
L.
re: Kubrick/Spielberg
Two comments come out of Ebert's article that caught my eye.
"But every artist must work in his medium, and the medium of film does not exist unless there is an audience between the projector and the screen." "Spielberg's unique ability in his serious films has been to join artistry with popularity--to say what he wants to say in a way that millions of people want to hear."
Since my college days when I was constantly getting into arguments with professors over the 'lack of art in popular culture & music', I have struggled with this hypocritical viewpoint that if something is popular, it can't be artistic. It's as if someone can't create something that has lasting impact on human culture if the populace itself actually enjoys it! The moment an 'artist' becomes popular, suddenly his stuff isn't as cutting edge as it used to be. No matter how much I think we have evolved, every time I see 'wet monkey' syndrome, it amazes me.
This discussion made me pop over to www.imdb.com and look up both Spielberg and Kubrick. The body of work alone, when viewed on a single page, states that these two men are in vastly different realms of film-making. Wouldn't the world be a much more interesting place if Kubrick had stooped to writing episodes of Animaniacs?
Rob, I think perhaps the era in which you and I saw 2001 may have a lot to do with what I may or may not have taken away from the film. I was raised on a steady diet of sci-fi heavily influence by the very rudimentary elements of the film you mentioned. I am not as 'utterly confused' by his films as you seem to think. Maybe the problem is that I view/read things of this ground-breaking nature out of context. I look at the images of space and man in relation to space, and say to myself, 'Yeah, yeah, but where's the good stuff?' Now that I think about it, 1968 was a year before I was born. A year before we walked in space. Add to that the fact that I grew up in a household where space technology was no big deal. My father was with NASA from the Mercury program through Apollo 13 on up to Challenger, and when they needed someone to help fit David's (the boy in the bubble) environmental suit, I was the little kid they stuffed into the test model. Perhaps that can help you begin to see where I'm coming from.
L.
PS. In proofing before posting, perhaps I should also explain 'wet monkey syndrome'. Researchers did a study regarding learned behavior using macaques or rhesus monkeys, I'm not sure which. They put 25 animals in a dual level cage and fed them normal monkey chow down below. Treats of fruit were offered to monkeys on the upper level, forcing them to climb to get them. After the monkeys learned they could climb up to get the good stuff, whenever one started to climb, the researchers hosed the monkeys left down below with ice cold water. Pretty soon, anybody started to climb up, they got dragged back down and beat upon by the rest of the tribe. One by one, the animals were replaced with monkeys that had never been hosed. Sure enough, when the entire population had been replaced, any animal trying to climb up and get the fruit was summarily dragged back down and thumped. Hence a social phenomenon I call 'Wet monkey syndrome'.
Oh, I know all of Ebert's comments about Spielberg. I felt Schindler's List was pulling punches too much in presenting to us the horrendous, disgusting things the Nazis were doing to those people - if it hadn't Spielberg might've saved himself the work of having to take black getto kids through a museum to make them understand what the Germans had been doing to the Jews and they wouldn't have mocked the film as they did at first - and the ending for me, as I've stressed, was too "literalized", everyone weeping and hugging to remind of the deep sorrows in case all the preceding text hadn't done the job. I do NOT dislike the film; I just have some mixed feelings. I'll also add that I'm probably even harder on Spielberg BECAUSE I'd grown up a fan - I recognized things in his early work that vanished later or got dissipated - and between pushing too much candy-coated sentiment, gummi-bears and a rather rigid upper-middle income world view (reflected in his upbringing) I finally became a bit nauseated. I'm not with Ebert on this one. And remember, he also likes many of Schwartzenegger's movies; that doesn't make me like Arnold any better. And he praises things like the Star Trek movies to high hell, including the first one. And I don't align with him on Spielberg either. But...each to his own, man.
These days there's ANOTHER Steven I have my eye on more:
Steven Soderbergh. I saw The Limey recently - which I'd barely even known about before - and got totally fixated by it (Terence Stamp is a great actor). When I was a film student I walked around with my own visual theories about how I would shoot, structure and edit a film. The Limey comes amazingly close to many of the concepts I had in mind: intercutting subjective viewpoints showing what a character is thinking then doing another take of the image he's looking at as it really is, and shifting back and forth in time. Tarantino used time-shifting narrative in Pulp Fiction, the technique first used by Kubrick in The Killing; Soderbergh, I believe, has John Schlesinger to thank for the subjective shift technique used in Midnight Cowboy. But I would use the method - strategically - on a regular basis in all my films, if I were a filmmaker.
Happy Birthday Susan! Hope you're having a great time at Pink's.
Cheers....
You know, I was going to post a defense of Spielberg, but Roger Ebert has today managed to write a defense much better than I do. This week's Great Movie column (where he revisits classic films) is "Schindler's List." Take a look at:
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/greatmovies/sho-sunday-ebert24.html
Locus magazine has just put up some excerpts from July's interview with Harlan Ellison. Elsewhere on the site Locus says new subscribers can get Ellison for free (sounds rather 13th century to me).
http://www.locusmag.com/2001/Issue07/Ellison.html
Last issues Locus (the one with cuddly Tom Disch on the cover) says "Troublemakers" is due out from Pocket/iBooks in November
I stopped counting the number of times I saw 2001 after my 20th viewing. The first time I viewed it I was around 12 and I saw what I WANTED to see. I was mesmerized and thinking about a LOT of metaphysical things as my mother drove us home. In every subsequent viewing since I've discovered more or something different in the movie. That's the remarkable thing about it. And I would add, I have a number of friends who resonate the same sentiments, passion and "grasp" as I do. If you haven't absorbed ANYTHING from it by now (even rudimentary elements: the human species spawned by an alien race; space as a cold, isolating desert; HAL as, ironically, the only "human" character in the movie. Those are places to start. But the angle is to "feel" your way through the film; explore it on that level and you may discover as much as Dave Bowman did) then that's just the way you're wired. However, even if I stood as you do on any of his films - utterly confused by the ambiguities - I would rather sit scratching my head for a while than have my intelligence insulted by condescending stuff. And on the issue of making money, Kubrick never had to kiss anyone's butt to make the movies the way he wanted to make them - ONLY Clint Eastwood commanded the carte blanche from Warners Kubrick always had - and his films in the long run have been MASSIVELY profitable because half of them became classics and because a number of them have a devoted following. The supposedly esoteric stuff was very successful for him. Kubrick was a great international success so your argument on that point doesn't hold.
Re: Sixth Sense. On the whole I like the film a lot.
RE: Kubrick/Spielberg
Admittedly, there are times when I don't need things 'explained' to me on film. Times when I'd rather be left wondering. (The end of The Sixth Sense could have worked just as well with his breath fogging and the wedding ring rolling across the floor. Maybe a wide shot to show the blood under his sweater, but the rest was ham-fisted, I felt.)
But I have seen 2001 several times (both sober and drunk) and I still walk away from that film wondering just what the hell that man was trying to convey.
There are times when one can be *too* esoteric. And if your box-office returns don't come in, you don't get to make the big budget films like Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan.
Me, when I want to be left wondering, I'll just wander over to Maximum Exposure and serve me up a bowlful of "What the ...?" But I confess to being skeptical as to the 'wondrous nature' of this 'gentle minded' picture.
L.
PS. Happy Birthday Susan! June is a wonderful time of the year to celebrate one's natal day. Hope it treats you kindly.
Frank, Why do you cringe because Kevin Smith is directing a Prince documentary? No matter what you think of his image, the singer has taken on the recording industry and won. In this era of prefabricated pop, I have to give him credit for that. He's one of the few true mavericks in music and I'm sure Kevin Smith will craft something intriguing out of this.
This one's to Susan, a day early, because I'm not certain I'll be online tomorrow:
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!
Hope Harlan appreciates you as much as you deserve.
Best,
Alex
I think Duel was great. It is exemplary of what I meant about "early" Spielberg, but it kind of digresses from what I was talking about. One, Duel was a TV movie (released theatrically overseas with extra footage) and I'm talking about his theatrical work. Two, I was thinking about his ability to handle straight drama (fantasy/adventure hasn't been a problem, although I thought the two Jurassic Park flicks sucked), hence, my emphasis on Sugerland Express. AI is a new situation just by virtue of being a Kubrick movie: higher dramatic standards are expected, ones I wouldn't entrust with Spielberg (and I was trying to say there was a time long ago when I would have).
Kevin Smith is doing a Prince documentary (cringes).
About Spielberg: Actually "Duel" is a very effective little bit of horror. That black truck is the best monster in movie history. Technology is the real evil, not things that go bump in the box office.
