Rob said:
**Nauseating, provincial "feel-good" movies will reinforce viewers' dependency on literalized exposition; audiences won't know how to follow a movie unless it's "explained" to them. If they need to spend any time thinking about it they'll scowl. **
I think you're right and I'll expand this observation with two points of my own.
First, I have lost track of the number of times people will respond to any criticism I have of a movie with one of my least favorite sentences in the world: "Well, it's just a movie."
What the FUCK is that supposed to mean? I think I can make a guess. This is an art form many people consider to be theirs. They can ignore all the boring paintings and classical music and other claptrap but, dammit, movies belong to the people so don't you artsy-fartsy types dare horn in on this territory too. It's just a movie and that's it. It exists only to entertain and nothing else you say about it is valid.
Needless to say, I don't subscribe to this view.
Second, it's not just that people are reluctant to spend time thinking nowadays, they seem to be reluctant to spend any time at all. It now seems to be considered good to "not waste any time" in film. Just cut out the extra crap and only include scenes that advance the plot, usually action scenes but it can ahppen in comedies and romances too. You simply cannot, must not just take your time in a movie and observe people and places and processes. No scenes that "just" establish mood or simply exist for the sheer joy of the moment. If it doesn't advance the story, cut it!
I think a perfect example of this comes in the disgraceful remake of Planet of the Apes. In the original, our intrepid adventurers crash-land and then spend a good 20-30 minutes wandering through the wasteland. We take our time to soak up the eerie atmosphere and establish a mood. When we see the creepy image of the scarecrow-like structures on the ridge, they aren't explained. They merely exist and they are disturbing.
In the remake, Marky Mark crashes and barely gets himself out of the lake before the apes come riding in and chase the humans. We don't get any time to look around, just start the chase! Later in the film, when he esapes and sees the same scarecrow-like structures, he runs right to them, bubbling aggression and attitude, and demands "What's this? What is it?" It must be explained.
Of course, I should note that there are plenty of great movies being made today - I am merely talking about the trends in popular mainstream Hollywood releases.
Today, if 2001 doesn't make literal sense, well then, it's just stupid. "Hey, that wouldn't really happen." "Man, if that was me, I'd just kick Hal's ass." "How'd he get into that white room anyway?"
*sigh*
How nice to know that the stories of the millions slaughtered in Stalinist Russia were, apparently, "made up"--I'll have to dig up my emigre grandparents and tell them the news.
Rob: Oh, I'm not saying Altman is great simply because he works with so many genres; he's no different, in that respect, than any other journeyman director you could name. What makes him first-class is the way he infuses each cinematic category with his funky energy, revitilizing and transforming shop-worn and tired elements into something exciting and new.
Case in point: THE LONG GOODBYE. Aficionados of Chandler's novel were PISSED by the film's representation of Philip Marlowe. Instead of Humphrey Bogart, here was Elliot Gould. Instead of a noble knight who fought for the fading ideals of the past, here was a sloppy, mumbling, smart-aleck SCHLUB who spent the majority of the movie getting his face pushed in. Instead of a tightly-constructed classic noir, here was some weird, shambling MESS with a depressing ending.
And yet, by a daring revision of the novel's final scene, Altman and Leigh Brackett (who wrote the script) proved they understood Chandler and his creation better than anyone suspected. Marlowe/Gould wasn't some passive schuck--he was just biding his time, waiting for the optimal moment to act and prove that the old ideals still had a place in the world, no matter how anachronistic they might seem.
What a great movie. Altman's innovations even extended to the soundtrack, which consisted of nothing but variations on the title song (with one exception--a bitterly ironic placement of "Hooray for Hollywood" over the end titles).
Look at McCABE & MRS. MILLER, with its Breughel-like visual composition, its dreamy opium reveries, and its calm fatalism.
Look at MASH, with its wise-cracking irreverence and its iron determination to defeat the forces of death with humor and a well-made martini.
Look at...ah, you get the picture. Don't misunderstand me--I adore Scorcese and Coppola and Kubrick and all the others. But Altman gets me where I live, man. Maybe it's because he's the most jazz-like of all of them. If Coppola is opera, and Scorcese is early rock-and-roll, and Kubrick is Bartok/Stravinsky-style classical, then Altman is Charles Mingus with an arriflex. And I definitely dig that.
Following Rob's comments, I'd like to make note of another trend in movies that irritates me; a tendency towards more and more implausible plots, bizarre stunts, and lightning-fast editing that drives me up the fuckin' WALL.
Now, I can enjoy this stuff in a Jackie Chan movie, and Baz Lurhmann's _Moulin Rouge_ was great fun. But when I see garbage like _The Fast and the Furious_, I figure I should've hiked on down to the nearest Six Flags and ridden the damn roller coaster. There, I'd get maybe three or four minutes of an actual _ride_, instead of some stroboscopic incoherency that tells me that these people have no idea how to tell an actual _story_.
I mean, gang, I just watched the restored DVD of _Children of Paradise_. It's really hard to look forward to shit like _Rollerball_ after watching something like _that_.
Chris L's discussion of that "greatest cut in cinema history" is good, but I don't think it's quite that literal. Sure, the spaceship is a weapons platform, but that's not evident in the film. Look at what that cut does. It saves Kubrick the task of having to spell out something like "Four million years later" with a montage, a narration, or even a title card. It forces the association between the first tool, the bone, to the most sophisticated of man's tools. And it reduces the passage of four million years to a mere _instant_-- and thus, a perspective more godlike than usual has been granted to the audience.
By the way, I can't say I "got" 2001 on my first screening-- a nice, big, widescreen showing when I was eleven. That's because I'd read a lot about it before I'd seen it, so I sorta knew the plot already. As much as I love the film, I still wonder; if I'd gone to it absolutely cold, not knowing a thing about it, what would I have thought?
Chris,
"Setting aside the provincial, almost childish demand that a movie "explain" something to you, there is perhaps some validity to the complaint, at least on a superficial level."
Yeah, Kubrick inferred the Starchild.
Fortunately, unlike your friend, I know a number of people ranging from late teens to early 30's who understand what 2001 is doing, connect with the abstract imagery and embrace the film with increasing enamor in every viewing. And that's a key: you see a new movie in every viewing; concepts emerge from the images more profoundly. Things you never thought of before pop out. I was something like 15 when I first saw the film in its millionth theatrical re-release and really tripped on it. But after some 20 viewings since so MUCH grew in the movie; and STILL it seems like a fresh experience every time I watch it.
But I had to respond to your point because I kind of detect a backward step in narrative today's movies has taken audiences. Nauseating, provincial "feel-good" movies will reinforce viewers' dependency on literalized exposition; audiences won't know how to follow a movie unless it's "explained" to them. If they need to spend any time thinking about it they'll scowl. This on the periphery of a time when more "common folk" than ever, it seems, have come to grasp what 2001 is doing. The ones wearing the dunce caps have become proportionately fewer. That, of course, is only impression from a hope and my own friends.
Brian, I second your love of Frank Church's postings. As the resident right-winger, it is a joy that I am able to point to him as one of those 'make believe' leftist extremists that everyone thinks I am imagining (hey, if communism can be make believe, so can he).
Frank, the phrase is 'could have'....could HAVE, should HAVE, would HAVE....not 'OF'. I typo as much as the next guy, probably more, but you misuse this OF instead of HAVE with consistency.........if you want to have your, ahem, logical arguments sound intelligent, learn your HAVEs and while your at it watch out for your apostrophes when you mean plural (it would be apostrophes, not apostrophe's).
Ciao. -TODD
Nice discussion on the most fascinating film ever made. I'm loving it!
I recently heard from someone who saw 2001 for the first time. He hated it and particularly hated the ending. "They don't even explain anything!" was his lament.
Setting aside the provincial, almost childish demand that a movie "explain" something to you, there is perhaps some validity to the complaint, at least on a superficial level.
Just what the hell is the "Starchild" supposed to be?
My contention is that there is no Starchild of any kind. Kubrick couldn't just put up a title card explaining what happened - he had to choose an image for his film. Yet how could he? He was trying to show us a man advanced to the next stage of evolution. And just as two-dimensional beings would be utterly incapable of even conceptualizing three-dimensional people like us, there is no way - simply no way - any of us, including Kubrick, could ever wrap our minds around what the next stage of evolution might really be.
So we get an image that our tool-using hairless monkey brains can process. One that provides us a recognizable metaphor - an embryo to represent rebirth. Outerspace to represent the cosmic scale of it all. Dave himself only cobbles together the White Room images so his own brain can make at least some sense out of his metamorphosis. Thus the so-called Starchild is the final image of 2001. Just because it's the best way primitives like us can understand the next stage.
Also, I would like to point out that the cut from the primitive human throwing the bone in the air to the space station is the single most brilliant cut in film history. Has anyone ever conveyed so much information with such economy on film? In one cut, less than a second of film, the message is delivered "Absolutely nothing of any particular significance has happened to humanity from the time the first man picked up a tool until today."
Wow! How could anyone ever have figured out a way to show that idea - that pure idea - on film? That's art. That's genius.
Also, I didn't really get 2001 the first time I saw it. It took me a few more viewings plus consulting the written body of work on that film. Someone once told me that you shouldn't have to do that for any film - that it is a weakness of 2001. Nonsense. Don't we need help and research to fully appreciate Shakespeare or Joyce or Melville? Why not the same for a great film?
P.A.,
I'm 'go' on your cheesy a la Spielberg spin. I put him and Scott in a common group not in the context of quality but of what defines an artist versus a craftsman. Harlan once submitted a perspective on these categories which I share, with perhaps my own slant (as an artist myself - still evolving, of course; I claim no expertise on anything - AND one who's studied film for a long time I can relate to it; and Harlan's opinion on film is one of great merit, whatever disagreements we may find - I still have some confidence in my own views even as I learn - as he's been a part of the industry himself for decades): that there is the minute handful of directors deserving of the designation 'artist' - worthy of the label 'auteur' - one with his own consistent vision and style, his own language, driven by an uncompromising passion and world view (people like Altman, Kubrick, Coppola, Scorcese, Resnais, Bunuel, Lang, Hitchcock, Fellini, Kurosawa, and so on); the rest are directors of varied ability. Both Scott and Spielberg are among the latter. That's what I meant.
I do like some of Scott's stuff - frankly, he's a problematic director - but I DETESTED 'Legend'; absolutely bored the shit out of me. If you want to see the right way to handle that kind of material take a look at Cocteau (Beauty and the Beast). Assuming you haven't.
Jim,
You're entitled to Altman; his is a language that doesn't connect with me like certain other directors (he's into repertoire, like Cassavetes, which is generally not the way I like to go; but I'll never deny his artistry, his style and his vision). But a wide range of genres is not what makes a great director. "Artists" are obssessed people, so, whether in the form of theme or genre, a strong recurring element will always appear. People like Scorcese or Hitchcock explored and revisited in their own ways the things that haunted them most. So you can't use any true gauge by which to measure their work. Each work stands on its own merit, each reaching different people in different ways. That's why Kubrick is one of the greatest, not by the frivolous issue of numbers on a "resume" but by the power of the work itself.
Another director, incidentally, who SHARED Altman's preference for genre-shifting was Billy Wilder; Wilder once received praise from the most enviable source around: Hitchcock said of him (at the time 'Double Indemnity' came out), "the two most important words in cinema today are Billy Wilder."
I gotta tell ya, I don't give a shit about critics - whether we're talking Pauline Kale or Ebert; if I were a director and I received accolades from the likes of Hitchcock or Scorcese I'd be high as a coke addict.
Faisal,
Where in all the universe did you ever find 'Fear and Desire'? MY understanding is Kubrick did his best to prevent its viewing to avoid embarrassment - as it was basically a "student" film. But I don't give a shit; I've ALWAYS wanted to see it. It was our first look at the existentialist themes that would recur throughout his career. And it was his learning turf (he'd looped the entire soundtrack; an error that doubled his paltry budget and taught him a painful lesson).
I'm beginning to love Frank Church's comments-- especially his claim that Communism was a "made up bad guy brought to us by our Military rulers." Always nice to be reminded that there really _is_ a comic-book leftism out there, that really _does_ live up to the caricatures circulated by right-wingers.
Okay, now for _2001_. I'm amazed that people are saying that its ideas were hackneyed and cliched. I presume that, for these people the works of Arthur C. Clarke are equally hackneyed? That the works of Olaf Stapleton-- which _2001_ closely resembles, in its perspective on the human race-- are rubbish on the level of the Power Rangers?
_2001_ was, most consciously, an attempt to forge a mythology for the Space Age. The story could just as easily be told in a classical framework: "In eons past, the God gave Men fabulous gifts that enabled us to build our societies. They left behind a token for men to find, so that one day, when they were ready, they might travel to the realm of the Gods. A wise king finds this token, and sends his bravest heroes on a dangerous quest to travel to the realm of the Gods. Although they overcome terrific dangers (including, oddly enough, a powerful one-eyed creature), only one survives. He is then transformed by the Gods, and returns to share this transformation with mankind." Hell, Ray Harryhausen could have made a dandy picture out of that: Kubrick and Clarke were consulting Joseph Campbell long before George Lucas made it a standard screenwriter's template.
And the approach Kubrick took in telling this story was genuinely radical. The _Dawn of Man_ sequence is a marvel of pure cinematic storytelling. It establishes the daily life of early man. It shows the dangers, the daily diet, even the tribal rivalries. And with the simple device of that monolith-- which, by the way, could be regarded as being _solely_ symbolic, a three-dimensional equivalent of a black rectangle hiding the Absolute Unknown-- Kubrick _shows_ us the dawning of human intelligence.
Heywood Floyd's travel to the Moon is another daring departure from our expectations. Space travel has become routine, so Kubrick shows us _how_ routine it is-- the bland food, the check-in process, the cocooned lifestyle. And Floyd himself is no "movie scientist." He behaves as a _real_ scientist in his position would; he's a bureaucrat, more at home budgeting projects and keeping order among the rank-and-file.
By the time we've reached the _Discovery_, Kubrick's managed to ease us into a new way of watching cinema. He's established how zero-gee makes hash of our notions of space, and now, he frames his shots from very unconventional angles-- but they now seem _natural_ to us. (Pay attention to how he frames Poole and Bowman at the dinner table-- the camera must have been pinned to the wall and mounted sideways.) Things like this make _2001_ the primarily _visual_ experience that it is. There is a story, and a fine one at that, but the film attemppts to give its audience a taste of how space will alter the way we see things.
The battle with HAL may seem slow, drawn-out, and distant... but that really is the way it would be. The EVA trips would be slow because they would be _maddeningly careful_. Shutting down HAL wouldn't be a matter of yanking plugs or confounding him with illogic; it'd be a careful process of selectively removing particular functions. And look at the way Kubrick confounds our expectations of drama; the murders of four men are coldly technological, but that of a machine is bizarre and affecting.
The final sequence returns us once again to pure cinema. We're overwhelmed with a dazzling display of new images, landscapes that seem only vaguely familiar, new phenomena that cannot be understood. The film places the _audience_ in Bowman's eyes-- in a sense, it's the precursor to all those movie-rides Doug Trumbull's been building at Universal Studios' theme park. And really, has there ever been a movie moment so astonishing as that first look at the hotel room?