Yes, I've known about the involvement of Kubrick's wife and Jan Harlan with AI for a long time. I believe what was kept intact was all of Kubrick's visual concepts (it looks like it from what I've seen). All the storyboards were finished. Kubrick himself had written nearly 500 pages of outline. But I think the cold cynicism and dark humor will be replaced with Spielbergian heart-tugging and "literalizing" of the emotional cues, explaining to us how we're supposed to feel. On many levels the two directors are too divergent - one willing to compromise and pander to those in the audience without the smarts to "get it" and one who never would. It's an artist handing his vision (posthumously) to a craftsman (to borrow a splice from a famous Harlan Ellison argument): it's like Picasso commissioning the Brothers Hildebrandt to do 'Guernica'. But, admittedly, as I 'fessed up in an earlier post, these are the rantings of a purist. Plus I'm bitter about losing Kubrick - I can't tell you how much I was looking forward to his introspective return to science fiction.
For the record, in his early days I would've trusted Spielberg with almost anything. In my opinion, his best, least compromising drama is his first: The Sugerland Express. Its ending doesn't compromise anything and is almost completely without dialogue; it didn't "explain" anything, it left you to think about what you saw. But the film failed in the box office and it's my theory that the director hasn't trusted audiences (or himself) with serious drama since.
A bit of light reading for any John Irving fans out there: (www.bookmagazine.com/issue17/irving.shtml)
re: Kubrick's last project.
Been reading the trade rags, kinda following the game with half an ear. From what I've seen and read, Kubrick's wife and brother-in-law are most pleased with the final result. They are quite satisfied that Spielberg was true to SK's ideas about the film, and did a good job of sitting on his sickly sweet emotional side. So the balance, or rather blend of the two should prove entertaining. Besides, I loved the kid in Sixth Sense and I can't wait to see him in this new project. Here's hoping it doesn't suck.
L.
I was able to pick up a signed copy at my local Barnes, but that was only because none of the books had been put out yet (this was around noon on tuesday). Signed or no, I suggest people run, not walk, to their nearest store and pick up a copy. Wonderful book.
---Peter
Speaking of Neil G., has anyone been able to pick up one of the 5000 signed copies of American Gods? Every book store in my area that had them was wiped out within an hour of opening.(They're now appearing on ebay for twice the price.) I ended up calling Borders in NY where NG was doing a signing that evening and was able to obtain a personalized copy. So, if anyone wants a signed copy, my suggestion is go over to neilgaiman.com, check his tour schedule, and they have phone numbers for each store. Call the store and I'm sure they'd arrange it for you.
"By the Christ Child's Left Testicle!! Gaiman's in Pasadena on the 28th and I have tickets to see the advanced screening of AI! "
Ah! If Kubrick had completed his own project I'd be first in line. Now, I doubt I'd be able to take it.
By the Christ Child's Left Testicle!! Gaiman's in Pasadena on the 28th and I have tickets to see the advanced screening of AI!
{insert a little dance of inventive self-invective here}
::sigh::
L.
Frank,
I'm ONLY joking. No one here is "Zeno-phobic"!
re: Spider-Man. Joe Straczynski?! I've been away from those comics for some time. I'll have to go in this weekend and see what they've been doing these days. Sounds like some interesting items like 'Ultimate Spider-Man' are out there now too. I still think Raimi is a little more problematic as a director and my purist skepticism about the movie holds till I see it.
"In the ned", of course, should read "in the end". *kicks self*
Joseph - Hot damn, we've got to wait another 2-3 weeks in the UK (the exact date eludes me) afore we get American Gods. HimsElf's cover blurb - a very rare occurence, as I understand it - is plastered all over the front page of www.neilgaiman.com, too.
Now, I've REALLY got to get Red Badge of Courage devoured before then... did you get A Kestrel For A Knave, in the ned? If so, have you read it?
Best,
Jes
Frank,
Yes indeedy, that's the Kevin Smith we're talking about.
Is that the Kevin Smith of "Clerks" movie fame?
HAHA, sorry, that's Xenophobia. Looks embarrassed.
Someone accused me of Zenophobia?? The "Aliens" I refered to were the outer space kind. The inner space ones are in my heart and are my brothers under the skin. We will one day take this country back for the people, not just the rich elite.
Ray -
So far, digging Smith's version of Oliver Queen (and c'mon, even as superheroes go, isn't dressing up as a bizzare version of Robin Hood a little more twisted than most?). Especially enjoyed this month's issue, with plenty of inter-character fun as the JLA meets their supposedly deceased comrade.
Oh, and Kevin Smith can write dialogue for Batman anytime he likes. I also love his take on the little interchanges between Flash and Green Lantern.
Worth keeping an eye on.
On another note, just returned from the Neil Gaiman signing at Evanston's own The Stars Our Destination (unfortunately moved from Belmont in Chicago due to rent issues (and, I was pleased to note to uberowner Alice, the space is still empty)). Mr. Gaiman was, as usual, gentlemanly and warm. I now have the pleasure of being about 40 pages into "American Gods," and I can already feel that this is going to be a humdinger. I just wish that I had the courage to ask him how an Englishman ends up in, of all places, Minnesota.
Regards,
Joseph J. Finn
Speaking of comics....
Anybody into the new Green Arrow book written by Kevin Smith? If so, what do ya think?
Joseph - Hey, right there on the same page with you when it comes to Ultimate Spider Man. As for other Bendis stuff, I would recommend Torso, a remarkable re-telling of Elliot Ness' final case, and the seedy crime double punch of Goldfish and Jinx. Oh, not forgetting Powers...
Man, that Bendis, his dialogue is to die for.
Best regards
Jes
RE: John Lee Hooker.
Can you just imagine the jazz funeral send-off and then the subsequent jam session on St. Peter's front porch?!
Man, what a way to start the summer.
L.
It looked like a very unpromising evening.
I trundled over to the Lakewood Center for the Arts after work, and found the place filling with pleasant, older, whitebread folks sipping plastic cups of chardonnay and pinot noir, and greeting one another as old friends. Although I recognized a few coworkers, I didn't see anyone I really felt like talking to, so I spent a lot of time alone, looking at the juried paintings, photographs, and sculpture.
Then Harlan Ellison showed up.
I kept an eye on him and the elderly gentleman I took to be Will Eisner as they were shepherded by a pale giant (Mike Richardson, it turned out) through the crowd, which, to a man, probably didn't know either of them from Adam.
We filed into the auditorium, took our seats, and listened to an interminable parade of local dignitaries thanking one another and pointing out the other good folks in the audience who make this annual arts festival in Lake Oswego, Oregon happen. Richardson, founder and CEO of Dark Horse Comics, gave an earnest speech about his crusade to make comic books a respected American art form; Eisner offered some cultured remarks about how comics were an "immigrant art form" that taught many recent arrivals to these shores about the American way of life and American values in simple language and pictures.
Then Ellison hit the stage. He fiddled with the mike, trying to remove it from the lectern, gave up, and walked out to the center of the floor to speak unassisted by electronics.
An alert and helpful floor manager brought up the stage lights, Ellison looked mock startled, cried, "I confess! I'm a Jew!" and in the ensuing laughter, we were off to the races. I think Ellison shocked the well-to-do, whitebread, and highly Catholic crowd many times -- telling the story of his remarks to a hotel desk clerk when he was invited to speak at Notre Dame, admitting that he'd had the baby of one of the female City Councilors whose name he'd heard during the preceding speeches and liked (she was puzzled but not insulted; and I later heard one of her friends say "I almost peed my pants when I heard that!"), and NEARLY saying the F-word twice but managing to catch himself -- but this was an artsy crowd rather than your typical Lake Oswego audience, and I think they ended up liking him.
During the dining portion, a small circle of us heard his stories about slugging a second lieutenant during his induction into the Army, and ensuring that Sgt. Benzick, who had it in for him at Ranger training, broke his back. I FINALLY learned how he managed to get his hands on some official Donnie Osmond stationery. And, joy of joys, I got to stroll with the man alone back to his motel.
Another rabid fan who had no idea Ellison was going to be there, and happened to come to the event only because his wife dragged him there, wandered into the auditorium just as Ellison was being introduced and said "It can't be! It's GOD!" He and his wife stood me to a couple drinks after Da Man returned to his motel to call Susan and retire. (Oh yes: Susan, your husband did forward your regards, for which much thanks.)
You can bet I was a happy creature driving home last night, and today!
If you can make it to the festival at all, swing by close to the scheduled panel discussions at 3 and 7 p.m. Saturday, and you'll likely catch HE on the exhibition floor. He may be there Sunday afternoon, as well, but I don't know when. The exhibit itself is well worth it: original comic art of Superman, Batman, Prince Valiant from the late 1930s, Archie from the 1940s ("That poor kid has been trying to get laid for a LONG time," Ellison cracked), the new Dark Horse heroes. I recognized pages from comics I own: The Watchmen, Hard Boiled, The Dark Knight!
Alex -
It may sounds trite, but we are so in agreement on Bendis' work that it's ridiculous. I was HIGHLY skeptical of the whole Ultimate Marvel idea, but it's proven to be a wonderful re-examination of the history and motivations of Peter Parker.
Case in point: how many damn times have we (the comic readers among us, that is) heard the origin story and gone through the death of Uncle Ben? And yet, when Bendis got his nimble fingers on it, that origin sang again - reminding us that this isn't just the origin of Spider-Man. This is also the story of a 15 -year-old boy losing his beloved uncle, and having the crushing guilt descend on him that he could have prevented the murder.
And hey, who can't help but like Kong? The character is a great example of Bendis' abaility to blend comedy and drama. Also, there are very few writers in comics who have the ability to script dialogue and non-dialogue frames equally well. Bendis does. Personal favorite? The page of J. Jonah Jameson talking to Aunt May on the phone. Great writing - great art. Funny as hell.
Anyway, I am on a mission to read more of Bendis' back stuff. Any suggestions as to where I should start?
As for the Spider-Man movie, I am a great admirer of many of the actors involved (and highly intrigued by the J. Simmons - I don't have cable, so have never seen his work on "Oz") so will definitely see it. As for the choice of director, I feel the movie is in fine hands. Sure, Raimi can handle the action stuff and the comedy with no problem. What I am most assured about, however, is his touch with character. Go and rent "A Simple Plan," and you'll discover (a) one of the most cruelly ignored films in movie history, (b) a movie brilliant in almost every respect, and (c) Raimi's warm-up for films about weird things happening out of the blue to normal people.
If Spider-Man isn't about weird things happening to normal people, what is?
Regards,
Joseph (now posting over a wireless connection - Apple Airport rocks)
Lotta things; time to sing.
On Cirque du Soleil: They'll be raising their tent here in Philadelphia in September. Anyone in the rather large Philly contingent here for a Cirque du So-HE aficionadoes meeting?
On Spider-Man, movie and comic. Yes, I like what Straczynski is doing on the book. A lot. I should point out, however, that to me, JMS's take continues what Paul Jenkins has been doing (since a few months before JMS's debut)on the sister book PETER PARKER, SPIDER-MAN. Peter's human again. He's wisecracking again, and it's not formulaic anymore. And for all that, he's still one of the most introspective heroes. He's again living with the sort of troubles that plagued him as a teen, albeit ones suited to a more mature photog/teacher (I love this, by the by)/sooper-heero. Aunt May's making wheatcakes. And there are things going on that are big, but do not overshadow the core humanity of this most human hero.
And the retelling comic; the roots Spider-Man book, ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN, is excellent as well; revisiting themes and characters and experiences in a teen Spider-Man's world WITHOUT retracing the Lee/Ditko issues, a la John Byrne. Brian Michael Bendis is a writer I'll follow onto any project, from TORSO, his study of Cleveland's Torso Killer and Elliott Ness's pursuit of same, to his cops-in-a-superhero-world-as-written-by-David-Mamet POWERS, to his DAREDEVIL, his HILARIOUS Hollywood tell-all, FORTUNE AND GLORY, et cetera. And his Spider-Man is the real, updated, deal.
The movie? It looks good. Raimi has always been a huge ciomics fan, and he respects the characters and the form. Me, I'm just surprised he hasn't followed Barker, JMS, Kevin Smith, Bob Gale, Jeph Loeb, and a few others to do comics of his own. Yes; some things may be slightly different in the movie (Gwen Stacy, please!), but I think I'll enjoy it--and I rarely enjoy the sort of actioners Hokeywood's put out of late.
Tobey Maguire? Good actor. I think he'll pull it off.
Of course, right now, having not seen any of the flick, I think Maguire's a wee bit old and bland of face for PP, but ...
(This I say, being as I am an almost dead ringer for the current Peter Parker now that the beard is gone ...)
HARLAN: Is there as yet a release date for TROUBLEMAKERS?
JUSTIN: I get those twitches sometimes, but they usually pass in a few minutes to an hour, tops. Of course, stress doesn't reall affect me (It should be noted that I *DO* have epilepsy, but the two things aren't related). Get well--maybe find a pool to float in. I recommend putting legs up and out on the pools edge and butt against the wall, and just let the water hold you up.
WorldCon: I HATE Dragon*Con. They purposefully REschedule their con to coincide with the WorldCon whenever it's on American soil. Apparently, they do not understand that cons are symbiotic; one works as advertising and inducement for another. Splitting the guest and attendee pool like this is foolish beyond extreme. And, damnit, the WorldCon's finally in my hometown and I won't get to see or meet Harlan!
John Lee. Man. The Hoochie Coochie Man up and left--and just when I've started to teach myself the guitar! Crap and a half. John Lee Hooker always seemed like forever.
On the subject of music, a great a capella group from Britain is performing a few shows around the Philadelphia area this weekend. Artisan, from Yorkshire is a three-person group whose voices are ice-clear and beautiful when twirling in harmonies. The songs are folky, or funny, or passionate, or evocative, and just plain great. The lyrics are intelligent, often hilarious, often moving, and full of a real social conscience that never gets preachy. Add to this that the three singers (one of whom writes all the songs and lyrics) are absolute joys, and that one, the wife of the songwriter, is a published sf/f author who's had stories in some DAW anthologies and elsewhere ...
Go. It's rewarding. Check out their few US dates (one of which was last night) at www.artifact.demon.co.uk ... you'll thank me.
Long-winded again ...
I was terribly saddened to read out Mr. Hooker's death. I'll admit that I'm of the age group that first saw him in "The Blues Brothers", but I'll never forget his incredible voice and music. God bless that he went peacefully.
John Lee Hooker, Caroll O'Connor, RIP.
Colleen - A tremendous help, thanks!
Hello all.
I just read on Slashdot that Excite@home are pulling a bunch of Newsgroups due to DMCA violations.
The link is
http://slashdot.org/yro/01/06/22/006203.shtml
A list of the groups that are being pulled are;
alt.binaries.hustler
alt.binaries.playgirl
alt.binaries.penthouse
alt.binaries.movies
alt.binaries.pictures.centerfolds.playboy
alt.binaries.movies.divx
alt.binaries.movies.purity
alt.binaries.movies.shadowrealm
alt.binaries.movies.shadowrealm.repost
alt.binaries.movies.mirage-mrg
To me, this looks like a copyright issue. Will this have any bearing on Mr Ellison's case?
Regards,
Kerry
Finder, regarding your Heritage Press question. Do an online search with Google using the phrase "Heritage press catalog"-a heading Loganberry Books: Heritage Press comes up with a nice long list of Heritage titles(www.logan.com/loganberry). Also, there is a Heritage Press catalog(1993), bu Michael Bussacco listed at the Library of Congress-check your nearest library & see if any library in your state has a copy. Hope this helps.
John,
None taken. I see your point. You want lock-step confirmity, though, AYNs have nothing on followers of Japanese bands. How'd you like to be a pop band, go out on stage and see hundreds of people dressed EXACTLY like you? They and the costume fetishists are just a little scary. Now that's lockstep conformity rebellion. :)
Joseph, I don't have a problem with tattoos; don't have a problem with how anyone looks for that matter. I was just trying to make a point that these so-called "rebels" actually march in lock-step conformity, looking like carbon copies of one another. Sorry if you took offense.
John -
First off, I completely agree with you on the direction that JMS is taking on Amazing Spider-Man. So far it has been some really nice new stuff (though I must admit I had a sneaking (and sinking) suspicion that Ezekiel would turn out to be Peter from the future). Personal favorite line so far? "Individually, spider's are morons."
Oh, and Scott Campbell's covers certainly don't hurt.
I also recommend that you take a gander over at Paul Jenkins' work on Peter Parker: Spider-Man. He's doing some really nice work with Peter's usual mix of regrets, fears and "hey, I'm a superhero!"