Whenever I hear from people who dislike 2001, I tend to hear the same things. The people who find it dull, slow-moving, and unexciting seem to expect it to be more of a George Lucas spectacular-- it's not much different from complaining that _Citizen Kane_ isn't in color. The people who affect disdain for its "hackneyed" ideas are sort of in the same boat: _2001_ established a style for conveying the ineffable on film, and we've had thirty years of people trying the same tricks for lesser goals. (It's always amusing to ask them for ideas that _aren't_ hackneyed. Jeezus, after 10,000 of recorded history, find me an idea that _isn't_ old in some way.)
Sure, there are intelligent people who disliked the film. I remember reading Lester del Rey's review, and thinking that he _must_ have wanted a big-budget version of a John W. Campbell story. It was sort of like reading Martin Gardner's review of _The Last Temptation of Christ_-- he dismissed it as cheap sensationalism. When this happens, I get the sense that they had some idea of what it _should_ have been, and got angry that it turned out to be something new under the sun. (Or, in this case, _near_ the Sun.)
_2001_ was made with the highest intelligence ever brought to film, and it attempted to make a statement about Mankind as a _species_ without recourse to cheap sentiment or religious fable. It's shaped the way we look at space, technology, and our future, for now we use it as a reference point against our actual progress. It's expanded what was possible in motion pictures-- not just in special effects, but in editing, storytelling, and the creation of experience. _2001_ really is one of the great works of art of the 20th century.
Stuck at work tonight. I hope the BBC issues IHNMAIMS on CD someday since I missed the crackly audio and desire a broadcast quality version.
Rob, I may not agree as passionately about 2001, but I was one of those guys who didn't get it at first, but the first time I saw it in stereo on a big screen (sadly not a theater screen) I GOT IT BIG TIME. It was like a symphony and the direction and editing made it so...beautiful. It remains one of my top ten films of all time (no I won't print another list)
Wish I could say the same abut 2010...what a hunk of week old dogshit.
Chris,
In a WAY 2001 IS about acting.
I once had a friend who also misused the word and concept of "wooden acting". The term refers to the kind of thing you find in an Irwin Allen movie, where no one CARES about the acting and no purpose or emphasis on character or character CHANGE exists.
In 2001, every move and course the actors make were deliberate and calculated. Specific effects were behind every decision.
In this case, the film had two main characters: the human race and HAL. Bowman and Poole were isolated specimens in the lonely isolated wastes of space. The Discovery itself like an organism (hence it assumes the look of a brain and spinal chord). The two astronauts are the equivalent of janitors broken from the cradle; they've become more like machines, hence they're void of emotion. HAL is intentionally the only "human" there capable of the emotional weaknesses the astronauts left behind.
EVERY fucking detail and theme in this movie is brilliantly thought out and any one who disposes of it - I mean that literally - ANYONE - is the type who'd have had a problem figuring out Picasso when he first came on the scene; for the narrative approach in 2001 was taken to a new level in movies, wherein, as Kubrick said, you must disconnect your thoughts and "feel" the images to follow it.
No question about it, as you said, anyone laying on the addle-brained, myopic comments you just cited DIDN'T GET IT.
One more thing: the film holds up remarkably well today BECAUSE of its ambiguous, metaphoric approach and its brilliant cold, ironic imagery; watch the lame sequel by Peter Hyams, 2010, sometime and look how badly and how QUICKLY it's dated...BECAUSE it literalizes the text. My girlfriend and I once saw the two back-to-back (not by plan) and noted how ironic it was when the sequel, in its access to CGI, looked inferior to the original and seemed so puerile in its text (with an occasional redeeming element here and there when cited on its own terms; she liked the Russians and Americans working-together theme. But like that theme was really new turf, right? On the whole we both shook our heads).
Bermanator, the BBC apparently cant replay dramas. Its in the fine print to the side of the Listen to Again page;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml
Gunther, sorry for the mistake with your name.
Kerry
Dumb question: how do I listen to I Have No Mouth again? I searched the BBC4 website and I couldn't find it. Help for the inept?
Thanks,
Bermanator
Communism being a concern in the 50's is a laughable artiface. Communism is a made up bad guy brought to us by our Military rulers to make money for defense contractors and moneyed interest of many stripes. Communism was not mushrooming into our society, but religious fascism and political intolerance was. Most of the people who were called Commies were Jews. Anyone at the time who believed in leftist ideas could of been labeled a Communist. The actual Communist party in America had so few members they had trouble finding a hall small enough for their meetings. Communist domino's are a mirage. Truman was a snake who built a war economy on fear--fear of dissent. This Communist talk is worthless. American Imperialism is the real bad guy. Just ask the victoms?
The mere fact that someone would critique 2001 primarily on the basis of plot or "wooden acting" suggests that the would-be critic simply didn't get it at all.
2001 isn't concerned with character. It is a film about ideas.
The man actually managed to film evolution. How the hell do you do that? It's fucking genius though I do understand if some people don't like the glacial pacing.
The people in 2001 do not matter. Not one whit. They are, um, just bags of meat. :) And part of what we're supposed to understand about the human race in general is that we've just about reached the end of the tool-using phase of our evolution. We are at a dead-end, stale and rotting until we can make the next leap. For the characters to seem anything other than "wooden" would have undermined that idea.
And that's not even getting into the fact that this is a movie, not a book and a discussion of a film should never stop at the mere plot level. The look, the music, the editing. This is a masterpiece and, IMHO, a serious candidate for the best film ever made.
Film is an inherently emotional medium and Kubrick made an almost purely intellectual movie. That's off-putting to some people. But, as Roger Ebert has said, great movies aren't for everybody. Only bad movies are. That's what makes them so bad.
Oh Christ, Meat. Do you have life insurance? You poor bastard, you have no idea what a hornets' nest you've just stuck your shnozz in. "A screaming comes across the sky...as Rob swoops down to eviscerate the Kubrick infidel."
Turn away, folks. It's gonna be ugly.
Oh, oh, I think I've irked a Monolith Man...
Sorry, Rob, but I rank "2001" as one of Kubrick's worst. To me, it's an almalgamation of hackneyed sf concepts that have been around since the late 30's, the poorest wooden acting by Keir Dullea, and Gary Lockwood (Hal outacted them both), and holes in the plot you could drive Discovery, the Enterprise and the Death Star through abreast of each other.
As to IHNM, well, had to miss it, but I'm told you can hear previously aired broadcasts. Sounds like it was soundly enjoyed. It's a good thing I've got a cable internet hookup.
I didn't get my smarts from an oversized black cutting board, I got mine from books, says a proud Bag of Meat.
How interesting that I log on immediately after watching Jeopardy to see the first few postings about I Have No Mouth...
Not that it's shocking to see that on HE board but because Harlan and I Have No Mouth was just a question on tonight's Jeopardy in the "Science Fiction" category.
Of course, it's depressing that they (all three contestants) didn't get the answer but makes sense since they missed 3 of the 5 "Science Fiction" questions, 3 of the 50 "70's Movies" questions and almost half the questions overall in Double Jeopardy, so many that they ran out of time with 6 questions still left on the board. I'm sure any Jeopardy contestants (outside of Celebrity Jeopardy) are smart but this had to be the least culturally aware group I have ever seen.
Anyway, for those of you not on the East Coast, you might still be able to catch Jeopardy tonight and get the HE question right.
As for the I Have No Mouth... game, I bought it a while back but I have never been able to get the sound to work. I installed a half dozen times and even brought over a real live geek to help me to get it to work to no avail so, unfortunately, it sits on my shelf, mostly unused. I do, however, have and use the I Have No Mouth... mousepad.
-chris
Hey, who here has played Harlan's I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream PC game? I bought it hot off the shelf years ago and played about half of it. Not that I lost interest, but I lose interest in ALL computer games. The wife is a major domo gamester, which is why I bought her a Playstation (and subsequently Playstation 2) just to keep her off my goddamn computer all the time. Me? I occasionally get in the mood to shoot at monsters and evildoers when I'm blowing off steam, so I have had some of those Doom/Quake-type games loaded onto my PC for that once a month 10 minutes of violence.
Anyway, I just came across my IHNMAIMS software and I think I'll load it onto this PC (instead of that old clunker that was top of the line for about 10 minutes in 1997).....so, who here has played it and how did you like it? Though I am not a gamer in the least, I found it fun while I had the patience to waste time back then....but the wife (lover of Harlan speaking engagements, evil witch who has never read a word from his pen) did not find it interesting due to her high-graphic-action needs.
I don't need the action, I just wonder if I should just read another book instead.
-TODD
Excellent adaptation of "I Have No Mouth..." Was I the only one who got a chill up the spine, when David Soul tried to scream through shut lips at the end? I almost didn't recognize you, Harlan--good vocal control on your part, and a more emotional take on AM than I've always imagined.
I'm the one who suggested that Scorcese lacked range. I was being slightly facetious, of course--the man has directed several films outside of the criminal/psychotic milieu, and directed them very well. The man is a pro, and the kinetic energy of his style is apparent in even the relatively staid settings of KUNDUN and THE AGE OF INNOCENCE. (And I'd like to state, for the record, that MEAN STREETS is one of my ab-so-loot favorite films of all time--I couldn't even tell you how many times I've seen it, and if it's possible to wear out the DVD, then I'm the chap who will do it.)
But compared to Altman...well, look at his resume. He's tackled so many genres, among them: War (MASH, STREAMERS), Westerns (McCABE AND MRS. MILLER, BUFFALO BILL), Horror (IMAGES, 3 WOMEN), Mysteries both hardboiled and traditional (GOSFORD PARK, THE LONG GOODBYE, COOKIES FORTUNE, THE PLAYER), Musicals (POPEYE, NASHVILLE), and Social Satire (SHORT CUTS, NASHVILLE, THE PLAYER, HEALTH, etc.) The man is fearless, always questing, never satisfied with past successes. What can I say? He's my favorite director, and his films are alive in a way that exposes most American movies for the prefab Disneyland rides that they really are.
See, Rob? I can be just as fanatical as you.
Kubrick:
Blatant name dropping time given me and Brian first met on AMK, which used to be a great pool of Kubrick appreciation a few years ago. Some facts about myself:
1. I have seen everything that Kubrick has done including Fear & Desire and The Seafarers before K's death.
2. I was asked to work on and got a very nice credit on the Flying Padre documentary 'Stanley & Us', an eight hour magnus opus doco on SK. I helped out in arranging contacts with SK collarborators who I still keep in touch with. I was credited as 'Collaborator' (No Kazan jokes fellahs), which is a nice European title. Much like 'Montage' which has a much nicer ring to it than being a plain 'Editor'.
(The IMDB has me incorrectly listed as Asst. Director, which I certainly was not).
3. We were invited to SK's estate where we interviewed members of the family.
4. I am currently working on a book chapter looking at SK and A Clockwork Orange with interviews, again, with his colleagues.
Nuff said.
On ranking directors:
I have found this technique somewhat dubious. Yes there are some directors that do elevate films that should identify them as projects which could not be done without them, but good films should count more than good directors. This approach also ignores the immense contributions from other creative people that can lift a film from excreable mess to a decent creature. Screenwriters, Editors and other people can make movies that the director can then take primary credit for (Actually, this can also be blamed upon the marketing of a film, who wants to watch a film because Anne V. Coates edited it... apart from me).
Kubrick is a great film maker, he's talented enough so that many of his films don't stink. Same with Cronenberg,Scorcese, etc. but what about appreciating the skills of other directors who worked without making any attempt to autuer status. For example, I think John Badham is very good with performance and casting (i.e. Stakeout, Blue Thunder) while Richard Fleischer has also showed quite neat visual flair in some of his films (i.e. Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Sea, Soylent Green). Yes, they've also made junk but their talent should be appreciated rather than being written off as being hack work.
BTW - To those who subscribe that the director is the sole creative force behind any films. I normally tell them the saga of two multi-award winning and finacially successful films that were saved mainly due to the Producer/Editor/writer stepping in to take control. I am not going to name them in a public forum but the directors were the one who took the bows for work done because of someone else realised where the material could go and make a better film all around.
FAQ
Rob: No way is Ridley Scott as cheesy as Spielberg. I am a big old Scott fan, as far back as Legend. I liked Legend. Go ahead, mock away. IMO, Mr. Scott has shown range and consistently entertains me; at least 3 of his movies would rank as all-time favorites.
Side note: while on imdb looking up Scott's career, I noticed that he is exec producer on a new movie called Red Dragon, based on the first book in the Hannibal Lector trilogy and by far the best-- probably the scariest horror novel I've ever read. Edward Norton is playing Will Graham. This could be very good; it has to be better than the first version, Manhunter (though Tom Noonan is a very cool person).
What I remember about Popeye: lots of shots of feet. Robert Altman can be great but is of erratic quality and definitely not in the class of Scorsese, who is my favorite living director and can take the Pepsi challenge with anyone.
What the hell happened to Quentin Tarantino? No facetious replies, please.
Bermanator
never gets too much done on snow days
Gunter, sorry to hear about your diconnection. My little modem brought down the whole show.
Once again Im facinated by the writer reading his own words, and how much they differ from my interpretation of them. I found Harlans reading of AM to be more emotional than I had imagined the computer to be.
Enjoyed the show.
Kerry
Hate. Let me tell you how much I've come to hate RealPlayer. There are 387.44 million miles of printed circuits in wafer thin layers that fill AM's complex. If the word HATE was engraved on each nanoangstrom of those hundreds of millions of miles it would not equal one one-billionth of the hate I feel for RealPlayer at this micro-instant.
Of course I got disconnected right in the middle of the program. Whoever invented streaming audio should be dragged out and shot.
You blasphemous wad of Canadian bacon...
Your remarks about 2001 are right out of the crapper.
Utterly absurd.
Rob, The Most Dangerous Kubrick Fan Ever To Walk The Earth
S'ok man, pick away. Thanks for the correction.
A imperfect Bag of Meat
For whoever asked, the broadcast has a 30 minute time slot. I let you let you draw your own conclusion... ;)
BOM, a minor nit. McCarthy was a cheesehead, not from Minnesota.
Chris L. & Brian:
This is to inform you both, and Faisal, along with any others who might care that I do not like Kubrick as much as you do.
Yes I love "Dr. Strangelove", like "Paths to Glory" and "A Clockwork Orange", but am largely ambivalent to most of his other work. Except "2001": Grade C sf, a filler story contained in the back of an "Astounding", circa 1947.
Of course, I looking forward to the pageant to crown "Miss Kubrick Lover"; especially the swimsuit competition. Make sure you're all properly shaved.
Please don't get hokey and dress as the monolith for the evening wear section.
Of course, singing "Singing in The Rain" for the talent portion will get you immediately disqualified.
Bert Parks isn't the secret identity of the Bag of Meat
Brian,
Oh yeah and I forgot to add.
I love Kubrick more than you do. So sit on it, pal.
If you ever needed proof there was no God, I offer Kubrick's death as evidence. Not even the idiot God portrayed in the Bible could be so stupid as to eliminate Stanley Kubrick while there is a perfectly good Michael Bay or Renny Harlin just sitting around, waiting to be fucking snuffed.
Brian,
Actually, I was responding to someone else who said Scorsese didn't have enough range. I think there's _something_ to that sentiment but not too much. I had mentioned Age of Innocence as a counter of point and could just as easily have mentioned Last Temptation of Christ. And I agree with your assessment of that film - it is a masterpiece. Likewise, I agree with everything else you say about Scorsese - he is a master and my pick for greatest living director.
Coupla things. Another aspect of awfulness re HUAC and the blacklist was the way it eroded even the efforts of some of the best. At the time, a number of actors organized to fight HUAC; some of these stalwarts included Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Danny Kaye, and Edward G. Robinson. Sadly, a few years later, many of these actors actually renounced this moment of integrity by saying they were duped by Commies. It hurts my gut to learn that Bogart was among those who issued career-saving apologias.
In times of torment-- to borrow I.F. Stone's phrase, about another era-- it's hard to find people who are as sterling as we'd want them to be. Budd Schulberg was one of the best screenwriters who ever ran a typewriter, and he's done a lot of good political work as well. (Schulberg ran a writer's workshop in Watts in the 1960s. Believe it or not, Spike Lee didn't know about this when he dedicated _Bamboozled_ to Schulberg.) But, he named names and helped Kazan with his whitewash. Kazan's remembered at least as much for his duplicity in front of HUAC as he is for his films... but with figures such as Walt Disney, Ronald Reagan, and even John Wayne, people tend to think of their film work first, and their HUAC-friendliness is just a footnote.
Someone mentioned the film _The Front_ as a nice film resource to check out on the blacklist. It is, and not just as a drama. It was _made_ by blacklisted artists-- screenwriter Walter Bernstein, director Martin Ritt, and actors Zero Mostel and Herschel Bernardi.
I'd like to mention that, as far as Kubrick goes, Faisal and I stand foremost in our admiration for his work. He and I have agreed that neither of us surpasses the other, so as to keep the peace. (And if either of us tries to do better, the other will spill the beans about Stanley's cryogenic sarcophagus in St. Albans.) But we are unsurpassed on this board. So There. Nyaah.
I won't comment on _Popeye_ because I liked it.
Chris, I gotta wonder _how_ you could say that Martin Scorsese doesn't have much of a range-- unless you believe that films about 20th century urban lowlifes constitutes a really restrictive "range." Sure, he does a lot of films that fit that vague description. But when he goes outside of that, he's _still_ one of the finest filmmakers alive. You've mentioned _The Age of Innocence_ and _Kundun_, but _The Last Temptation of Christ_ is one of the finest, most heartfelt, intelligent and amazing films I've ever seen.
Quick question re: the BBC's "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream": How long is the program. I ask because I'm scheduled to go to a rehearsal from 6--8 PM (EST), but I'd like to hear the show. I can probably get away with going to rehearsal around (or shortly after 7).
Also: Is there any way to record an Internet broadcast for future (personal) use?
(Hey, PA! Happy snow day! Even Ithaca College was closed until noon today which meant that I missed my arranging class. For me, that's good since I didn't get around to the homework!)
Rob said:
**Up till now, more often than not, I found little to agree with you on in film. **
That's OK, Rob, you're learning. One day, you'll get there. :)
Whenever asked who my favorite director is, I say Stanley Kubrick without hesitation. Unless you count Killer's Kiss, for me, the only question about each Kubrick film is whether it's very, very good or one of the greatest films ever made. He never did anything else. Even the somewhat forgotten _The Killing_ is, IMHO, a magnificent film.
On the other hand, when people ask me who the greatest director ever was, I don't know if I can answer Kubrick or not. On a "per pound" basis, yes. But Kubrick's body of work is small relative to other greats like Billy Wilder, Federico Fellini, Akira Kurosawa, Robert Altman and Martin Scorsese. How much should it "count against" him? I dunno.
Of the younger filmmakers still not even at the halfway point (we hope) of their careers, I think the Coen Brothers are the most interesting though I think I've read some less than enthusiastic commens from Harlan about them in the past, unless it was just Fargo he didn't like. They're my favorite of the younger crowd. Of the really young (at least in career terms), the directors I am most closely monitoring are M. Night Shyamalan, Wes Anderson, P.T. Anderson, Darren Aronofsky and, to a lesser degree than the others, Todd Solondz.
I admit to a strongly American bias in contemporary film. I just don't get to see many of the new foreign releases.
Alex:
My thanks for your clarity, and correction for me. It's important to get the facts with this.
I hope you're bearing up with your recent misfortune. Again, my sympathies, to both you and Brian.
I do loathe Kazan, and cannot speak enough of his cowardice. A pity the name Quisling has become a word defining venal traitorism. Kazan would've worked perfectly as the noun.
BoM
Found a comprehensive website on HUAC and the Hollywood 10:
http://www.hollywood10.com/
It has transcripts of testimony (including Herr Reagan), historical overviews, and the names of those who were blacklisted.
R.Wilder
...and to be fair...
The last time I saw _Popeye_ was less than a year ago.
The comparison of Coppola's Apoc vs. Altman's Popeye??? At least, Coppola went over budget and got it done. I was just responding to the idea that Altman would give up and accept an inferior product just because he didn't have the time or money to do it. I also said I hoped that wasn't the case given the skill of the director. I tend to agree that there was a point to keeping the Octopussy comical, I just didn't think it worked.
And I don't WANT to sit through Popeye again, especially not to listen to Olive Oyl musical numbers.
There are folks who will debate endlessly the secret and powerful genius within "Titus Andronicus" because it's part of a great body of work. Perhaps it does succeed on a different level beyond my humble perception, but it just seems like we'd be viewing it differently had it been directed by someone like Jeremy Heinbergh.
Yours in great respect.
Jay
I know this is a paraphrase, but...
From Robin Williams' stand-up circa 1982, 1983? from his "Robin Williams Has a Son" routine.
Robin: I was Mork from Ork, nanunanu...Mork was good for me, got us this house...I was Popeye. Popeye was....was...
Robin's "son": Popeye wasn't good for nobody.
Robin: You're right.
Meat--While Joe McCarthy was indeed a villain of the worst water, he was not the villain of HUAC. HUAC predated him. As Harlan notes, the rancid J. Parnell Thomas led HUAC into its excesses and abuses. Ironically, he eventually went to prison himself, for a more monetary type of corruption, and served time alongside some of his Hollywood Ten victims.
Would we all have the courage of Ring Lardner Jr., who refused to answer the questions, saying he'd "hate myself in the morning" if he did? Surely not. Some of us would cave. But I would hope that even those of us who did shiver in that wind would have the decency not to make a cause, a glory, a pride of our craven collaboration as Kazan did. He felt no shame. He made himself out a hero, and was feted as one. And he supped with his masters while pretending to be a man. As you note, many broke, but how many pretended to be stronger for it?
For a good overview of the entire blacklist era, I'd like to add a further recommendation to Harlan's: NAMING NAMES by Navasky.
On Popeye, I liked it a bit, but didn't love it--and that, methinks, is my own fault. The problem is my love for the strip is so strong that no film could have lived up to my hopes. I'm no fan of Fantagraphics publishing--we all know who runs it--but their Complete Segar Popeye is a wonderful accomplishment all the same. Now let's all have a duck dinner.
You bring the duck.
--alex
Viande Bag:
""High Noon" does resonate with the sentiments of courage in the face of a creeping evil, and as both film and political allegory"
Well, of course, remember who MADE the film: Stanley Kramer. One of the brightest beacons in film history.
Chris,
Remarkably, we see eye-to-eye now on TWO subjects: Atheism and Kubrick (almost synonymous). Up till now, more often than not, I found little to agree with you on in film. One obvious point, though: Kubrick is not among the greatest "LIVING" directors. He is among the greatest, now, like Hitchcock, lying in a grave and in our hearts and passions.
Feel like I'm back in grade school again: we've got near white out conditions here, and all government buiding were closed. Gods, what fun coming home. Fortunately I've one of the 4X4s that can actually handle adverse conditions.
Well, the Ellison incendiaries did their job; hoping the casualty list here is few.
Well, on the matter of one "Popeye", it's nice to see that even Mr. Ellison can be so overcome with sentimentality that his judgement of a film can be so badly skewed. The Mrs. suggested however, that it might be my lack of sentiment over a rotten childhood deprived of the joys of fantasy and its enjoyment coupled to the necessity of pragmatism to keep on moving that might be the problem.
Of course, it's my post, so Mr. Ellison's wrong.
To Mr E., re Kazan: On the whole, I do agree with you on this individual. His is one of the most venal types, and yes I would be the first to join you in the 1st Annual "Piss on Kazan's Grave" Beer Blasting Blues Festival and Barbeque. (Corona, apparently, has a slightly acidic quality in the urine it produces, or so I'm told.) Sir, that's how I feel as a person.
His venality doesn't stem as much from his intial actions before HUAC, but his defense of his acts. In all fairness, there were a great many who gave names, not out of some perverse lie of patriotism that Kazan has used as rationale for his scurrilous act, but out of fear. Kazan was a Judas who felt he could justify his betrayal with a weak excuse, and that makes me even more hateful of him.
You seem to render Cooper as some icon or redemption, if I've read correctly, when in fact he was as most was: a man, terrified of losing his career, of the possiblity of being banished to oblivion for the crime of having a divergent opinion from Mr. McCarthy, Cohn, et al.
To borrow from your comment the example of the grenade: how many, faced with the fear of having their livelihood, their existence essentially erased could throw themselves on the grenade, in the act of courage and self-sacrifice? It would be wonderful to think that any and all would rise to defend their rights; too often we are shown otherwise. These aren't cowards, Mr. Ellison, just human beings, who in the face of hysteria sometimes cannot find the courage to fight.
In my own circumstance, I wonder what I might do, knowing my family's future was placed in that degree of peril. I couldn't say in all honesty that I could stand so resolute against the hysteria in something that, based on my readings, would leave me feeling as King Canute standing before the waves.
Note: as I revise this, the Mrs tells me that I would fight; she notes that I've been well trained to resist that which I disagree with.
"High Noon" does resonate with the sentiments of courage in the face of a creeping evil, and as both film and political allegory it works well. But, it has the convenience of being made AFTER the HUAC hearings feel apart, as was "On The Waterfront", when the dust had settled.
What infuriates me is the reaction to HUAC by your government, both at the time of the hearings, and afterward. The bland, deferential leadership(?) of Eisenhower, who looked the other way as the junior Senator of Minnesota began to rip apart the right of Americans to differ with their political systems, was nothing less than reprehensible. Moreso, only when Ike's beloved military came under HUAC scrutiny did the administration and Congress begin to push for McCarthy's censure.
Then, once the storm had passed, government did nothing to redress those who were victims, in either clearing their names, or compensation for their suffering. HUAC was ended, and everything swept up nice and neat. Never, by anyone, has there been demands to investigate how HUAC was handled, and whether or not any of those branded were even guilty of any of the actions they were accused of.
I don't know if any good could come of it, but I would like to see this reopened, if anything to find the innocent who were essentially convicted by what I consider to ahve been truly a kangaroo court, and compensate those who were forced to a shadow existence by panic and fear.
BoM
I had NO notion - no idea at all - that BUDD SCHULBERG was some sell-out (by way of his involvement with 'On The Waterfront'). Author of the fantabulous 'What Makes Sammy Run?' and 'A Face In The Crowd'. I'd enjoyed the hell out of his writing, which often focused on victimization of Jews. He had been assaulted by right-wing Cro-Magnons like John Wayne for being a "commie". That's why I'm utterly stunned. I read quite a bit about Kazan and scorned him invariably for what he did (and I remember how lame Maher was being on the subject that night on PI); but Schulberg I'll have to do a little research on. VERY disappointing if true.
On to Altman: POPEYE creaked for me when I saw it. Sometime I'll give it another run; I doubt there will be any epiphany waiting for me in the limp ending though. We'll see: I've had a change of heart about some films before. Never saw 'Health'. And '3 Women' I really ought to see in its entirety. It's SUPPOSED to be quite remarkable. And I love the Pirandello comparison to Brewster, a film I dug to the nth.
...I need to read Pirandello.
Jim,
Dude: if you're to name him your crowning favorite at least put Altman in the right company. Coppola, yes. Scorcese, yes. Spielberg belongs in the same ballpark as Ridley Scott or Cameron; he's a sell-out interested in making the bucks. He does not have the artistic eccentricities or angsts or depth of an Altman or a Fellini or a Kubrick. Thus, to draw some comparison between him and Altman is inappropriate; think of it as comparing vertebrate to invertebrate.
Oh, P.A.:
I done thought you'd already run FP. I wouldn't have spun my precis if I'd understood you hadn't.
The greatest living director is Stanley Kubrick. Don't tell me you bozos actually fell for all that "he's dead" crap. He just wanted to go into total seclusion to work on his masterpiece that will make even 2001 and A Clockwork Orange look like Joel Schumacher's bad dreams.
(A guy can hope)
Personally, I would definitely place Scorsese above Altman. But I guess it's silly to rank the great directors. Altman has made too many stinkers. I don't think Scorsese has ever made a bad movie. King of Comedy and Kundun are mediocre but not bad. As for range, he hasn't often ventured far afield but his Age of Innocence is magnificent. Taxi Driver, Raging Bull - yeah, I gotta go with Scorsese.
Last I checkes, Jules Dassin had yet to shuffle off this mortal coil even though he doesn't make films anymore. Perhaps he can't _quite_ be called great but how about pretty damn good? If you haven't seen Rififi, you don't know film noir.
Oh, and to whomever was complaining about Shelley Duvall's performance in "Popeye:" try watching it again and look how she sings the song "He's Large." Just the perfect amount of nuance as she desperately tries to come up with some sort of compliment for Bluto. Good writing, good performance.
That said, I've never been a fan of...er...you know, the hamburger dude. Steals Sweat Pea to go gambling. He's like an aching tooth in the movie - never that bad, but a little bit of an irritant.
The octopus, on the other hand, is funny. Silly as hell, and I think that would have been lost if it was a Jaws-level effect.
Regards,
Joseph
P.S. to Chris: Sorry if I misunderstood your post on Nashville. Myself, I respect and LOVE "Nashville."
Give the Man a Segar:
Jay Smith: Oh, come on. Using your budgetary analysis of directing, is Coppola a bad director because he went over budget and over time on *Apocalypse Now* or a good director because the studio kept sending more money? I'm not sure of the entire story about the *Popeye* budget, but I wouldn't bet against the elements screwing up the filming (and eating up the budget), as I think the set was constructed on-site somewhere. Malta, maybe?
Popeye did fight an octopus in the *Thimble Theatre* strip back in the 20s/30s -- it's referred to in Bud Sagendorf's wonderful illustrated history of Popeye as one of the one-eyed sailor's finest battles, and I assume that Altman and Feiffer (who wrote the screenplay, unless I've lost 5% of my brain) knew that. But yes, it is cheesy. So is the Joker's plunge from the top of the building at the end of *Batman*, and in a movie with that budget, I find that a lot sloppier and stranger than that poor old maligned octopus that everyone's so darned mad at.
The poor octopus. Such a dreamer. And so gentle and kind-hearted. Condemned now to extra status in *Temptation Island III: Marooned on the Moons of Jupiter* and *Survivor IV: At the Mountains of Madness* because of that early critical revilement.
And the winner of the tribal council is...the shuggoth! Was there ever any doubt?
Marlon Brando as Wimpy...now that would be cool.