As for angry young nitwits (AYNs) in music, I'll agree with you on the empty howling into the night for a lot of these nitwits (though I'll admit a great deal of admiration for Marshall Mather's "Stan," a song that should be listened to while reading Mr. Ellison's "Xenogenesis"). However, what's with the crack about tattoos? I have one, and you don't see me machoing my way through dance clubs (well, I also don't gyrate, and my wife would give me a good shot to the ribs). I think it's a matter of that tattoos are "chic" at the moment (of all things, why permanent ink?) and so a lot of these AYNs have them.
Regards,
Joseph
David, I took a look at some of your other stories, even before you suggested it! I thought your article about men and friendship was particularly intriguing. Unfortunately, sometimes it seems like the progress regarding traditional gender roles is in retreat. I'm guessing I'm a little younger than you, David, but young men today seem more enslaved than ever. I know enslaved is a funny term to use about men, but take a peek inside a typical twentysomething nightclub and you'll see what I mean!
You'll find men adopting would-be macho stereotypes that would shame even Papa Hemingway and John Wayne. It's as if many men today are so confused and frightened by the changing world that they seek refuge in an ideal of masculinity that is inherently artificial.
I know I'm too young to sound like an old crank but am I the only one who's noticed a sharp increase in rude behavior? Even the music that sells these days reflects that: angry young men with tribal piercings and tattoos fill the airwaves, finding as many permutations of the word "fuck" as possible. There's nothing wrong with a little profanity, but raw anger mixed with a lack of ethics is a deadly and stupid combination.
David - I'll do the commentaries this weekend. You guys are gonna want to read them, it's excellent work.
I fixed the pipe description in the caption to the HE photo on my Web site, okay?
The rest of youse guys, check out a couple of the other pieces on the site, please? Just pick a couple at random. It's good stuff, believe me.
Rick, ya think you could get my commentary on _Stalking the Nightmare_ formatted and up on your site sometime in this millennium? I'm doing steady work on my summaries and critiques of _Love Ain't Nothing But Sex Misspelled_....
Justin, all eye-twitching aside, your comments about the Spiderman movie poster makes me wonder if anyone here has taken a look at what Joe Stracynzki is doing with the comic. In my opinion, he's made the Amazing Spiderman exciting again,taking a more science fictional approach to the stories. I honestly haven't had this much fun reading a traditional superhero comic in years.
Justin - For me, it's a combination of stress and lack of sleep that sets the right eye to twitching - so badly at times that my co-workers stop, stare and grow concerned (not so much that I've developed a twitch, but if that twitch has any short-term, run-amuck kind of implications for them. Hell, they KNOW I'm twitchy...)
Alejandro - thanks for the heads up; I'd have completely sleepwalked through my evening without even remembering to flip to Comedy Central.
All - I've recently taken a shine to the gorgeous slipcased editions of classic books that the Heritage Press has been putting out since the early 30s (as mass market counterparts to the volumes issued by the Limited Editions Club). I've been trying to find a quick reference list of the titles published, but have so far come up empty across the WWW. Before I slip off to Borders to check old book price guides or start the arduous task of compiling a list through judicious searches at the Advanced Book Exchange, are there any other Heritage Press afficianados who might be able to point me in the direction of a handy, simple on-line reference? (Hey, even a Finder has to know his limitations.)
Thanks for the info, Harlan. By the way, will you, by any chance, be attending the Worldcon in Philly this August?
--Duane
Justin
Why are you a DC man? I've been away from Marvel for a long time because the quality (particularly the art) plummeted beyond my tolerance. But it was Marvel who came up with the frenzied, troubled, fucked-up heroes (and hero/villains, which was another innovation of theirs)and the tapestry of self-effacing alliterative humor delivered with grace by Stan (the man) Lee. Of course, I'm talking about days before graphic novel masterpieces like Watchmen came along (DC). Nowadays you can expect pretty much the same "product" from both Marvel and DC.
My concern about Raimi's Spider-Man movie is the very probable thinning of key elements that made the book great: Spider-Man being mistaken for a criminal no matter what he did (cops were always firing at him); J Jonah Jameson, icon for the conservatives, bent on destroying Spidey's credibility; and CONSTANT problems weighing against Parker in his daily life. The movie, I'm afraid, may turn out too derivative, lifting things from what made earlier movies successful (like Burton's first Batman). And I'm not interested in seeing that. Potentially, in style and substance, this film should be a landmark. But I even have some trouble with Tobey McGuire. I love him, I think he's EXTREMELY talented. I'm a Pleasantville fanatic. But, visually, I don't see him as Parker. But these are the rantings of a purist, so what are you gonna do? (An additional note, even the music is important: When Ralph Bakshi did his animated version in the 60's the one element that made it work so well - apart from a perfect voice actor - was the rock score. It captured the "feel" perfectly. It was one of the best orchestrated ever, and I believe the guy who did the theme had been doing work with Frank Zappa. I forgot his name, though. Assuming I ever knew it).
I MAY see the movie when it comes out depending on what I read and see in clips. Otherwise, I'll just go out and play basketball instead.
At any rate, I saw that online poster you were talking about too. It did look great. Really vibrant.
Justin--
Heh, had the exact same problem myself a few weeks ago. As a pre-med dropout (now in east asian studies, of all things) and a bit of a hypochondriac, I thought (when it persisted for several days) that I was developing either a brain tumor or multiple sclerosis (later web research indicated that 1 twitchy eye is usually not a sign of brain cancer). My folks said it was stress, which made no sense because it was two weeks into the summer and all I had been doing for the past several days was reading and playing computer games (In anticipation of any remarks--yes I then thought it might be eyestrain, and didn't read or watch screens for two days--ichh--but to no avail).
Anyway, it went away in a week and a half....I didn't even notice until maybe a few days after that.
Not to be persnikity, but are we talking about ebooks? I'm a little bit confused. When I hear iBook, I think of the Apple laptops.
HE to Duane:
TROUBLEMAKERS is a one-off, as my wife phrases it in her Pidgen-Limey. It is the first co-published EDGEWORKS ABBEY offering. This one, as noted, in conjunction with Byron Preiss Visual Communication's iBooks. It is an original collection. Further titles from Edgeworks Abbey will either be with allied distributing companies, or solo. No immediate plans for any further iBook titles of Ellison material.
Yr. pal, Harlan
Celebrated the 21st birthday of my son last week. Wish I had my shit that together at 21; then again if I had, probably never would have hooked up with his mother, and my current wife and I would be celebrating 24 years this Friday instead of 4. Ah but what an excellent four years; like Spencer Tracy said, there may not be much meat but what's there is cherce (choice).
Justin
Re: the twitch under the eyelid. Welcome to the world of adulthood and stress reactions. Dad's intentions are always good, but, as a son and as a father, it's understandable that "Wait it out, maybe it'll go away" or "Maybe he'll outgrow it" doesn't shine the bulldog.
Personally, I've experienced that reaction for years; comes with the job, parenting, divorce, remarriage, all that good stuff. Since January (post-seizure), it's occasionally accompanied by the trembling of hands; sometimes it makes me feel like Doc Holliday facing Johnny Ringo in "Tombstone," sometimes it just makes me feel old.
What you need, J., is a de-stressing device. Something you can call up to clear your head for a moment, get things back in perspective, make you laugh, etc. Somedays, it's picturing Antonio Banderas as El Mariachi walking down the street with Los Lobos' "Mariachi Suite" playing in the background. Hearing some song in my head, depending on the mood (Steely Dan, Hendrix, Santana, MJQ - I've also been known to put on the headphones, stick the EnVogue "Free Your Mind" and crank it up). A line of poetry . Or when I think about how great my wife is, and how she can look so elegant in anything from a suit to her wedding dress to one of my denim shirts and a pair of jeans.
Last Sunday, it was "The Replacement," specifically the scene when the striking football players trash Keanu's truck and two of his fellow replacement players step in, are told to piss off by the strikers, causing one of the replacement linemen to empty half the clip of a Glock into the star QB's ride before he advised them to not only upright the truck but also to "wax that muthafucker too!" (I found that most enjoyable at the time. Still do. I'm warped, I admit it.)
People like us (and there are probably many other residents of Webderland this also applies to) will tend to put more pressure on ourselves in addition to what's already there. Cause we care about what we do and how well we do it. Whatever it is Justin, your destressing technique, you'll find it.
And a good day to all.
Oh, P.S.- We all like good comic book movies, right? There's a pretty impressive poster image for the new Spider Man movie to be found here:
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=9360
Just thought I'd let you know. I'm more of a D.C. man myself, but this is looking pretty good.