Hey, I think *Dick Tracy* works pretty well too, even though I disliked it when I was a callow youth. Sure, it squanders villains in throwaway roles like a Joel Schumacher Batman movie on speed, but Beatty probably figured that there'd never be a sequel anyway. And the look of the film is fantastic and 'true' to Gould's strip, although I would have liked to see the prosthetic face make-up used on Beatty as well -- apparently he pondered doing so.
PAB: Have you read *The Painted Bird*? Heck, I'd also recommend either *Slaughterhouse Five* or *Mother Night* as being readily accessible to early grade high school students, but I may be whacked out myself here (or inviting parental wrath, I dunno).
Heather: Check out the novels of Tim Powers -- *The Anubis Gates*, *Last Call*, *Earthquake Weather*, *Expiration Date*, *The Stress of Her Regard* and *On Stranger Tides* are all nourishing, non-Tolkienesque fare. One caveat -- read *Last Call*, *Expiration Date* and *Earthquake Weather* in that order, as they form a loose-knit, non-Tolkienesque trilogy of stand-alone novels that also stand together.
James Joyce: It's a snow day, which means "The Dead" is in order. Maybe the greatest short story ever written, and with a worthy film adaptation to boot.
J Stover
Frank Church:
You may talk like an idiot and act like an idiot, but don't let that fool you...you reallyARE an idiot. *
You say the US isn't in Afghanistan for reasons of self-defense? HELLO! Are you for real or are you just crappin' us?
* Apologies to Groucho.
Lynn, I visted the Holocaust Museum for the first time last April, and it made a huge impression on me. I too remember the Room of Shoes, and the pile of eyeglasses, and the hair. Also, the boxcar where the people stood on their way to the camps. I imagined I could smell their fear while I stood there.
I was moved, but it was preaching to the choir. The entire Polish Jewish side of my family went to camps on the Warsaw Express to Auschwitz, so it didn't take much to move me to tears. These kids, however, don't get that. They know that the swastika is a bad ass symbol, the jackboots look cool, and what's wrong with being proud to be German? They don't quite understand that Nazism=genocide, and genocide is not cool for humans, even if the bloody trains run on time. One wants to scream, one wants to rant, but ultimately, education with compassion is the only thing that will make a difference here.
The Holocaust Museum has a good website and I just downloaded the book they offer, so thanks for the tip.
On a lighter note, today is a snow day, so I guess I'll probably watch Forbidden Planet soon.
Bermanator
"Popeye: Don't feel like quarreling with any of the negative opinions expressed about Popeye except one -- the octopus. The budget ran out, and Altman had to improvise a climax with the materials available, without further studio support. The crappy *look* of the octopus is hardly an indictment of Altman's skill as a director."
That's like saying, "We couldn't afford to shoot the Death Star blowing up, so we just got a basketball painted it silver and deflated it." If budget problems were the reason they used an inflatable monster for the "money shot" that's not a sign of a good director (or producer, really). My assumption was Altman was going for cartoony camp and intentionally made a silly monster. Given that (looks around for pitchforks and lit torches) ALTMAN IS A GREAT DIRECTOR, I hope that budget mismanagement is not the case. I wasn't expecting Rick Baker, but sheesh...
(At this point Jay looks at the fresh wound on his ass where a cheek used to be and decides its time for a disclaimer) Altman Goooooood. Popeye...sorry, Mr. Ellison. I know my opinion don't mean a tinker's cuss at a tourette's convention, but you could "busk me in da mush" and I'd still feel the same way.
(Gingerly steps over charred landscape) Yep, it looks like Harlan weighed in on the Kazan topic. Any survivors left?
Joseph/Chuck: Thanks. Yeah, maybe my King wasn't ass-kissy enough. I also wondered if I shouldn't have made him randomly blurt out things like, "PANCAKES ARE A WONDERFUL BREAKFAST FOOD!", or "THE GREATEST LIVING ACTOR IS ROBERT GOULET!" But when in doubt, K.I.S.S., after all.
Lynn: (Shudders) The Room Of Shoes had the same effect on me, as well. Amazing how something so pedestrian as FOOTWARE can be used to illuminate such a monumental act of genocide. Chilling, just chilling.
I was also deeply moved by the exhibit on The White Rose organization. To display that kind of courage...to willingly face death to save a culture from self-immolation...there are no words I can write to properly describe the admiration I felt for their bravery and nobility of spirit. I even kissed the photo of Sophie Scholl as I left.
Lynn, I kid you not: I'm actually shaking a little, as I recall that visit. (I guess I feel a kind of kinship to the place. Members of my family were killed by the German Einsatzgruppen in Russia. Also, my mother gave one of the first individual donations towards the construction of the Museum; her name is on a plaque there.)
Chris L: Now, when you say you basically dislike James Joyce, I assume you're referring to his novels. Fair enough, they can be a little trying in places. But have you ever read his short-story collection DUBLINERS? If you haven't, I suggest you give it a looksee. The experimentation is kept to a minimum, and the prose is BEAUTIFUL, the best ever written. It is, simply, the Joyce book for people who don't like Joyce.
Oh, and I didn't think you were letting Kazan off the hook, necessarily. Frank Church, I'm not saying you're stupid, but you do seem to have a simplistic, binary-style penchant for dividing everyone into "Progressive" and "To The Right Of Genghis Khan." Stop it. Things aren't that easy, and you do yourself, and everyone else, a disservice by insisting that they are.
Well, I'm glad to see so many people (Harlan included) giving Altman his due. As for you playa-haters out there, SUCK IT! As loath as I am to indulge in AICN-style hyperbole, I must say: Robert Altman is the greatest living film director, bar none. (Yeah, I said it. You got a problem with that? Name me someone else who can hold the title. Scorcese? Not enough range. Coppola? Peaked too early. Spielberg? Too Hollywood.)
Maybe Big Bob indulges in the wacky-weed a mite too much, but if it spurs his creativity, then good for him. Perhaps film schools everywhere should take his cue, and start stockpiling the Acapulco Gold, as well.
Justin: *Sniff* Our little guy is growing up! WAAAHHHH... (Ain't maturity a bitch? Wait until you start scoring with women--if you think our advice is churning your mind now, you ain't heard nothin' yet, young sir...)
I saw IN THE BEDROOM tonight, by the way. Damned good movie. I liked how it defied my expectations at every turn. It appeared to be a romance film, then a mediation on grief, then a chilling depiction of revenge. I also dug the use of Balkan choral music on the soundtrack--those tangy harmonies provided an eerie counterpoint to the story. Definitely one of the best movies of this past year.
Well, what a couple of days have wrought. Looks like I'm not going to bed for a little while. But, I don't need no friggin' sleep! Not at all! Hahahahahaha!
Jim Davis: I think Altman is a great director. Sometimes he's directed some stinkers, but if you look up a list of stinkers, you'll find scattered in there some of the greatest names in filmmaking. Except Kurosawa. I can't think of a single flat-out stinkburger to his credit. And, I liked Popeye. I'm surprised that there are those here who do as well. Including HE himself. I feel much better now.
Artists and their art: I think Justin showed some brains for watching Altman - not because he caved, but because he respected the opinions of those who encouraged him to take another look at the work of a person he doesn't particularly like. Iiii think Altman's comments on violence in movies were asinine. But, I'm eagerly waiting to see his new film.
I also like the work of Walter Brennan, even though he was a John Bircher. I know this because some relatives of mine (God help me) attended some John Bircher meetings at his ranch house in Montana. Fortunately, these relatives are distant in more ways than one. Unfortunately, they have moved closer to my Grandmother, causing her much vexation. She can more than take care of herself, though. General Patton in a blond wig, as we like to call her. Brennan gave some wonderfully nuanced performances in TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT, and was a wonderful Judge Roy Bean in THE WESTERNER. Pathetic and lonely one moment, menacing the next. And yet, there are those political ads he did for John Schmidtz. Yech.
Some reactionaries will surprise you, though. John Wayne defending the Panama Canal Treaty, for example, or John Ford reaming Cecil B. DeMille for his dastardly attack on another director because he thought he was a "pinko".
Speaking of dastardly directors, I am of the opinion, after some reading, that Kazan's actions were those of an opportunistic coward. He was supposedly of the left, yet screwed over others who were his FRIENDS _before_ the tough got going. He was immensely talented, but he had no character. Belonging to a particular party was NOT illegal, yet Kazan went along with this fucking over of the constitution and his friends and colleagues just so he wouldn't get his hair mussed. I'll occasionally watch his films, but I'll still think "What a shitheel."
Lynn: Crimes against art: How about Joe Esterhaus? He gets paid several bajillion dollars to write excrement like SHOWGIRLS and BASIC INSTINCT, but Harlan Ellison's screenplay for I, ROBOT doesn't get filmed. I think that smelly, scruffy screenwriter (Esterhaus, that is. Last I heard, HE is a very neat fellow) should be sent henceforth to the stinky bowels of the hoary netherworld to clean up the excrescence of Cerberus himself, and never set ink to paper again.
Brian, et al, on Neville: Righto! Chamberlain was a conservative. A tory. He wanted Hitler to keep going right to the gates of Moscow. He was what Lincoln referred to as a clever fool. He was a man of extremely narrow intellect, and was unable to take the kind of broad view a national leader needs to take. He approached the crisis over Czechoslovakia "Like a man staggering onto a used car lot, money dripping from his pockets, anxious to buy." (William Manchester. Might not be an exact quote) He was, in short, a mook, a loser who thought he could beat Hitler at three card monty.
By the way, BOM, several of Hitler's generals were already plotting against him, and had an order for his arrest ready if he invaded Czechoslovakia. But, when Neville blew in from nowhere and handed the Sudetenland to Hitler, the whole plot was shot to hell. If Neville had stayed the hell out, the Czechs could have defended themselves with only the moral support of France and the Soviet Union. The General staff knew that. The invasion, which Hitler was looking forward to, would have been a disaster for Germany. There was no way around the Czech defences. I don't know if the coup would have succeeded, but it would have put a dent in Hitler's credibility, at home and abroad. Even Mussolini demonstrated that Hitler could be stopped if someone had only shown some backbone. He foiled Hitler's first attempt at annexing Austria.
Jay Smith and Jim Davis: Those Satan postings were inspired! I laughed so hard I passed holy water through my nose! Now that's a miracle. Maybe I should tell the Pope.
That's it. I'm pooped. Time for go to bed. Get up in morning. Say hello to boss. Keep job. Might be important. Tor very tired.
Chuck
Ah, the beauty of the Internet. I ordered the Nancy Schwartz book and the John Henry Faulk book.
First books I bought in two months. Longest I ever went. I declared a personal moratorium until I plowed through more than half my current bag log. I'm down to a record low with a mere 12 books recently purchased and sitting on the "To Be Read" end of the table.
Most recently finished: _Interpreter of Maladies_ by Jumpha Lahiri. Read a nice story about her in a magazine. It's her first published book so naturally she wins not just a Pen/Hemingway but also something called the Pulitzer. Nice collection of short stories. I felt they were all very similar but she is quite adept at drawing very subtle emotional brush strokes.
Joseph,
I respect Nashville.
I admire Nashville.
But it boggles my mind that anyone could actually enjoy that film.
I feel the same way about James Joyce, just for the record.
Chris,
Okay, I might have come down a little hard. I just got in my soapbox mode. People here can tell you about it. I start foaming and ranting and raving about random junk like people being unable to appreciate the political and moral genius of a film like Nashville, one of the finest essays on how humans interact in film history (with a high honorable mention going to the Baker story in "Short Cuts," from one of my all-time-why the hell can't I write like this stories by Raymond Carver, starring the underrated Lyle Lovett), and I need to take my meds now...
Anyway, sorry to dump on you. Hey, does anyone remember the documentary on late 60's Berkely that illustrates a central theme of my 8-16 years: "Reagan's An Asshole?" I can't think of the name, but I remember watching it the same night as "Medium Cool," at a cast party for summer stock "Hair."
Regards,
Joseph
The passages I cut and pasted and replied to which showed me on my screen but mysteriously disappeared when I submitted the post were:
**But I take issue with your attempt to divert the question of his betrayals with wondering if he genuinely thought he was acting against an evil. **
And
**Here, if you don't care to actually inform yourself by reading the history of the times, you can watch the movie "The Front," about a cashier who fronts for blacklisted writers. Or, you can get the documentary "Hollywood on Trial," **
Here's hoping they show up this time.
Joseph said:
>
I must admit this is a sentiment I don't understand. I don't think anyone's opinion should ever become so calcified that he or she becomes angry over the mere fact that someone asks a question about the issue. Without questions, how can one get answers? I have no agenda here except to learn so I don't see how I am "diverting" anything or why one would "take issue" with it. It's always good to ask questions and try to learn, isn't it?
>
Thank you for the recommendations. It is certainly a subject I am interested in and one I do care "to actually inform" myself about. I simply haven't gotten there yet. Wish I could learn everything all at once. If only somebody would invent a machine to allow you to mainstream all the information in the world in one download. It's frustrating to be limited by the processing speed of the human body and brain. So much to learn, never enough time for even 1/10th of one percent of it.
Altman, Popeye:
Harlan: Yes, you can call me "Smokey." "Happy Hooligan," though, is out of the question.
Popeye: Don't feel like quarreling with any of the negative opinions expressed about Popeye except one -- the octopus. The budget ran out, and Altman had to improvise a climax with the materials available, without further studio support. The crappy *look* of the octopus is hardly an indictment of Altman's skill as a director.
Altman in general: Every six years or so, Altman "comes back" in terms of media coverage -- it happened with *The Player,* it happened with *Short Cuts,* it's apparently happening with *Gosford Park.* Attendant with this coverage always seems to come the idea (centered, I think, around the truly awful assumption that financial success = artistic success) that he had 'lapsed' in the between time. When the between times include films such as *Come Back to the Five and Dime...* and work such as *Tanner '88*, I'd say those are between times Spielberg would be lucky to have on his best day. Christ, didn't he direct *McTeague* on Broadway or somewhere on a major stage as well?
Comics-into-film: Apparently, the new film from Sam Mendes (American Beauty) coming out soon is based on a Max Allan Collins graphic novel, *The Road to Perdition.* Haven't read it; just noting.
J Stover
Oh, damn the complexity of it all!
I just realized that I liked EAST OF EDEN and STREETCAR a lot more than I liked HIGH NOON. A LOT more, I tell you! I found the Kazan pictures to be far more engaging.(Wipe that look off your face.)So what am I to do now, I ask you? I've been mouthing off for the past two days about how I don't think it's wrong to be uncomfortable with the work of truly hurtful, despicable people, and yet I already knew about HUAC when I saw both STREETCAR and NOON. Yes, I do know about the Commission. I couldn't speak volumes on the subject, but I did learn a great deal about it in a history course I took in Albuquerque.
Anyhoo...SO IT SEEMS I'M THE BIG FUCKING FLAPPYJAWED HYPOCRITE AFTER ALL, DOESN'T IT? Well this is a fine how do you do. How can this be? If I really like Kazan's stuff better than HIGH NOON, then it does mean that I am able to completely separate the art from the artist, doesn't it? Heavens. Contradictions abound. Who'd have thought I'd turn out to be such a maroon? I certainly never speak or behave in ways that would lead anyone to suspect such a thing. No no, I realize you're all shocked, but please try to get back to your lives. I can deal with this on my own. Really. I don't need anything. I have F.W. Murnau, my faithful sock puppet, and I cannot ask for anything more in this life.
Grr. I do NOT NOT NOT ever want to prefer the work of the bad guy. I don't see what's so wrong with that! Why should I prefer Kazan's movies to HIGH NOON? According to the Justin of yesterday, I have no business doing that. And he's right! God, I remember those days, when I was young and moral and idealistic. Things were so much simpler then. I was so young and full of life, before YOU FUCKERS CAME ALONG AND SUCKED IT OUT OF ME! But perhaps I'm wiser now, somehow, in some way. Because, I suppose, if sometimes the works of shady characters happen to speak to me more than the work of really swell fellas, then...but..but that would mean that life wasn't fair, and if that were so, then...then...fuh, bgzzzzzzzzztt*
There went the fuse.
J
p.s. This is time I should have spent thinking about the writers and isolaton issue, which means that I will be resorting to using the Hemingway quote in my response to the young lady this evening. Wilkins, you are THE MAN, man. A thousand thanks! I'm going to come off erudite as hell.
Of course, I've never actually read Hemingway (step off bitches, my TO READ list would make all of you go crying to mama), so you know she's going to ask me tomorrow, "So, didn't you think that Hemingway's earlier works were so much more...oh, you know...what's the word I'm looking for?"
Oh well. The perils of being me.
Chris,
Hesitated to weigh on the Kazan debate, because it's already common fact that he's a scumbag. But I take issue with your attempt to divert the question of his betrayals with wondering if he genuinely thought he was acting against an evil. Trouble is, he turned people in for something that wasn't even vaguely or illegal, and destroyed their lives. That's a coward and a scumbag.
Here, if you don't care to actually inform yourself by reading the history of the times, you can watch the movie "The Front," about a cashier who fronts for blacklisted writers. Or, you can get the documentary "Hollywood on Trial," where you can also get an appreciation for how scummy Ronald Reagan was long before he was Governor or President. Allow me to quote, as a slight hijack, from a review: "there is an almost scary interview with Ronald Reagan, who explains why the blacklist--the existence of which was continually denied by industry officials--was important and beneficial for Hollywood." Lovely son-of-a-bitch, eh?
Joseph
Berman~ RE: your naive offender.
http://www.ushmm.org/
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum contains the strongest testimony against Nazism. It was one of the most powerful experiences of my life, right next to holding my grandmother's hand as she died. Right next to holding my mom minutes later.
And it wasn't the film clips that did it. It wasn't the photographs or the cases full of eyeglasses and other personal effects. It wasn't the cast taken of a road made from Jewish headstones. It wasn't the cast of the "Arbeit Mach Frei"(sp?) arch or the ovens.
It was the room full of shoes.
A room with nothing but white walls and a twelve foot ceiling and a walkway lined with clear acrylic barriers. So that you could walk through the room full of shoes, two feet deep. In nothing but shoes. Children's shoes and men's shoes and women's shoes.
It was the bales of human hair.
Forty pound BALES of human hair. I can't even wrap my mind around how many people died to make ONE forty pound bale of human hair, much less the ten or fifteen that I saw. It may have been more, but I was too overwhelmed to count.
And it was the memorial walls etched with names from the ground floor to the fourth floor. And the utter stillness of the Hall of Remembrance. The sunlight and shadows that moved around the eternal flame.
I don't know where you're at, geographically, but it's worth the pilgrimage. And you don't have to say a word. The place speaks for itself.
L.
You talk to me about "magic realists" such as Borges. (Oh, yes, I DO like him. I also like Calvino--though that's unrelated, perhaps.) Are there other writers, say, who have started in the last ten years, who write books of a similar nature or 'bent'? (i.e., perhaps some kind of expansion on or extrapolation of this "magic realism.") (The words in quotation marks denote 'that's NOT quite the word for it,' but it'll do for argument's sake.)
I haven't got a complete grasp of that genre but I DO realize that there is something about Harlan's more recent efforts (such as "Shatterday," "Slippage" and "Mind Fields") that I find more..'meaty,' I guess you could say.
Went down the fantasy hole for a while. It bends my brain a little. (Tolkien's okay, but.. I dunno..there's just SOMETHING about the stories in "Slippage" that I find more "interesting"--or challenging or something). (Sorry, I'm still working on fairies and elves though I liked it in Shakespeare.)
Sure, I could look it up. It's what I've BEEN doing. Looking for some feedback, that's all. Thanks.
Alex said:
>
Yes, this has always been one of my favorite quotes.
An even better one, though tangetially related comes from Mr. Tolstoy:
"Nationalism and patriotism are sins; sins against humanity and the human spirit."
I wholeheartedly agree with both sentiments.
On the other hand (and I am NOT saying this has any relevance to Kazan, only to the quote in question) if I found out my best friend in the whole wide world was about to, say, fly a plane into the Pentagon with lots of people at work there, I hope I would have the strength to turn him in, no matter how much it hurt.
I have never felt I owe any allegiance to anything called a "country" or a "government." Those are things. My allegiances are to people. Respect the laws and institutions of the country in which you live but don't love your country. Love the people.
On Kazan, I'm a major head-in-the-MUSIC ignoramous, but I'm not completely ignorant. I thank HE for his reading suggestions (and I'll get to 'em should I be blessed to live so long) but bottom line is that for whatever reasons, Elia Kazan ratted. I'm sure the art lives, but I will forever relate the name "Elia Kazan" with those who ratted on their friends to achieve momentary comfort.
At what price?
Well, I _know_ that something I wrote was a big piece of Harlan's rant: specifically, my comment that what Kazan did "wasn't a crime, like murder or assault or rape." I'd meant that as a contrast to the discussion of James Brown beating his wife. I hadn't intended it to trivialize the effects of Kazan's testimony.
In my defense I'd like to recap something I'd written earlier. I'd described how, regardless of what we say or do here today about artists with reprehensible lives, history will probably forget their deeds and hail the art. And I'd written that there was something ugly and awful in this; the only posterity the victims have is as a footnote to the artists' lives. I am _not_ terribly keen on separating the art from the artist.
To Chris L., re Kazan's motives. Back when that award was in the news, there were a lot of interviews with people who'd worked with Kazan who speculated on why he testified-- even though at the time he regarded himself as a man of the Left. The most charitable guesses were that Kazan might've felt that communists and lefties had too much power in the theatre, and he resented having to negotiate with them. The least charitable guess was that Kazan was one of the highest-paid directors around, making massive amounts of money, and to fight HUAC would've put his livelihood in danger. What struck me was that NO ONE speculated that Kazan testified out of a dislike for Communism, the Soviet Union, or anything remotely like an actual political principle.
Wow. My first Ellisonian spanking. :)
For the record, I dig Altman, esp. The Player and MASH. But I saw Popeye for the first time as a 9 year old. Didn't hold much joy for them then, either.
A few quick notes on Altman, from a constant lurker: All this talk about Altman, and nary a mention of "California Split"? Well, OK: I mean, I think the damned thing never made it to video, and only occasionally comes on Encore ... but it's an asbolutely amazing movie. Just perfect, really: Maybe the best movie ever made about gamblers (played here by Elliot Gould and George Segal), and gambling. And failing that, it's a durn fine companion piece to "The Gambler," starring James Caan and written by James Toback.
Aside to Mr. Ellison: I seem to remember an old essay where you talked about a pal of yours and his sorta kinda Dostoevskian screenplay. You never named the writer, but were you referring to James Toback and "The Gambler"? Just wondering.
The other great unmentioned Altman movie (unless, that is, I missed the mention) is "Thieves Like Us," which is the best adaptation of a non-existent Faulkner book, ever. Sort of in the vein of "McCabe," but even more lyrical and moving, if that's possible. Maybe not.
And what about "Vincent and Theo" and "Tanner" and ah, gosh, there's just too much. Even the bad stuff (like "O.C. and Stiggs") is interesting.
Okeydokey, that's my two and a half cents.
Chris--
regarding Kazan, I think that the feelings of a lot of us can be summed up in the remark somebody--Forster, I think--made on a general principle: "If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I would have the guts to betray my country."
Harlan--
I know I should be digging through the collection and finding this myself, but can you tell me if I'm right that you wrote something about the Maher show, about the argument that lasted beyond the credits running? I plead exhaustion from burying my father, or I'd look it up myself. I recall a rant--righteous, mind you--related to the cultural ignorance of modern America and the you-should-pardon-the-expression oreo you faced on P.I.
--Alex
Also, Harlan, thank you for the readin suggestions. A while back, I actually asked for some reading recommendations on HUAC but that one disappeared into the internet ether.
I take no shame in not knowing as much as I should on the subject. There are many things I know a lot about, many more I don't know enough about and still more I know nothing at all about. The only shame is if I don't try to correct the deficiencies in my knowledge.
Not knowing something is a problem. Not wanting to know, however, is the real crime.
To P.A. Berman, re Chamberlain: Hard to see how my comments amount to revisionist history, in that Chamberlain's indifference to what hitler would become is certainly a good fit with the anti-Semitism you mention. The point isn't whether what Chamberlain did was or wasn't "appeasement"-- it was. What matters are the _motives_ behind it, and how the differ from the popular legend I described.
Actually, to Bag'o'meat, the best way to prevent Germany from waging war would have involved relaxing the Versailles agreement so that the progressive Weimar republic could have built the country back. Hard to imagine Hitler acquiring the power he did if the country was already doing well. But this really is Monday-morning quarterbacking.
Oh, just a clarification on _Millennium_. I didn't think it was all that great. There were a few decent shows, and some good performances, but it really did strike me as a kind of "Se7en" for TV. The first season finale-- which included that incredible montage of apocalypse set to Patti Smith's "Horses"-- must have been a high water mark for TV, and I'd hoped the next season was going to be set in a kind of post-apocalypse America. Instead, they went back to the serial-killer-of-the-week.
_The Prisoner_, now, THAT was a great show.
To Rob: Sorry about flying off the handle like that. You were right, I was wrong to reply in that manner.
I agree with Chris that Jennifer Connelly is amazingly beautiful and a fine actress. But I'd rather not see her become a Leading lady. Because she's _already_ out of my league, and that'd put her into practically another _universe_.
I'll assume my mention of Kazan's statement that he genuinely thought Communism was evil is part of what prompted Harlan's rant. I was pretty sure that no matter what I said, the mere mention of the issue for discussion would cause people to think it had something to do with my personal opinion on the matter. It doesn't. As I said, I don't know enough to make an informed opinion and I have always agreed with Harlan that people aren't entitled to their opinions - they are entitles to informed opinions. Likewise, I will not automatically condemn merely because people I respect say I'm supposed to.
My reaction is and long has been that he deserves all the criticism he gets but I won't throw stones without the knowledge. I don't have any doubt that his actions were evil and had terrible consequences and that HUAC is one the darkest chapters in 20th century American history. But I still want to know what motivated him. The motivation doesn't mitigate the impact of his actions but I still want to know why - not just what. History (and it is history to me - it happened long before I was born) is meaningless as just a series of names, places and dates.
So I would again ask - is Kazan just lying when he says he thought he was doing "the right thing"? Just trying to cover up for his cowardice and greed? And even if the thought Communism was a genuine evil, does that in any way change the opinion we should have of him since the impact of his actions is indisputably bad?
HARLAN HERE:
J. STOVER: (I asked once, but I figure you may not have known it was to you I spoke. So I'll ask again: May I call you
"Smokey"?) You are not alone. I ADORE Altman's version of POPEYE. It was grand, simply grand. Ignore these poopieheads.
They are too blinded by decades of movie crap to savor the singular brilliance of Altman. HEALTH was a scream. A WEDDING was to die for. BREWSTER McCLOUD was nothing less than Pirandello-level fantastic Absurdism. M.A.S.H. and McCABE AND MRS. MILLER and THE LONG GOODBYE speak for themselves. NASHVILLE created its own genre. GOSFORD PARK glows like a diamond. The rest of you jerkazoids shut the fuck up before I come and bitch-slap yo asses into silence. I ain't smiling.
And while I'm being assertive here, I don't want ANY GODDAM opinions on that ghoul backstabbing pus-sucking lying ass-protecting slime-trail Elia Kazan unless and until you've read at least two of the FIFTY FUCKIN' THOUSAND books available on the blacklist and HUAC. If you need one to start with, try Nancy Schwartz's THE HOLLYWOOD WRITERS WARS or Alvah Bessie's book, or...
Other recommendations will soon flood in on you. But do not pretend to an informed opinion--any more than did Maher with an utter vacuum of knowledge on the subject--until you've read up on this. I feel my blood boiling as parvenus (yeah, that's you) sit up on their hind legs and self-aggrandizingly put in their two-farthings of johnny-come-lately, ignorant voicing of an ignorant know-nothing opinion as if it were more cogent and relevent than a fart in a sirocco. Kazan was a GREAT director, one of the best of his time, and the works should, indeed, be lauded. But so was Leni Rieffenstahl, and HER works are condemned, because she did EXACTLY what Kazan did. She cozened up to the Devil. In her case, Hitler; in his, J. Parnell Thomas and the HUAC sanhedrin of tormenters and Santa Armendad torturers. Do not, I beg you, DO NOT blather me your insipid rationalizations that he wasn't so bad because he didn't rape or murder anyone. (Gee, Hitler and Mussolini made the trains run on time, and Der Fuehrer just looooooved dogs!)
Well, in fact, you adolescent idiots, Elia Kazan DID murder people, as surely as if he'd thrown the grenade. He ruined whole families, drove great actors and directors and writers to commit suicide, prevented casual hangers-on from working at their art, aided an entire industry in demonstrating its gut-level mendacity and consummate expertise in selling out its own...and was the willing rodent ratfink who accused people of behavior that was, in simple fact, NOT UNLAWFUL!!!! He rancidly buttered his own bread at the cost of stealing that bread from the mouths of his betters. If for nothing else, the sonofabitch shitball oughtta burn in the 8th and inner circle of Hell forever for preventing Zero Mostel from working for twelve years. TWELVE FUCKING YEARS!!! Mostel, the great Zero Mostel, ypou buncha illiterate asswipes! What the hell is wrong with you clowns? Don't you read? Don't you remember? Have you fallen prey to the malaise of our time, Cultural Amnesia? Are you as stupid as the history-ignorant kids each of you has decried on this board from time to time? Kazan's Crimes: him and the others, all of them: in the top 10 of the most shameful episodes in American history, laced with anecdotal nightmares that make such petty bullshit as Whitewater and Jefferson's slaves look like what they were, pish-posh time.
Go read !!!!! Pick up a goddam BOOK ON THE SUBJECT! Otherwise, you are no better than the culturally amnesiac assholes who deny The Holocaust. Or the kid who didn't have a clue why scratching a swastika on a desk was infamous behavior.
READ A BOOK OR TWO ON THE BLACKLIST. Start with John Henry Faulk's! It's not as if there isn't a roomful of brilliant, pointed, convincing reading on this topic.
Susan warned me not to post on this. Leave it alone, she said.
I should have listened to her.
Does my rage and impatience show?