I'm up before noon. An outrage, for certain, but it had to be done. By my watch, I have about two hours to get packed. My New Student Orientation at the University of Arizona is this weekend, and I have about two hours to pack my things and get this show on the road, with only my beloved copy of Edgeworks 3 for company. It will be my first visit to the place where, if all goes well, I will be spending at least the next year or two of my life. I'm just stalling right now, munching on some elderly Grape Nuts and trying to wake up. I find myself wondering:
Is there a doctor? Is there a doctor in the house? I ask merely because I seem to have developed, in the last 72 hours, a nervous sort of a twitch just beneath my left eyelid, and it won't go away. It's not painful, just aggrivating to the point that it has suddenly knocked 'humanity' into the number two spot on my list of things that irritate the hell out of me. I've never had anything like it happen before, and the best I've heard thus far is: "Uh...yeah, well, it happens. Wait for it to go away." Great advice, thanks Dad.
Anyway, I know you'd all love to hear me gripe about my medical problems like a bitter old man, but I've got to be on my way. Since I won't be around on Sunday, I'd like to extend to Susan my hope that she has a wonderful birthday this weekend.
If I make it back alive, I'll see you all next week.
J
Speaking of the Cirque Du Soleil…
Drallion starts their Chicago run at the United Center this Friday and runs until July 29. Apparently tickets are going fast so I do suggest buying yours ASAP. I know there is a 1-800 line for ticket reservations. More information is available on their website (www.cirquedusoleil.com).
I already got mine for opening night.
Have yet to see Blue Man Group. It's on my agenda of things to do as soon as I possibly can alongside reading Neil's "American Gods" (which I got yesterday; beautiful book design; can't wait to crack it open; will do so as sson as I am done with his "Smoke and Mirrors".
Oh, yes and the new season of South Park starts tonight. Woo-hoo.
I love Blue Man Group performances. My take on it (your mileage may vary) is that they're like cats, or aliens, investigating humans. THey're curious, and willing to try things with jello that we would never think of. Wonderful show.
Seems the filters think that french punctuation is HTML. Hmm. The missing word would be "O".
L.
Mitch~
About Blue Man: What I can't get out of my head is those eyes. That wide-eyed intensely curious gaze that makes one feel as if they are speaking to you in a language that your body knows on a cellular level but your brain has long since forgotten. Those eyes will haunt me for a very long time, I think.
I think the only other performance I've seen in my life that affected me so viscerally was Cirque du Soleil -- Mysteré with the Taiko, > with the water, Drallion with the voice of an androgynous angel (read countertenor).
Work filled all my time today. Still recovering from overload Vegas-style. Someone suggested to me that I learn shorthand as a method for capturing ideas and images in transit, as well as for capturing the fading few moments of a dream on the edge of waking.
L.
PS David L. - Could you email me your URL? Like an idiot, I didn't bookmark it. Thanks.
I saw Blue Man Group in NYC. Astounding. I spent the whole show either laughing, or staring in awe. Their show is a multimedia combination of music, performance art and audience participation; sometimes simple, sometimes smart, always fascinating. You'll never look at Twinkies the same way again.
Mitch
I'm glad this forum exists, and am happily surprised that HE himself takes the time to check in every now and again. I've been a worshipper at the altar of Ellison ever since finding a battered copy of LOVE AIN'T NOTHING BUT SEX MISSPELLED in a used bookstore.
I saw the posts about TROUBLEMAKERS, and was curious: will ibooks be bringing out more HE titles, a la Bester and Zelazny?
--Duane
Frank
"The Godlike fixation with Aliens may not be a very healthy pastime though".
I've always been sort of a thumbs-up guy to xenophobia myself.
The Abyss does borrow from a few notable movies, but, it was quite a ride to be sure. The Godlike fixation with Aliens may not be a very healthy pastime though.
Naiki:
Well, now you can get off on the original story, 'In The Abyss,' now that you know where the movie came from.
Tono-bungay was funny in the "Victorian" way - pretty intrinsic to the time; if you cross-reference the tone to Oscar Wilde-style glibness, surprisingly, it can connect. It may not be "dim-wit" funny, but Wells did have some dim-wits in some of his yarns.
HE: What do I know from smokin'? It was a very ignorant guess, is all. I'll correct the photo caption when I can -- probably in a few days or so. And yes, you will see me in Oregon in a couple days: I'm docent-ing it on the floor of the comics exhibition Saturday from 10 to 3 (whereupon the wife and I will use our tickets to see the first panel of the day). I guess you won't be present at the chocolate-and-champagne reception Thursday evening? Work to be done at Dark Horse, and allathat?
Thanks for the nods, Ray and Colleen!
David Loftus:
Dug your HE non-interview. And howzabout that b& w photo of the man hisownself, wow, very cool!
The Abyss. Awww, that movie. I've seen it...i think five times. It's like Cronenberg's The Fly. One of those things I watched when I was small and held me.
Rob>>yeah, tono-bungay actually was funny, wasn't it! i mean, i'm not being deliberately tootie here, it was funny, but it was a kind of funny i didn't get right away, it's not manic funny like ...pynchon, or dry bitter funny like red meat comics, or even dimwit funny, or long winding funny like harlan's favourite george eliot, or e.m. forster cambridge funny. it's a different kind of funny. there is a clarity and crispness to it, that, lemme think who else shares... someone might tell me aldous huxley?
HE to David Loftus:
Went to your website and read that pre-Susan 1985 "non-interview." Very nice piece, well-organized, compact, and sensible. The complimentary stuff embarrasses me, but I thank you for it alla same. Actually, with the exception of projects listed in the final graph that I've yet to produce, you got everything dead correct. Except...
What in the world gave you the idea that the $800 Danish briar I'm smoking is a meerschaum? Meerschaum is white, it's solidified sea-foam. The pipe sticking out of my face is a gorgeous plateau briar, hand-carved. Of course, sadly, I smoke pipes no more; but though I sold about 100 of them late last year to help fund the KICK Internet Piracy litigation, and sold them for about ten grand--I always had impeccable and urbane taste in pipes--I cannot find it in my heart to sell the remaining 2 or 300 that I enjoyed for so many years. I retain them as art objects. One of the aftermaths of the bypass surgery. Ah me.
I think the one in your photo is gone in the batch I sold. I think. But maybe not. Either way, you should correct the caption.
I presume I'll be seeing you in three or four days in Oregon.
Yr. pal, Harlan
David, I visited your website-liked the interview & picture of Da Man and your essay "Stalking the elusive codex". Speaking of which, the annual feeding frenzy known as the Friends of the Library booksale is at the end of July-this is the largest one in the U.S. If anyone is looking for a particular book, let me know & I will hunt for it(Mr. Ellison, I always look for Kersh titles-alas, no luck yet). Last time I found a 3-vol. set of Outlaws of the Marsh, bound in silk & printed on hemp paper for the measly sum of $5.00. On another note, interviews with another wordsmith, Paul Theruox, can be found at honoluluweekly.com-click on Summer books issue and at honoluluadvertiser.com-click on back issues, May 14th-"The truth according to Paul Theroux".
I added a bunch of stuff to my Web site late last night (www.david-loftus.com).
Of possible interest to the gang here is a "non-interview" with Harlan Ellison dating from the spring of 1985. Obviously VERY old news, but I like to think it was engagingly written. I've left in a number of errors and red herrings because that was what I knew and wrote at the time.
The real jewel is a photo of Da Man I took back in 1982, seated at his Olympia manual with meerschaum in mouth. Scroll down to see that.
Peg & Jes -
I don't know why this question occured to me as I was walking to the office today, but I was wondering if the Friday British Parliment meeting (the one where the Prime Minister has to answer questions from the oppositions) is broadcast in the United Kingdom? They show it here on C-SPAN, and I always find it among the more entertaining and enlightening shows on television.
Thanks,
Joseph
Upon returning from Vegas, (and being informed that I'm not allowed to go again *until* I've both read and seen Fear and Loathing), two things:
A) Go see Blue Man Group. I had the wonder of seeing them at the Luxor. If you have no idea who the Blue Man Group is, they're the blue guys that are doing the Intel Pentium commercials. http://www.blueman.com - They apparently also have shows in NY, Boston and Chicago. And their message is a lot more highbrow than mimes with homemade drums. I still can't wipe the image of those *eyes* out of my head.
B) Anyone else here seen Atlantis yet? We went today and I was just wondering precisely how many Jules Verne references Disney could cram into one movie. (I must also note that, in the spirit of disbelieving talking mice, one cannot translate Viking runes incorrectly to get *Ireland* mixed up with *Iceland*. And coelacanth probably don't do well in aquariums, even fairly sizable ones.) All-in-all, it was an okay flick. "...and NO SINGING!"
L.