Mmm. Well, Carl Foreman had the same rage, and that's why he wrote the screenplay for HIGH NOON; and Fred Zinnemann shared that rage, which was why he directed it; and Gary Cooper was so ashamed of his testimony before HUAC, so ashamed that he had acted in such an unCooperishly cowardly way, that he begged Foreman to let him star in it. And their rage was so complete, so perfect, in artistic terms, that the little shits Budd Schulberg and Lee J. Cobb and Karl Malden and the snake Kazan had to create ON THE WATERFRONT to make their apologia.
Both are High Art. But one was made by victims, and the other by members of the lynch mob who were trying to cop a plea in the court of public opinion.
Yes, Lautrec was right on spot when he said, "One should never meet an artist whose work one admires. The man is always so much less than the art."
Truer of me than of almost anyone else I can think of.
Nonetheless. Harlan
Oh.. and Prosecution Exhibit C: http://us.imdb.com/Quotes?0081353
Meat -
I hate to straffe my wingman on this point, but I hardly think its possible to give any real depth to Popeye characters, especially Olive since she was nothing more than an asexual foil who squealed and whined through the cartoons, too. I would have enjoyed seeing Nicholson coming after HER with an axe in an empty hotel.
But it was hardly a good movie with the addition of Ray Walston's character and the lack of Spinach until the last reel... Just a wishy-washy Hamlet where the speech is replaced with mumblings and bad musical numbers.
I was wondering if your average movie goer perceives Vick in "A Boy and His Dog" as an amoral simpleton that wants nothing more than to pursue his baser desires, or as one of the few compassionate individuals left in the world after the holocaust...
J Stover, Chris L, et al who like Bob's 'Pop':
Nope, sorry.
Popeye Prosecution exhibit B: Shelly Duvall. While her look is nearly letter perfect for Olive Oyl, her one dimensional performance, combined with her banshee-like voice as she screams for her beloved sailor man wanted me to start lobbing enough depth charges to send the entire production to Davy Jones' locker.
J; Hell won't take a Bag of Meat. I'd be trying to mount a coup d'etat immediately upon arrival.
Re: "Popeye" Prosecution Exhibit A: "I yam whut I yam whut I am Whut I am and dat's all dat I yam."
A wonder that song didn't take home the Oscar.
Oh and the Squid that was right out of Ed Wood's budget.
Todd,
Ain't nothin' wrong with being a liberal. Most conservatives think I'm a liberal. Most liberals think I'm a conservative. The only thing I really know is that Jennifer Connelly is the most beautiful actress in Hollywood and I'm glad to see she's finally getting a shot at leading lady status.
Speaking of Popeye, am I the only person who was delighted with Peter David's _The Wedding Of Popeye and Olive_ a few years back? I really wish we would get a regular Popeye comic. And judging from that issue, Mr. David is just the fan for the job if he's interested.
Brian,
I posted quickly just before darting out the door this a.m. and began running that line through my head as I was driving, "you just lash out at Chamberlain alone..blah, blah, blah..." and realized it may have read like I was aiming that at you specifically.
That was not meant as 'YOU' you, that was YOU as in ANYONE in general who runs such a simplistic thesis on Chamberlain and the liberals of his day.
I was in complete agreement with you.
Before the U.S. entered the war there was a very strong Nazi sympathy/Isolationist/anti-Semitic wave blasting through the country, and most of THAT was on the right. So any would-be Right-winger trying to brand the Liberals of the day (hence, of THIS day) is talking out of shallow ignorance...as usual.
Also, I haven't looked back at the post but I may have misspelled the name of our favorite pro-Nazi of the day Charles Lindbergh.
Chris L, stop taking the bait. Frank is one of the more liberal guys on this board.....liberal to the point of sounding like he loves all countries except for the one he resides in. You won't make any points with him. Not at all.
P.S., Check out my earlier discussion on Altman......yes, I am a Popeye fan too.
-TODD
I like Popeye quite a bit. Not a great film but a good one and a much better job than I would ever have expected. I think it's all but impossible to convert a comic strip into a watchable film but I think Altman pulled off the trick as well as could be asked. And Robin Williams did a fabulous job in the titular role, possibly the most challenging performance of his career.
OK, I admit it, Frank, you succeeded in getting me to respond again. I should be able to resist your brand of petty demagoguery but I am weak in this respect, especially when on the receiving end of ad hominem attacks.
I am staunchly pro-choice but that doesn't mean I am insensitive to the arguments of the pro-life side. I think they have some valid point though they all pale in comparison to the need to protect a woman's right to choose and control her own body. But there are good and useful arguments to be made. However, when some extremists resort to phrases such as "baby killers" or compare abortion to the holocaust, their cheap rhetoric reveals they feel incapable of defending their argument with facts and must resort to base tactics and distortions of reality to promote their agenda.
Likewise, while I support the military strikes against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, I can understand why some people feel it isn't appropriate. If I thought police action could work, I might favor that option but I think that's an ivory tower fantasy. We were attacked by al-Qaeda who is directly and openly supported by the Taliban, the then-ruling government of Afghanistan. On those grounds, I think the strikes are justified but I respect the contrary position.
However, when extremists on the other side distort reality by referring to our targeted strikes as a "war waged against the people of Afghanistan" or, in Frank's case, hide behind the pitiable image of the woman and children or falsely claim we "bomb the entire country", they only reveal their inability or unwillingness to defend their position rationally.
Frank has also tried to shout down any discussion on the matter asserting that any thinking American would think the way he does as well in engaging in ad hominem attacks (the Rush Limbaugh reference which is certainly amusing to me) and blatant lies (claiming I wrote a "defense of Kazan".)
One finds these petty tactics used constantly on the Internet as well as on the airwaves but I thought we had higher standards here. Perhaps I am naive to expect better of a self-selecting group that would post to Harlan Ellison's board. Maybe HE is such a good writer, even the hammer-brained are attracted to his work. :)
I am demeaned by allowing myself to be angered by such grade school tactics but I don't apologize for my lack of tolerance for demagogues and liars.
Popeye was just hammy. But I will gladly take that film over, Patch Adams any day.
Popeye:
Geez, am *I* the only person on the board who liked Altman's *Popeye*? I mean, it's not a great film, but it captures a lot of the weird, creepy, and not necessarily laugh-out-loud funny ambience of the Segar strips far better than most comic adaptations ever get the feel of their original material (*Annie*-- now there's a movie that fails its source material, or at least Clarence Gray's source material).
Damn you *Popeye* haters! Damn you to hell!
Oh, and Justin (and anyone else) -- the art vs. artist thread reminded me of Orwell's essay on the topic, "Benefit of Clergy: Some Thoughts on Salvador Dali." Check it out if you have aa chance -- it's in a number of Orwell essay collections.
J Stover
Dwayne: The Neville Chamberlain reference was not wise, given the weight of intellect in this place...especially if you were implying that "liberals" enabled Hitler and the Nazis just like they're doing today with bin Laden and al-Qaeda, while "conservatives" led the fight against evil in both eras.
Before and during WWII, right-wingers and capitalists from Henry Ford to Charles Lindbergh to the DuPonts to George W. Bush' great-grandpa (that's the grandpa of George H.W. Bush) tended towards isolationism, anti-Semitism, war profiteering or all three (and let's never forget how IBM eagerly sold its newfangled calculating machines to the Nazis, which were then used to help identify and locate Jews).
It was Franklin Roosevelt's liberal administration that edged the US closer and closer to the war from 1939-41 (helping the Soviets, Lend-Lease to Britain, the "50 destroyers for access to bases" deal that helped beat the U-boats, and so on). Yes, he turned a blind eye toward hints and rumors of the Holocaust, but it wasn't because he was pro-Hitler.
So, basically, the analogy of then to now is completely specious. GW Bush unleashed aircraft and a few thousand troops, which helped the old warlords of Afghanistan rise up and overthrow a hated regime of new warlords and the terrorists they were sheltering. That's not the same thing.
In fact, let's try not use historical analogies at all. They tend to break down under analysis, and they encourage talk radio style sniping rather than actual debate.
Jim,
Very nice job. Only problem is that those questions are far too hardball for Larry King.
Regards,
Joseph
Chris L., or should I say, Rush Limbaugh's little tadpole. So no Woman or Children are being harmed whatsoever eh? Your proof is looking as thin as the attention span of tadpole Bush.
Bermanator,
I don't know if this is what you want but you should be able to find a lot of information starting at this site:
http://www.holocaustchronicle.org/StaticPages/54.html
Rob: The "Avec!" phrase has a very long and convoluted history. It's pretty much shorthand in my circle of friends for anything absurdly melodramatic. Picture really a bad faux-Shakespearen play as directed by Chuck E. Jones.
Jay: Hee, hee. Cute, very cute. Of course, Satan would HAVE to do a full media blitz, including the obligatory appearance on CNN.
(Scene opens on set of "Larry King Live." King, hunching grotesquely in his chair, speaks to camera)
KING: TONIGHT!!!! IN HIS FIRST TELEVISION INTERVIEW, THE PRINCE OF DARKNESS TALKS ABOUT HIS RECENT LEGAL TROUBLES, AND LIFE AS THE MOST HATED MAN ALIVE!!! SATAN HIMSELF ANSWERS QUESTIONS AND TAKES YOUR CALLS FOR THE FULL HOUR, ON LARRY KING LIVE!!!
(Show intro plays as camera pans back, showing a casually-dressed Satan sitting across from King)
KING: Boy, your Dark Majesty, what a year it's been, huh?
SATAN: Please, Larry, just call me Satan. No honorifics here. I'm a regular working stiff, just like everyone else.
KING: Well, ya gotta admit, you have a reputation.
SATAN: Yes, Larry, I know. Believe me, after reading some of the things about me that have been printed in the papers, *I* start to wonder myself. (Laughs)
KING: Why is that? Why do you think you get such a bad rap?
SATAN: (Speaks quietly and sincerely) Larry, as much as I'd like to pin everything on the media, the truth is, I share a lot of the blame. I look back at some of the things I've done, and I see...Larry, I see a lost little boy who just didn't KNOW how to reach out to others.
KING: So, is this a new Satan?
SATAN: Not so much a NEW Satan as it is the one who's been here all along. Larry, fame can be a very isolating thing. When all you hear is what your lackeys tell you, you can start to believe your stuff don't stink, if you know what I mean. So, I've cut back on the extravagances, laid off some of the entourage, and have generally tried to get back to basics.
KING: Let's take some calls. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA!
CALLER: Hi, Larry. I love your show. I have a question for Mr. Satan. What was it like working with Marilyn Manson?
SATAN: (Smiles, shakes his head) These rumors just KILL me. Yeah, Manson likes to name-drop me at every opportunity, but the fact is I don't even know the guy. Trust me, I have better things to do than hang out with Alice Cooper-wannabes. The whole industrial/hardcore/dark metal scene is just so *90'S*--if you want to be evil, then do it with a little FINESSE, know what I mean? Some of the toadying of these guys just turns my stomach. When Trent Reznor moved into the Tate Mansion, all I could think was, "Oh puh-leeeze! A little obvious, aren't we?" I've got enough people smooching my ass as it is. You wanna get my attention? STOP MOPING AROUND AND WRITE SOME DECENT MUSIC AGAIN! What was that last album of his all about, sheesh...
My taste currently runs more to the VH1 spectrum, I guess. I'm doing some production work on the new Jewel album, supervising some remixes for Cher, and Lee Greenwood has expressed some interest in collaborating with me. Gotta keep stirring the pot, you know.
KING: BILLINGS, MONTANA!
CALLER: Hi, Larry. Hi, Satan. Satan, is it true you're dating Winona Ryder?
SATAN: She's just a very good friend.
KING: BRANSON, MISSOURI!
CALLER: (Celestial Choir plays) CEASE THY PRATTLING, OH ANCIENT ADVERSARY! (Thunder roars, and lightning flashes) BOW TO YHVH, WHO, WHEN THE EARTH WAS WILD AND WASTE, SEPERATED THE LIGHT FROM THE DARKNESS AND PLACED THE STARS IN THE DOME OF THE HEAVENS! BOW, OH FATHER OF LIES!
KING: Is this really God?!?
SATAN: (Rolls his eyes) Oh yeah, like it's really HIM. I know for a fact God moved out of Branson a LONG time ago.
And so on.
Frank,
Thanks for showing your hand. I knew I should have ignored you in the first place. Your first use of cheap rhetoric about us killing the women and children in Afghanistan drew me out. Now your equally cheap use of rhetoric where you falsely claim I wrote a "defense of Kazan" shows me you are not worth replying to.
Well, OK, beyond this reply.
Hello, I'm Mrs. Meat, but I prefer Melissa.
Leaving my husband to sleep: our little one Cassie saw Daddy napping on the couch and decided that was a good idea, so she climbed up onto his stomach, and passed out herself.
P.A., here's a good little essay, readable for one in grade 9;
http://www.angelfire.com/in/j4a/nehistory.html
By the way, that was a cute little essay Jay. Nice of you to give the devil his due...
That should help.
I won't even comment about such idiocy. Comparing World War 2 to Afghanistan is pretty pathetic. Inept brain transmissions to the rear of the bus. Afghanistan is a police action. We are not attacking a country for self-defense reasons. This was a criminal act done by a rogue band of thugs, nothing more. For this to be a war it must be a legitimate attack from another country. This was a criminal action. We round up the dogs, not bomb an entire country farther into the stone age.
Chris L., Your defense of Elia Kazan kind of gives me a clue to your true intent. You have nothing but marked cards, my friend.
Justin -
I trust you to do a lot of your own thinking and research on this topic, so I will help you in your quest for a shortcut. But one day I may call upon you for a favor..... Here you go.
From Hemingway's Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech:
"Writing, at its best, is a lonely life. Organizations for writers palliate the writer's loneliness but I doubt if they improve his writing. He grows in public stature as he sheds his loneliness and often his work deteriorates. For he does his work alone and if he is a good enough writer he must face eternity, or the lack of it, each day. For a true writer each book should be a new beginning where he tries again for something that is beyond attainment. He should always try for something that has never been done or that others have tried and failed. Then sometimes, with great luck, he will succeed. How simple the writing of literature would be if it were only necessary to write in another way what has already been written. It is because we have had such great writers in the past that a writer is driven far out past where he can go, out to where no one can help him. I have spoken too long for a writer. A writer should write what he has to say and not speak it. Again I thank you."
Note: the kid is in 9th grade, and has at best a middle school reading level. So I can't get crazy on him with reading material that requires depth of thought or a large vocabulary.
Bermanator
HELP PLEASE!
Ironically, considering our current convo re: Neville Chamberlain, I need some help. Hard on the heels of pressing "SEND" on my last message, I found an Iron Eagle and swastika drawn on my desk. Niiiiiice.
Didn't take much detective work to find out who did it. The kid confessed. He honestly does not understand why his drawing is so offensive. That is to say, he knows that it offends, but he doesn't understand the depth of revulsion, and completely legitimate and justified rage that symbol evokes. He is not the first kid with whom I've had this conversation, either. This problem is systemic.
Do any of you know of an essay-length article that would clearly explain Nazism and why it's not a cool worldview with which to identify yourself? And give me a link or snail mail it to me ASAP?
Help appreciated,
Bermanator
"The Nazis were cool up until that Holocaust thing."--a real-life quote
Quick! I need to fool someone into thinking that I can discuss a specific subject with insight and intellegence. I'd like to use some good quotes about writers and isolation. The discussion is about what constitutes the "life of a writer." She says that it's all about feelings of isolation that come from spending lots of time in one's own head, when one writes a lot. I don't know if I agree or disagree yet. I don't have time to think about it this afternoon. I'll think about it tonight, but I'm going to be brain-smooshingly exhausted and I could use some quotes, just in case I can't think of anything smart to say on my own. I fully realize that this is kind of sleazy, but QUICK QUICK HURRY! Thanks in advance.
J
Brian:
Agreed on _Millennium_. They cancel all the good shows - too thought-provoking for the General Public, I assume. Much like the oft-mentioned _Nowhere Man_ - and yet, _The Prisoner_ has become a cult classic, though it is much more incomprehensible than both the others.
Or maybe I'm imagining the cult classic thing, since everything is a cult classic three days after release nowadays. Mutter mutter mumble mumble damn kids etc.
JAY SMITH: re. your post -- fucking hilarious. Only wish CNN had the same sense of humor -- then they might actually print your posting.
MEAT: re. your response to said post -- I second that motion. And wish we could get the Christian and Free Mason superstitious junk removed from our monetary system -- or at least have the other superstitions of the world represented equally (I think a New Age slogan on quarters and a Wiccan symbol on five dollar bills would be very cool).
--DTS
Hello, all. Skipped out a bit early from work, and hoping that the cutlets will let me get a bit of a nap. I know, fat chance, but a guy's gotta have dreams, eh?
Jay: That was a good laugh, mon ami. One more suit for Lucifer to bring against the government: the fact of the government's failure to grant Satan and his minions tax-exempt status as a religious organization, a priviledge quickly granted to the Lord of the underworld's brother, JC. I guess it's a case of Dad, through his obediently servile creations, favoring one son over the other; nice to know sibling rivalry exists in the realm of the supernatural.
Chamberlain: Appeaser or no, his actions weren't going to be the impetus to stop the Third Reich in any case. Hitler's own actions and intentions guaranteed that Germany would eventually bring about open conflict. You have to realize this about the Austrian paper-hanger; here was a twisted little soul who began his movement out of revenge for what he felt was complete arrogance displayed by the nations of the world towards his beloved Fatherland's surrender after WWI, and he convinced his nation to join him in the enterprise. The only way for the world to have stopped Germany at that point would've been through pre-emptive strikes; that wasn't about to happen.
With that, to nap: perchance to dream...
BoM
Brian, my friend is a professor in the UK and has told me that British historians and political scientists are reclaiming Chamberlain and trying to counter the negative characterizations of him. Not sure I understand this.
I'm not trying to be disingenuous, but humbly admitting my ignorance and asking you to explain the difference between appeasement and what Chamberlain did. He let Hitler reclaim the Sudetenland, not to mention subsequent incursions, because... he was hoping that would keep Hitler's hands off the British Empire? OK, maybe appeasement isn't quite the right word... maybe it would be more accurate to say, "screw Europe, let's just worry about ourselves." Is that more correct? Is it not making rather fine, even specious, distinctions? Which then renders Chamberlain's (in)actions ironic, but somehow less despicable? Was it really Britain's responsibility to squash Hitler? Take me to school.
Oh, and how about the Ship of Fools, where Britain sent scores of Jews seeking asylum back into Hitler's loving arms? Was that appeasement, or just racism and indifference? Does the motivation matter when the result is the same? My great-uncle was on one of those ships... Revisionist history can be a breath of fresh air, but sometimes it simply seems like tap dancing around a pile of shit. It looks like shit, it smells like shit, so let's call it fecal remains instead?
Not meaning to be antagonistic or obtuse,
Bermanator
Alex Jay & Lynn:
SATAN RESPONDS TO BAN FROM FLORIDA TOWN
25th Circle - Nueva Diablos (CNN) In response to the proclamation by Inglis, Florida Mayor Carolyn Risher that he is "not now, nor ever again will be, a part of this town" Satan has filed a $6 billion lawsuit against the village for discrimination against the nobility-challenged and those of supernatural descent.
In a press conference outside the Halls of Tortured Souls in the Capital of Sodom, Satan's Attorney Nyarlathotep said, "This is clearly a violation of my client's civil rights. Satan has a right to be as nasty as he wanna be and still have access to that shitty little village."
Discussing Satan's history of violence, death and destruction as grounds for expulsion from Inglis, Nyarlathotep smashed the heads of several damned souls and howled before saying, "Has Satan been indicted? Investigated, sure! But he's not been charged with any crime and, therefore, should not be subject to any restrictions...much less a ban handed down by some bitch with a cross up her butt."
Inglis, which produces $3 million in local revenue, stands to be crippled in the event of a successful suit, though Satan's representative hinted that "as few delicious, beefy souls" would be an even trade.
Said Satan at a 15th Circle Rally for the Evisceration of Child-Murderers, "I will be the new pimp of Inglis. Before they got in my face, I didn't know that town from a pimple on a fat man's ass. NOW, baby...they are SO my bitches. I'm gonna ride that mayor like a birthday pony."
Inglis officials were busy cowering in an old church along an abandoned road and could not be reached for comment, though local Dog Catcher Auggie Derelith told CNN, "I done seen Azmodeus out here at the town line just th'other night...he wuz tauntin' Ole Satan by jumpin' over the line a-goin' 'I'm coming...I'm goin'...comin'...goin'...' Satan was pretty pissed. Smacked Asmodeus with a bottle of Johnny Walker."
Rob, you may want to pay attention to your writing. I was responding to Dwayne's citing of Chamberlain, so my keeping my comments to Chamberlain's actions was entirely appropriate.
It does NOT imply, in any way, that I'm unaware or ignorant of the sympathy Hitler generated among creeps like Joe Kennedy. So I'm at a loss to understand why you write "You just lash out at Chamberlain alone and you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about."
But, if you want to adopt this superior tone, fine; then I'll just read your message as an apology for the likes of Chamberlain, Kennedy, Lindbergh, and the rest-- because, as you say, everybody was doing it.
Brian,
"...The tale of Chamberlain's "appeasement" is presented as an example of the failure of wishy-washy liberaldom to confront genuine evil. But in fact, it's an illustration of how hard-nosed, reactionary _realpolitik_ encouraged the worst fiends of the 20th century."
Accurate statement. And this was in a time when contingents were all over the place who either wanted to go light on Hitler or sympathize entirely (who were LARGELY the conservatives), from Joseph Kennedy to the Isolationists like Lindbergh to U.S. businesses (DuPont, incidentally, sued the U.S. government after WWII for bombing their factories in Germany during the war!). You just lash out at Chamberlain alone and you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. It was some years before the U.S. regarded Hitler as evil. And there was a massive anti-Semitic contingent here too. EVERYONE was really pretty fucked.
Jim,
3 Women: it just means I somehow caught part of it once but never made a subsequent effort to see the whole movie. Sometime I will.
How come you yelled 'With! With!' in French? I dun't get it, mun.
Faisal: Thanks for the heads-up on IMAGES. I vaguely recall a spooky flick with Susannah York that played on cable in the late 80's, so I'm sure that was it. eBay has a VHS copy available, but I want to hunt around a little before I pay $30+ for it.
rich~ Re: Mayor Inglis. I saw this article back around Hallowe'en, and laughed my ass off. It provokes in me an idea for a story, probably set at a Greyhound bus station, with a crooked politician, an ex-hitman for Castro, and a serial killer with a taste for Euro-tourists, all headed for Florida, sitting around chatting with an old bayou blues man. The time comes for their bus to arrive and the blues man stays behind. "Sorry - they done wrote me out."
Although the initial image was one of a cloven hoofed, pointy tailed, red skinned horny bastard standing on the side of the Interstate looking at one of these proclamations, thinking to himself 'Well shit,' and getting pegged in the back of the head with a beer can from a passing bubba mobile (read: pickemup truck). Dopler fading 'yeehaw' in the background optional.
L.
Correction for Dwayne Pipe:
It's the conventional wisdom to portray Neville Chamberlain as some kind of liberal idiot who tried to appease Hitler with disastrous results. More recent scholarship gives the lie to this: Chamberlain's concessions to Hitler weren't done out of a desire to avoid war-- Chamberlain reasoned that concessions would encouarge Hitler to keep his hands off the remnants of the Empire, as well as encourage him to spend some of his energy battling Bolshevism. (Apparently, officials of the German High Command implored Lord Halifax to break off negotiations with Hitler; they argued that Hitler was a disaster in the making, and if Hitler failed to hammer out an accord with Britain, it might be enough to reveal him as the fraud he was. Halifax refused.
The irony here's pretty obvious. The tale of Chamberlain's "appeasement" is presented as an example of the failure of wishy-washy liberaldom to confront genuine evil. But in fact, it's an illustration of how hard-nosed, reactionary _realpolitik_ encouraged the worst fiends of the 20th century.
Please consult _In Our Time: The Hitler-Chamberlain Collusion_, by Clement Liebovitz and Alvin Finkel.
Ignoring the call-to-arms to bring up the "war" in Afghanistan since we all are acquainted with where we stand on this one, I will do a doodle-step and blithely skip around Dwayne's post.
I submit to Jay Smith a solution to the over-crowding in his area:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/29/town.satan/index.html
I, on the other hand, feel Satan has gotten short shrift. All those people trying to get rid of him. Sports players thanking God or JC for giving them the opportunity to play and to win the big game. My fantasy is to be drafted by a pro-team and score a winning touchdown/clutch basket/short-handed goal and declare to the cameras, "I'd like to thank Lucifer for giving me this opportunity 'cause He's off the hook and He's the one made it happen for me and a quick nod out to the homies in cell block C, you know who you are, WHAAATUPPP!! Boyeee! And I wanna say hi to my moms and that I won't make it for visiting hours on Satadee 'cause a the PO so you gonna haveta get cigs from Sha-Naynay. We're number one!"
Oh, well. Just as Sherlock needed Moriarty, JC needs Lucifer, I guess.
No insult taken, Bermanator. Though actually, I insult Minnesotans on a regular basis. They're always bugging me about my southern accent, so I point out that Garrison Keillor is a miracle cure for insomnia, that Minnesotans actually have an accent of their own (they'll deny it, too), and whatever other gibes come to mind.
But really, Minnesotans are the last people on Earth to worry about offending. What're they gonna do, speak up about it?
Frank Church:
Okay, let me put it this way…GET SERIOUS! By the way, when you get a chance, please come join us in the real world. Using your pretzel logic the US and its allies were immoral in bombing Germany during WWII. We should of just blew Hitler a wet kiss and hoped he went away quietly. Oh wait, a guy named Neville Chamberlain tried that.
Alex Jay warned: "(And Jay Smith: With the loss of their Idaho compound and the ousting of their leader, the Aryan Nation now seems likely to move themselves into Potter County, Pennsylvania: Another thing to keep a watchful eye out for, no?)"
They'll have to fight for elbow room between the White Power Militia barracks outside Allentown, the "Wyomissing for White Folks" headquarters and roadhouse, the "Lesbian Aryan Biker Institute of Amerika" and of course those huggably soft and loveable "Christ-Killer Defense League".
We don't have a shortage of hate-filled bastards in this state, do we?
Altman? Robert Altman?
I'll never forgive the bastard for what he did to Popeye.
I'd sooner spitup-a me own kidneys den plant my peepers on one-a his moving pick-a-chers. a guhgughughgugh.....
Swimmin' wit Sarcasm
Jay
Lynn -
Y'know, I think you hit it square with Limp Bizkit on "Wish You Were Here" It gets my vote for worst cover, ever. From the forced reverb, to the hideous lyrics, to the cocky mugging in the video, it was just BAD.
Artist vs. Their Art
Tolstoy allegedly abandoned his family to poverty, Lewis Carroll was allegedly a pedophile, Oscar Wilde was alleedly a perverted scofflaw, Mike Tyson is a cannibalistic rapist, and there are some folks who just have disagreeable politics or social views which while not criminals, make them unappealing to some folks.
Public figures, or PERCEIVED public figures get the 2-D treatment by us. We talk like we know them, we judge them as though our opinions define who they are when really we have a handful of notes and perceptions based on media and historical bias, and Marketing. We also imply that their body of work is part of their universe, part of their history and should be used to judge what kind of person they are (and the other way around by the tone of this discussion).
Like most of us, there are things I've done and said in my life that I regret. Do I want the words I wrote as a young, naive essayist to come back in criticism of work by a man in his thirties? If I am to persue a career writing, do I accept that people will dig up old stories and columns on Clinton as a "visionary new thinker" and "embodiment of values of a younger, more progressive America" when I start spouting on how I feel we were conned by Clinton and that my faith was unfounded? Do I fear the clumbsy, angry horror tales of black hooded axe murderers being reprinted or the poetry I wrote lamenting the end of puppy love?
I know many of us are aspiring or credited writers. My question to you is: As our work reaches a wider audience, how much of our privacy and personal life are we willing to hand over to our readers to allow them access and comfort in our work and in our public image?
Image is, YES, secondary, but the very existance of this board suggests that it goes beyond the work and envelopes the personality.
As I write this, I'm watching Noelle Bush get the media's version of a switch to the ass for trying to pass off a fake prescription. Like most relatives or friends of public figure, she is treated as an object, or a 2-dimensional creature who will now be judged and referenced by this alleged crime. She will no longer be "Noelle Bush, daughter of the Florida Governor" but "Noelle Bush, daughter of Florida Governor Jeb Bush who was, in 2002 arrested for forgery and passing a false prescription". In the public eye, her life has instantly been trivialized because she is related to a public figure and did a bad thing. I'm not an apologist for the Repubs, dear god, but its an example of how those 15 minutes Andy mentioned can be a horror.
Fairness for all? I don't think so. The papers are full of sidebar arrest notices and court appearances that go unread.
Altman did do something close to a horror film, 'Images' but it is very difficult to find: http://us.imdb.com/Title?0068732
Hmmm... why is it difficult to find? Click on trivia and.... BASTARDS! Columbia burnt the original negatives!?! What dumb fuck let that happen!?! Christ they lose the neg for Dr Strangelove and then this!?! What morons was working in the studio.
FAQ
I, too, loathe Kazan for what he did. Yes, he made several great films. But the man is toadshit. Whether or not he genuinely thought Communism an evil threat to the country is immaterial; such apologia could be made for McCarthy himself; does that excuse his gleeful peddling of lies to the American public ("I have here in my hand the names of one hundred ... no; make that TWO hundred! Yeah! That's the ticket! ... Communists in the State Department." "Ah; good, Senator. Could we see those names?" "Uh ... no. State security, y'know. Can't show you; nope nope. But they're DANGEROUS!), and his hotrodding of the trampling of American freedoms?
And pushing this discussion dangerously close to Godwin's Law territory, does truly feeling that Jews and liberals and blacks and gays and such are evil threats to the country excuse the words and deeds of the Aryan Nation?
(And Jay Smith: With the loss of their Idaho compound and the ousting of their leader, the Aryan Nation now seems likely to move themselves into Potter County, Pennsylvania: Another thing to keep a watchful eye out for, no?)
THE ARTIST, THE CRIMINAL: To borrow from Harlan and his "Prince Myshkin and Pass the Relish": Does it matter that Dostoevsky was a wifebeater, an epileptic madman (Hey; I LIKE epileptic madmen; I AM one), an recalcitrant gambler, and an all-around bad bastard--or that he wrote CRIME AND PUNISHMENT and THE IDIOT?