The main print interview for the July Locus will be with HE. Due out in about 3 weeks.
That should, of course, read "from a brain tumor" in the last sentence.
Especially since Tim Wiegel, one of the most decent men in Chicago, passed away yesterday morning. Very, very unfortunate. For those of you who appreciate chilling coincidences, note that Tim Wiegel's freshman roommate at Yale was Gene Siskel, who also passed away form a brain tumor.
Ray,
Love you to death and all that, but...
Erm...
Aw, heck. I'm not going to throw explitives around. Let's just say that I'm more ticked about the weekends results than you.
Regards,
Joseph
http://locusmag.com/2001/Departments/Letters06.html Follow this link re: a letter about Dr. HE. Also, Neil Gaiman's new one comes out tomorrow and over at americangods.com, HE's book blurb greets all new visitors.
Joseph,
Da Cubs did their part to help the Sox this weekend by sweeping the Twinkies, but duh Sox did jack squat to help the Cubs with the redbirds. Where's the reciprocation, I ask?
Justin: (Re: Spider Jerusalem) - Yeah, I know, the Thompson quote about being so drunk/drugged that he saw things through a round eye and a square eye is just one heavy hint as to his SJ's origins....
Kerry
Well, at least in that case the story was public domain. Guess Cameron decided to scrounge that kind of material once he understood you can actually get sued when you lift stories from contemporaries. Either that or he actually thought Harlan was public domain too.
Rob,
James Cameron using other peoples ideas for films. Never!!!
I'll be back.
Kerry
Yo! Naiki! Hey, I don't mind y'at all!
In response to your question, helllllll, no: another bunch of non-sf books Wells had cranked out included 'Bealby: A Holiday', 'The History of Mr. Polly', 'The Dream' and 'The New Machiavelli'. Most of them are comedies. As for the reference to Tono-Bungay (basically about an aphrodesiac hoax virtually anticipating the corruption of today's pharmaceutical industry, the title referring to the name of the drug), well, I'm not sure if anyone was ever reading ANY of these titles. I think they're fascinating, though. They were ALL humorous books. But Wells was also responsible for a little non-fiction outing called 'Outline of History'. Now THAT was a good story.
One observation regarding some of his sf short stories: a couple (like The Plattner Story and The Story of Davidson's Eyes) involve a character discovering an entrance to an alternate dimension, or an alternate universe, and the descriptions Wells set forth, with some key features like tadpoles with human heads floating around and a green sun, read like a precursor to Sgt. Pepper. Since opium was a popular substance in the late 19th/early 20th centuries I have a suspicion that Wells was giving the experience a try, like many writers of the time.
One more little discovery for me: he wrote a short story called 'In The Abyss'. Read it some time. You may discover that it could be the source Jim Cameron used for his movie 'The Abyss'. It is exactly the same scenario - about the discovery of a strange, almost ghost-like alien lifeform living in a hidden city at the bottom of the sea. The hero has the same experience in his descent in a bathysphere as Ed Harris had in the movie. I think Wells wrote that one around 1901.
I'm telling you, the more you dig into Wells' stuff the more you respect his imagination and realize how much you've taken him for granted.
I am so sorry, Rob, I didn't read all of that paragraph. Don't mind me. Of course you have. I found it very odd, Tono Bungay, yet it didn't hold my attention. Must go back to it.
yo ROB>>When I was reading reading Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children my literature tutor sent me off to the library to look for H.G. Wells' Tono Bungay, the one H.G. Wells book that no one ever reads. Did you? It was the sense of uncontrollable destiny that my tutor said linked the two books, of course he was right. Was that his only non science-fiction work?
Jes-
The primary inspiration for Spider Jerusalem actually came from "gonzo journalist" Hunter S. Thompson, who wrote FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS, among other things.
I am an enduring H.G. Wells fanatic (and a Lakers fan, too!). I am awed by the man’s abundant imagination. I discovered him in childhood and instantly became attached. But the power of his vision and his eloquence only enhanced my appreciation of his books as I got older. He can be experienced on so many levels - there’s something new to discover each time you re-read his stories. He is also taken for granted: many people are unaware of how many archetypes in science fiction he had created. There are the obvious ones like time travel, alien invasions, BEMs, "Mars" and invisibility but he is also the Brit responsible for SF concepts like traveling to alternate dimensions (Plattner Story), suspended animation and genetic engineering. His prose was forceful and mellifluous and often majestic, yet heavily satirical, much of it threaded with dark humor. Many of his short stories are solid, droll social satires. Upon rediscovering Wells recently I found books of his I never even new about previously: when he wanted to venture from science fiction he emerged with ironic novels like Kipps, The Wheels of Chance and Tono-Bungay. Whatever his influences (aside from his training in biology and Darwinism under T.H. Huxley) he was a landmark in the way he used the form to observe human nature and the problematic future for the human race. (Poe, Twain, Wilde and Wells were 19th century geniuses I would come to group together as satirists of a kind who had cast profound radiance on the course of provocative imaginative literature).
In modern times, some actually discard Wells’ social views. But it is important to understand things as they were in his time - the events that angered him - in order to understand the socialist ideas underlying his stories. It was a time capitalism was failing - raping the land for everything it had while gaining wealth for the few. Exploitation was rampant before ANY regulation existed. Communism was an untried economic theory that sounded good in a time when class rifts were leaving multitudes suffering in horrendous working conditions, many ill or dying. These factors - revealing so much about what people were willing to do to each other - stoked the author’s cynicism and had profound effects on his conscience.
I want to tell you about a book on Wells I came across recently. The author will remain unnamed. It was a coffee table scrapbook called ‘War of the Worlds’, a tribute to Wells. Glossy and colorful, it looked nice at first glance. But 15 minutes of flipping through its pages revealed a sloppy mishmash structure. Most of it was composed of bits and pieces of information that were interesting (like when Wells met Orson Welles after the infamous radio broadcast) but could have been easily downloaded from the Net at home. Worst of all it gives us a critical opinion of George Pal’s filmed version of Wells’ book - which I happen to be a fan of in spite of its liberties. The problem wasn’t the candor of the criticism but that it was based on gross misinformation that anyone who has seen the film would recognize. The author "observes" that the martian war machines in the movie were "flying" machines rather than the tripods depicted in the novel; "why," he asks, "didn’t they just fly to earth rather than arrive in hollowed meteors?" Now, that’s REALLY bad. Gene Barry explained to us clearly in the early part of the movie that they weren’t flying machines but tripods carried by invisible legs composed of magnetic flux (perhaps a concept a bit more convincing than the clunky metal rods in the novel). The film followed the same basic idea but depicted it with a higher technology. That author lost me as a reader right away. It was as though he looked at part of the movie once and then walked away. When you assemble any publication both the material and opinions put forth must be fully informed or you lose credibility and respect from the reader. You'd think that'd be obvious to anyone but this guy managed to pull it off through a publisher anyway. That was an easy buck.
I still think that I'm the one who behaved badly, but since you've all asked so nicely, I'll be a good sport and stick around. However, don't expect me to post much. I prefer to read what others have to say.
Thanks for your great stories, Mr. Ellison.
To all involved in the "apologizing spiral" - I say this as gently as I can - let it go.
This is, without a doubt, the gentlest spot for conversation I've ever experienced on the 'net; however, the occasional ill-thought comment and response occurs even here. What makes this board damn near unique is that the "combatants" almost always realize their error and apologize. But, cyberspace being what it is, the written form doesn't seem to convey the depth of anguish we feel over the original misstatement. So the "loser" of the conflict gets the notion that to "prove their sincerity" they must withdraw from participation, even temporarily.
It's not necessary.
Really.
I suggest, humbly, that we simply adapt to our purposes here the "real world" form for handling a non-malicious misstatement. Apologize, accept it and move on.
Trust me - no further action is necessary. The permanent, public announcement of your apology is already so foreign to normal cyberspace relations that it should be the gold standard of behaviour. In the wild 'net - the standard is flame, flame, flame....
If you feel you must leave, do so with our warmest regards for the fellowship we have already shared and know that you will be welcome should you ever return to this little campfire in the vast darkness of cyberspace.
To those still sharing the warmth of this phosphor glow - let them leave. Most folk, I'm certain, will return, if only to lurk. Those who don't probably didn't have their Head screwed on right to begin with.
Now, for some sappy, personal sentimentality. I have always visualized this place as sort of a Diner (or if you prefer, a neighborhood bar, like Callahan's) - (that image may have been helped by the main page of this little cyberworld when I first arrived) - regulars come and go, new faces appear, old ones fade away, but the constant bustle of energy, creativity, and comraderie remains. It ain't that cast that's important, with the possible exception of the Main Man himself, it's the place.
I'd like to take this moment to thank Rick, once again, for providing this forum for all of our benefit. You have created a place in cyberspace that is as real in my mind as any ediface of stone and wood ever erected by the hand of man. I am humbled by your generosity and your kind spirit, which infuses this place with a warm glow. Thank you.
Susan --
deal accepted, though I don't think there'll be much to look out for. Yes, a signed copy would be nice -- please send it to the address I registered with HERC (as I'm leaving the UK for good in a short while) and I'll send U. S. funds as soon as you tell me how much it cost you.
Thanks, Gunther
FG--
I'll echo the well thought-out pleas of Harlan and Justin. Don't leave.
Look, think of it this way: If more people (and especially those involved in writing, makin' movies, etc.) were as factually observant as you were--that is, if more people along the line were able to read/look at something (fictitious or otherwise) and say "hmm...ya know, something's a little off there...maybe a lot off. You all sure this is right?"--then maybe there wouldn't be so many grievous (albeit occasionally hilarious) factual/technological errors in entertainment, life, and so on...the SF genre in particular is rife with them, because most people are scientifically illiterate and/or innumerate.
And in your case, you would have done the story a service by correcting what was "wrong", if it had been a real mistake and not one of Harlan's brilliant subjunctive bonbons. I suspect HE himself has some experience with this fact-checking, ensuring-accuracy mode, what with his work on B5 and the Starlost fiasco.
Anyway, be glad you have the knowledge. I know nothing about guitars and didn't even get the reference--my brother, who is indeed knowledgeable in that area, had to point it out to me, heh.
Hi all
Been away for a bit, but I always lurk, so here's my first posting in a while. So much going on, it'd hard to know where to start, but...
Incognita Inc. - This is IN NO WAY a veiled demand on the precious time and money of the Ellisons, but will Incognita Inc be available to Unca Harlan-starved Brits (short of stowing away on plane)? I'm guessing it'll be collected sometime, somwhere, eventually...
Joseph J Finn - I still haven't got 'round to reading Red Badge of Courage. Soon, I promise. Otherwise; I'm a big Warren Ellis fan, but am collecting Transmet (very slowly) by the trade paperback. I am sorely tempted by the week to collect the single issues I'm missing, but Lonely City is out next week, so I guess I can wait. Plus, I just won an Ebay auction concerning the first 100 issues of Hellblazer. Got my reading cut out for me....
How many folks here visit the Warren Ellis forum? Intriguingly, my better half recently confused Ellis and HimsElf, mainly due to what she perceived as a no-bullshit attitude... I've long felt Spider Jerusalem to hold a little 'Glass Teat' within him...
Well, best to all
Jes
Aw c'mon, Fitzroy, you really ought to stay.
I think Fitzroy and Harlan just came face-to-face with one of the biggest problems with communicating over the internet:
Using a keyboard, you are typing out what your thoughts happen to be during a particular series of moments. Those thoughts can then, with magic-like geewhizzery, be sent IMMEDIATELY to your intended recipient. Alacazam. Poof. Then it's out there like a bullet- it cannot be unsent.
It's an entirely different story when you're sitting at your desk, pen in hand, papyrus carefully laid out in front of you and waiting to be decorated with your carefully thought-out, skillful prose. Because unlike the sort of ill-advised nattering so common to communications written with the somewhat dubious assistance of a computer keyboard, this particular communique has to sit in its place of honor on the mantlepiece until you work up the motivation to either drag it off to the post office or affix it to the ankle of Goober, your passenger pigeon, for delivery.
Point is, it sits there and you can think it over for a bit. When you're using the Internet, it just isn't done like that, and these kinds of misunderstandings are common. You may recall an incident a few months ago involving a post by Harlan, which I misunderstood entirely. I thought he was suggesting that I was a nice Jewish boy who, for whatever personal reasons, was trying to pass himself off as a Gentile. Our friend and mentor was appropriately horrified, and it was all sorted out in his next post. He was kidding, you understand. Therin lies another problem with Internet communication- since you're not face-to-face, and you often don't know the individual you are communicating with personally, it is often difficult to decrypt the intention behind certain letters, posts, or whatever. I believe Harlan's words at the time were, "the possibilities for misstating or misreading on these boards is cataclysmic."
Yeah, and these things happen. Quite often they can be good for a laugh if you let them. If it weren't for the internet, stupid as it can be, this community wouldn't exist at all, and none of us would have the opportunity to exchange words from time to time with (and I know you're all with me on this one) the greatest writer of our time.
This is a fascinating opportunity, and a great place to visit besides, and I would hate to see a valuable contributor turn away from that, even if only for a little while. Take care.
J
Harlan here, specific to Darrell, AKA "Fitzroy Guilderpost":
No, no, no, fer gawdsake don't take hiatus for such a misguided reason! You are a valuable voice in these environs; you asked, commented, posited a perfectly valid observation. Darrell, trust me on this, kiddo: you did NOTHING UNTOWARD. It was a smart and informed query, and polite throughout. IT WAS MY RUSH TO GAUCHERIE that caused the embroglio, however slight a fracas it might be. If you banish yourself, and deny the friends you've made here your companionship, it will be akin to falling off a bicycle caused by an unobserved bump in the road, but being so chagrined at having taken a tumble as your pals watched, thet you never traverse that street again.
I implore you to reconsider.
With respects, yr. pal, Harlan
Gunther:
Okay, we'll dip into our (considerably diminished) stock of HEMISPHERES, and send you one. What to charge you??????
Well, if we were AOL or Microsoft, we'd send it gratis, but times are a bit strrrrrretched at the moment, so let's do it like this: I'll pack up the magazine and send it off on Monday by a reasonable US Post Office method. Not slowest mail, but not express overnight sort-of-thing, either. A reasonable posting that won't break your budget. If United Airlines had any copies left, they'd charge you seven dollars ($7.00) plus overseas postage for it. We'll front the postage bill, and we'll get the magazine to you, and let you know on Webderland what the cost was. You add five bucks to it for the magazine itself, and send it in US bank cheque or equivalent (a form that won't require us to make special trips here-or-there to get it translated) in US dollars. Send it to HERC if you want, or to us directly. Whichever is more convenient for you.
If you want the magazine signed, please let us know before Monday. And for our efforts, the reciprocal part of this deal is that you keep your eyes peeled for any magazines, anthologies or books that publish Harlan's stories in Germany, Austria, Schleswig-Holstein, Bavaria, Transylvania or nearby duchies. If you find any, we will happily pay you for them, plus the cost of getting them to us. All you have to do is keep a lookout.
Okay? Terms acceptable? (Just reply on the usual Webderland bulletin board.
Waiting for your advisement... Susan.
Joseph Finn--
I'm not leaving for good. I'm taking a time out, which is my way of ending this silly episode. I know that Mr. Ellison apologized, but I'm not taking this time out because of hurt feelings. I deserved every word of Mr. Ellison's invective. My crassness surprises me, and I want to be sure that I've fully understood the consequences of thoughtless behavior before I post again. Mr. Ellison *does* know his stuff, and he gave us all a wonderful story to read, and I should shut up and be glad. And by the way, my real name is Darrell, so maybe I'll see you all down the road sometime.
Alejandro,
Let's just say - ditto. Could that explain Spdier's expression when he takes them? Of course, there's also the back story of how he got them in the 1st place, but would you want sunglasses handed to you in that...circumstance? ;)
Regards,
Joseph
P.S. Long day for you too, eh?
Susan --
it appears that REALMS OF FANTASY will only be shipped to inside the U. S. and Canada. In an earlier post, Harlan mentioned that you still had a few copies of HEMISPHERES with the story in it left, and that you could dig up and send one to me. Please let me know how much this costs and I'll send the money to HERC - it seems the easiest way to go from here.
I could venture a guess or two about those glasses, but, ah, eh, geez, I think this is a family forum, right? :)
God, I am going to be so sorry when I see that posted later on tonight. Awww, whaddafuck. You only live once, right?
Alejandro,
You put into words my feeling on Transmet #46 ever so much better than I could. Didn't you just have the feeling on that last page of "damn, this year is going to be a real hellraiser!"
Personal favorite art in the book (besides the last page, of course) - that heartbreaking shot of Spider looking up at the ceiling. That, and I adore the shift from black to white space. Certainly are some advantages to having a steady crew on a book, eh? Oh, and I should mention the (as usual) superb work by Rodney Ramos on inks. Ellis, Robertson and Ramos continously amaze me at how high a team effort can rise.
Oh, and I have to go buy another copy. I was reading it for the third time this morning while getting ready for work, and dripped water all over it from my wet hair. Stupid of me.
Oh, and where the hell was Channon holding those glasses? ;)
Regards,
Joseph J. Finn
Joseph:
Not only did I pick Transmetropolitan #46 up but I read it three times. A beautiful piece of prose writing done justice by equally beautiful art. Darick's pencils are spare, simple, heartwrenching. The expressions on Spider's and Yelena's faces were worth gold. Warren shows us the human being behind the bastard, the man who really cares for the truth and the people most affected by it. And a man who knows the true meaning of friendship. It's all downhill for Spider and the gang from now on. And the Smiler better watch out; there is nothing worse for a tyrant than a man who already knows he is going to die.
It is the book of the week, no doubt about it.
FG -
I'm not sure how seriously to take your last post (not the Disney part - the leaving part). I mean, Mr. Ellison did apologize...
Regards (and fare thee wells, if need be),
Joseph
For everyone else -
Please run, do not walk, and pick up the two Warren Ellis books out this week at your local comic shop: Transmetropolitan #46, which has art so good that I'm panting for the day Darrick Robertson puts it up on eBay, and Bad World, a book on conspiracy theories that is by turns visciously hilarious and mind-numbingly depressing (Courtney Love arranged for her husband's death? Lordy). Both great stuff from a man at the top of his cranky game.
Regards,
Joseph
P.S. Go Cubs. Help the Sox pick up some games on Minnesota.
This is my last post to this bulletin board. Before I take my final leave, I urge everyone reading this to join my email campaign against the Disney Corporation. I have detected a grave problem in their animation department which has persisted for an unconscionably long time. If enough of us write in to point out their terribly misguided ways, I am confident that we will succeed in steering them back onto the course of righteousness. The problem, as you may have guessed, is two-fold:
(1)Mice do not talk;
(2)Mice do not wear pants, much less short, red pants.
I can only assume that Walt Disney lacked a proper education in biology, and did his best when creating his famous character. Alas, the simple country boy known to us as “Uncle Walt” never learned that rodents lack the vocal equipment necessary to form words, and the fashion sense that would tell them that pants are required in polite company. If viewers of our vast knowledge had been present by his drawing board, this decades long insult to mouse-kind might have been avoided. But we must not shed tears over the untold damage already done. No, we must look toward the future, and the protection of our children. Please lend your support to this most noble cause. Thank you.
And Mr. Ellison? The more I think about what I wrote, the stupider I feel.
That's R.A. LafferTy, and the book is 900 Grandmothers, his short story collection.
For those who enjoy the work of RA Laffery, Wildside Press has re-released a bunch of his older works. I mention for completists as it also has an HE blurb on the back cover.
Joseph,
No worries.
All: Together again and not for the first time! It's Harlan and Robin, and the boys are wonderful! Audible.Com is selling a downloadable version of the 2000x: "Repent, Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman", starring Harlan Ellison, Robin Williams, Arte Johnson, and Stefan Rudnicki. Deprived of Beyond 2000x here in Phoenix, I was fortunate enough to be among those at World Horror Con 2000 who got to hear a taped version Harlan brought to the convention. It's great and I'm ordering this version as soon as I get outta here!
http://www.audible.com/huffman/store/amazonProduct.jsp?amazonCategory=product&productID=RT_TWOX_000008&source_code=WSAZS01001102000&scic=13
Shane,
Bleep. I knew I was forgetting to post something. That book has a nice full page ad in the current issue of "Previews."
By the way, there are 129 matches for "Ellison, Harlan" on Amazon.Com.
Folks: I did a little research and found the following: "Blast Off! Rockets, Robots, Rayguns and More from the Golden Age of Space Toys"
By Mike Richardson, Mark Young, and Steve Duin
Introduction by Harlan Ellison
Hardcover - 256 pages (September 28, 2001)
Dark Horse Comics; ISBN: 1569715769
http://www.darkhorse.com/products/pg_profile/sku_49100/sec_search/index.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1569715769/qid%3D992619560/104-9979176-7103950
Spaced out on toys
By Linda Rosenkrantz,
Copley News Service
http://www.s-t.com/daily/06-00/06-18-00/f04li178.htm
Can someone please explain to me how the term "fanboy" got started and what it means? The word seems uniquely associated with aficianados of science fiction and comic books. I'm a little in the dark because, although I'm no stranger to science fiction, I haven't attended many conventions. (Seeing adults dressed up as characters from "V" and "Dr. Who" tends to make one go into retreat.)
Delurking for a moment to be, I think, appropriately flippant: The Les Paul Broadcaster DOES exist.
Dave Barry has one, and Stephen King has repeatedly, publically, lusted after it whilst playing in a certain music group alongside Mr. Barry, Ms. Amy Tan, one Elvis P. (who does a mean accordian) and this amazing screamer name of Janis J.
If I may, having been faced with this particular issue more than once, when people discover my efforts at things literary to be, oh, how shall I put this: A lie (read: Fiction): It's fiction. A clever little lie. See, folks, fact was, for this particular purpose, borrrrrrrring. So I pushed at the parameters of that which we collectively call reality, shoehorned in some things that might be believable, greased the whole number with suspension of disbelief, and sent the whole tootin' effort down the slope of storytelling.
If it crashes and burns at the bottom, well, I didn't do my job in convincing you, dear and gentle reader, of what could be. If it flies, I did my job.
Now. If you want to focus on the small, the not-so important, well, okay. But you're missing the good part: The STORY.
My two cents.
'Scuse me, now. Off to do a workshop.
Until next time. . .
Frank-
I haven't seen the list, and I have no intention of ever looking at it. I love film, passionately, but "Best Of" lists never blip on my radar. If some unimaginative columnist or commitee decides to butter a bunch of filmmaker's parsnips by producing some asinine "best of" list, I find no reason to pay attention. I'm certainly not going to work myself into paroxysms of rage over the exclusion of my favorite movies. I'd rather go and watch one.
J
Actually, that part about being a peon goes a bit too far. I actually was thinking, Mr. Ellison, that you had made a simple mistake or that someone had given you bad information, and that you would want to correct it. This shows how thick-headed I am. Anyway, the rest of my last post still stands.
Mr Ellison-
I should apologize, not you. It was rude and ignorant of me to assume that you didn’t know what you were writing about. And I realize now that the tone of my posting could not have been more pedantic. When I posted my message, I was probably thinking something along the lines of “Ah ha! The Great Ellison has made a mistake. But I, a lowly peon, can help him!” I deserve the epithet of “fanboy” and again, I'm sorry.
Oh, and it's Oxford English Dictionary time, which means some new popular phrases make it in. My personal favorite? D'oh.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/abc/20010614/en/dictionary010614_1.html
Frank,
While I may not have agreed with all of the AFI's choices, I'll certainly disagree with your characterization of it as "PC." While it certainly had plenty of IBM references (see "2001" and HAL), it shows plenty of Macintosh influences in it's...
What's that? PC means...?
Oh.
Seriously, I didn't see it as a "politically correct" list. C'mon, it had Dirty Harry on it! Bonnie and Clyde! Whatever Happened to Baby Jane!
Leabing that aside, I may not have agreed with all of the choices (personally, I could have used "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" to shake things up a bit), but I agree with the intent of the list (to promote film preservation and curating) enough that I can simply regard it as a valid opinion (and hey, any list that gets some of us young'uns to run out and rent "Wait Until Dark" is just fine by me).
Films that I was happy to see on the list, in terms of getting new people to see them:
"Rebecca," the relatively forgotten Hitchcock movie.
"The Portrait of Dorian Gray"
Anything with Buster Keaton.
"The Day The Earth Stood Still"
"Gaslight"
"The Third Man"
"The Night of the Hunter"
Of course, there are films they missed. Hell, since it is an "American" list (where are the Canadian, Mexican and South American movies, then? Where is "El Norte"?) thrillers like "The Hidden Fortress" aren't even eligible.
I was curious what everyone thought of that horrid American Film Institute list of 100 best thrillers? Raiders Of The Lost Ark is great, but, is it a thriller? What about the others? This is a very pc list, and I am sure the voting that went into this was done by some very senile old crones who have a narrow viewpoint of what is thrilling. But that is my 2 cents, to be sure.
Nitpickers are nitpickers. And as much trivial bs as I know about {deleted for brevity's sake}, I don't think I've ever let something like that bother me about a story.
A film - yes. (The interior shots of the Shuttle in Armageddon literally made me