If the man or woman's art puts forth the same message that the person's behavior does (cf. Eminem, Doctor Laura, Ayn Rand), then by all means, boycott that which is offensive to you. But to deprive one's self of art worth experiencing hurts only one's self.
EXTEMPORANEA: This seems a lerned lot, and one with a high degree respect for and knowledge of the English language, so I might as well put it to you.
Modern English is now peppered with improperly-placed adverbs which have no real verb to modify: "Hopefully, the storm will pass without hitting us." What, the storm is hopeful that it won't dump on us? "Sadly, he passed away last year." Yeah; I'm sure he WAS sad about it, but that's not what you meant.
Is there an actual linguistic term for these situational modifiers? Has the acceptance into current usage translated to acceptance at a lexicographical or philological level?
And is anyone else here annoyed as all fuckery at these things when he or she hears them?
Er, that should have read, "I've MISPLACED my Rob-to-English dictionary," not "waylaid" it. I didn't jump on it unseen from a tall outcropping of rock...(Dammit, Rob--this is your fault! See how low the mighty hath fallen! Avec! Avec!)
(Stares at ceiling) An eleven-foot Discovery model, eh? Well, I COULD swing a loan for the amount, though explaining to the bank officer exactly WHY I need it might be a little dicey...
On Kazan: Actually, didn't one of the blacklist members commit suicide shortly after being fingered by Kazan? If that's true, then you could argue that he was guilty of murder, albeit in an indirect fashion.
Kazan is a perfect example of an artist whose moral failings have tainted my view of his work. ON THE WATERFRONT is a great and seminal film in many ways, but I'll always see it as an extended apologia for his HUAC testimony. 'Tis a shame, as Brando is nothing less than amazing in it, and many of its scenes have an undeniable power.
And I had a real problem with the special Oscar awarded to him a few years back. Why give it to him, seeing how he had won the statuette previously for his collaborations with Brando? If the Academy had never recognized Kazan before, I could see the rationale for it. But to give such a well-rewarded, controversial figure what was basically a gold watch for time served seemed a little...suspect to me, and more of a political gloss-over job than anything else.
Justin: Glad to hear about your positive Altman experience. See? Would we steer you wrong? (Don't answer that...)
Rob: Um, so does "I paid no attention to it" mean that you've never seen 3 WOMEN, or you saw it, but it made no impression on you? (I've waylaid my Rob-to-English dictionary, so you're gonna have to help me out here. ;-))
For the record, I thought it was a really, really creepy film. You know those vaguely disquieting scenes in an Altman movie, when he zooms in on something for no apparent reason? Imagine an entire film of nothing but those moments. I swear, with its meditations on identity and its overall sense of unease, 3 WOMEN could pass for a David Lynch film. (By the way, I'd LOVE to see Altman tackle a horror film for his next project. Given the proper script, he could make a film that leaves THE OTHERS chewing dust.)
Ah, I wish I had been there for the Salinger shootout. Just picture me as Dean Martin in RIO BRAVO (who would be Wayne?)...
OK, let me add something to the Elia Kazan discussion entirely for the purposes of discussion. I have no opinion on it either way because I don't know enough about it. However, I think it's at least an important point to consider.
I have seen interviews with Kazan and read articles by some of his apologists. The point that gets brought up in his favor is that, at the time, he genuinely felt that Communism was a real threat to the country and felt guilty about having been "seduced" by or associated with it or anyone else in a Communist party.
Now my knee-jerk reaction is to slam the guy for aiding in the HUAC witch hunt. And it would take some convincing for me to think otherwise.
But putting myself in his shoes for a moment, if he did because he thought Communism was evil and a threat to America, is he perhaps more guilty of myopia than cowardice?
I fear I'll get slammed for even bringing it up but, like I said, I don't know either way. But I think it's relevant.
And we're also neglecting the artist whose art *is* a crime. Highlander 2, for instance. I'm a firm believer that Christopher Lambert should be locked in a cage and forbidden from doing anything creative ever again. Too many lives are at stake here.
Others that should be incarcerated for inflicting their version of 'art' on the world: Mariah Carey (just because you can squeek so high that dogs wince, doesn't make you operatically trained, m'dear); Michael Bolton (for committing the musical equivalent of rape to 'Sittin' on the Dock of the Bay'); Limp Bizkit (for doing the same to Pink Floyd). Any other nominees?
L.
Right now, I'm listening to an Hour 25 interview with one Scott Alexander, who's been making reproductions of the models used in the making of _2001_. He's working up 11-foot-long models of the _Discovery_: cost to customers, $10,000. (That's assembled, by the way. He doesn't want to make kits, because people'd screw them up and them bug him for replacement parts.) Damn, I wish I was rich.
On another subject: the Geek Hierarchy can be found at http://www.brunching.com/images/geekchartbig.gif.
More cool discussion on artists and their lives. I'd like to stress that the things I suggested were there as thought-things. I wouldn't actually talk to James Brown that way.
The case of Elia Kazan's a real interesting one. Sure, what he did was shitty... but it wasn't a crime, like murder or assault or rape. Also, if we're supposed to separate the artist from the art, then there could have been no objection to Kazan's getting a special award-- as long as it's clear that the award is for his art and _ONLY_ his art, and does NOT exonerate his testimony to HUAC.
Greetings All -
I de-lurk from an extended absence to comment on the Artist vs. Criminal debate. While the debate is refreshing and insightful, I can't help but think you're all missing the proverbial forest here. There is a rather simple answer to this _seemingly_ torturous conundrum.
Our society already has a mechanism in place to seperate the Art/artist/unremarkable nobody from their nefarious deeds. It's called the legal system. If you commit a crime you get an extended, rather torturous tour of the nitty-gritties of said system - and if found guilty, you pay the price for your misdeeds - after which you are considered square with both the law and society.
Now I won't start on the idea that we undervalue certain evils in our society - basically letting the bad guy skate for extraordinarily horrendous acts (re: Enron/Global Crossing/rape/child abuse). But I am saying that if the bad guy pays his debt to society he is, and should be, given a new start. And his misdeeds, while not expunged, are considered a closed chapter.
What twists my knickers are those who escape their due consequences by dint of a good (read high priced) lawyer and some fancy spin. And money. Lots and lots of money.
I'm a rather simple crime-and-punishment-type-guy. If you do bad things you should pay the price - rich, poor, black, white, liberal, conservative, gay, straight, young, old, famous, talented, insane or unremarkable - I truly don't give a damn - you do the deed, you pay the price, period.
Once you've paid that price - I'm cool with it.
And if you haven't committed a crime, well then, it's not even a problem. Then it _is_ a personal choice and all of our independent, arbitrary criteria are completely valid. We can choose to support or not support such a person as we wish. Even if all the world hails them as the greatest Artist that has ever trod upon this inconstant landscape, we are free to say "bah!" and ignore them.
I, for one, will never again, and I stress NEVER, enrich the pockets of either David Lynch or Kevin J. Anderson with even a single dime of my hard-earned wealth - and I encourage all of you to do the same - though I won't treat those of you who ignore my well thought out and entirely reasonable position with anything less than a hearty "Hail fellow and well met."
Until next time...
P.A.,
First let's take care of your can o'worms...I ALWAYS believed Salinger a god and he IS on our side. I have no problem with that. Just as Harlan is the second coming of Christ (we had the Last Supper at UCLA just a couple of days ago; ASK him).
And yes, I finished HoD two nights ago. With little time to go into so much I'll touch on the aspect of the book I was irked by years ago in my first effort to read it. STILL not an easy read but reasons for things I once griped about - lengthy descriptives of light and dark - made more sense to me in this round. Of course, that's probably because I read on. The contrasts between what is light and what is dark work within the reality of what is considered civilized and uncivilized. The light representing civilization or the civilized side of the world and the dark representing the uncivilized or savage side of the world. Throughout the book, there are several references to these two contrasts. Black and white have the usual connotations of evil and good. The setting also plays a critical role in describing how Marlow feels about the entire journey he endured. From the very start of the novel, there are signs of what is to come - which I didn't recognize the first time because tedium gripped me. The colors of items and objects, which I once so hated reading, helped foreshadow the tragedy that is to come to Marlow. There are a couple of instances in particular that allude to the difficult future Marlow will face. Further along in the novel there are many more examples of the contrast between light and dark. The paradigm of light and dark continue through the ending of the novel, especially in the references to the savages Marlow encounters when attempting to save Kurtz. The ultimate contrast of light and dark occurs with the death of Kurtz on the boat after he is saved and being brought back down "the brown current out of the heart of darkness." Its symbolism is extremely evocative.
Re: Forbidden Planet. I dug the device of the Krell's final pursuits. What happens when you harness energy to the near power of infinity to develop mental energy free of instrumentation? What happens if you've forgotten your evolutionary beginnings and the primal drives of the subconscious? What kind of destructive force might emerge from your dreams in the telepathic feedback? Really well developed concept.
It is possible some beings in the universe, like ourselves, might evolve to a point of extinguishing themselves because of one oversight and too much power. No matter how "divine" they may become, they cannot completely escape their beginnings. A concept Sagan talked about sometimes.
Themes like this made FB a perennial favorite of mine. This film could easily be mistaken as an old pilot for Star Trek.
We'll rattle on about both this and HoD later.
Hello, all. Just a sleepless night, and I'm not much for game playing on the web. A couple of thoughts cross my mind.
Whatever, or whomever; Justin isn't persecuted, he's dealing with a group of folks who disagree, is all. I've had many here who disagree with me on various subjects; I wound up liking them even more for it. The "gun toting" nonsense is your creation sir, not mine or anyone else's.
Kazan: I've admired "On the Waterfront", and "A Streetcar Named Desire" (I've always felt that was Vivien Leigh's best performance) every time I've watched them. I loathe the man who directed them. Kazan shall always be a coward of the lowest order to me; a man, who when the chips were down deserted his friends, leaving them to face oblivion for the crime of having a dissenting opinion to the hysteria of the red-baiters of the era.
Whatever, I can disagree with something or someone, and still respect them or it. I absolutely disagree with the politics of John Wayne, but think his performance in "The Searchers", as well as the film, is tremendous.
The Bag of Meat heads out to cook up some milk.
Rob: Yes, verily, we did ultimately kick ass in the Great Salinger Stomp Off. Could be that God was on our side... no, wait, don't want to open up THAT can o' worms again. Like you, I have a pair of adamantine stones, so it takes more than a little whinging and snideness to send me to the hills. And of course, I always appreciate it when HE comes down on my side, though that oddly did not seem to turn the tide as much as I'd hoped it would.
SPEAKING OF WHICH: guess what I just rented? That's right... Friday night is Forbidden Planet Night in Chateau Bermanator. How's that Conrad coming? Reread that too, and skimmed The Tempest, so I'm ready for action. You?
Bermanator
no insult to Minnesotans intended by previous grumpy post
As someone who has enjoyed this board for many months, and who has enjoyed Mr. Ellison's work for many years, I alway thought when I finally de-lurked my first post would naturally be about HE and his work. But all this recent talk about Robert Altman has forced me to emerge from the shadows just long enough to say I think you should all write only positive and wonderful things about Mr. Altman and all of his works. I ask that of you in the selfish hope that somehow, somewhere, someone involved with the company currently holding the rights to an old Altman-directed TVM called NIGHTMARE IN CHICAGO will read all this praise and be persuaded to release on video this terrific little movie that seems to have vanished from Earth.
Once this has been accomplished, then everyone can go back to saying what they REALLY think about Altman's work.
With feathers,
Frank
A note to ALL: I know it's not topical (regarding the strings below), but how many of you guys out there think King is REALLY gonna retire -- or just pull a "Garth Brooks?"
Here's the URL for the piece I read:
(http://home.netscape.com/ex/shak/news/stories/0102/20020129king.
html)
Yours in useless information, the man
So I saw GOSFORD PARK. While I still find Altman to be a public figure whose comments frequently annoy me, and a man who has produced several films that have left me wanting my money back, I did find myself enjoying his latest effort. My annoyance with him actually didn't detract from my movie-going experience at all, not as it would have if he were some kind of real nasty fiend, as opposed to a guy who just occasionally makes boneheaded public pronouncements (yes, Robert, I'm quite sure that Osama and his goons were sitting around watching Passenger effing 57 one evening in their cave, and suddenly got an idea). I didn't even really think about it, though I was partially going to the movie to see if, in fact, it would truly bother me. So, yes, shame on me for dismissing the film for no very good reason. I'm glad I went to the movie, and I'll think twice before I let anything like that get in the way of me seeing a good movie in the future (I can't think of any other movies I've avoided for similar reasons). Altman can rub me the wrong way all he likes outside of the theater, within reason of course, so long as he delivers when I have a torn ticket stub resting in my pocket.
So, yeah, GOSFORD was a really good movie. Mysteries never did much for me, but this was really engaging. Yes, the direction was superb. The writing, acting, score, and cinematography were all top notch, and whoever the production designers were deserve Oscars. GOSFORD PARK represents a calm sort of filmmaking that we don't see much of anymore, and that alone is worth the price of admission. The verdict is in: worth seeing.
J
P.A.,
"I got pretty beat up on the Salinger thing..."
I thought you might've felt redeemed when the engines of justice intervened in the form of superhero figurines like myself and Ellison the Mighty; hey, it was just us three against a mob like an old Wild, Wild West.
...leaving out the fact the rejoinders we faced were among the weakest and most narrow-minded I've ever seen here. Well, ok - I DIDN'T leave that out.
Frank,
Yeah, you sure done figured it out. All along, America has just eben looking for an excuse to go and murder the women and children of Afghanistan. I hear that's even what they were going to name the campaign. I hear the CIA staged the WTC attack just so we could kill all the women and children in Afghanistan.
I know the first rule of warfare is to never attack any country that has women and children in it but, hey, the U.S. is the most evil nation that ever existed so we don't play by those nicey-nice rules.
Must be tough for you to be such a perceptive, thinking American.
Remember, that the "art" itself is pure. The artist may be swine, but the work of his or her creation speaks the same language, even if the artist is a personal degenerate.
Lynn, I didn't realize that innocent woman and children in Afghanistan are in the same league as a vicious, killer dog on the loose. Where would this country be without such keen moral insight. Hail Bush! Snicker.
I don't have anything particular to say about Altman's films but I did want to address this thread of seeing vs. not seeing something. I really don't know if Hollywood is making an order of magnitude fewer films than they were when I was a kid but it sure seems to be the case. I have found that if one eliminates things from the "must see" list like "Critters 4", it's pretty damned easy to see everything that's being released to the mass audience. In fact, if I had the Sundance Channel I'd pretty much feel like I had it all covered. Like top 40 music, it's just not that hard to keep up cause there's just not all that much there.
So the real question becomes WHEN do I see something.
For instance I'll take my mom to see something like "Saving Private Ryan", my wife and I will go see "Amelie" and I'll catch something like "A Knights Tale" on video with my daughter. By the way, "A Knights Tale", although cookie cutter predictable in the extreme has a couple of fine moments and a truly demented Chaucer as comedy releif/5th business. So I see all of it and the notion of boycotting anybody just never arises.
Literature, on the other hand is something that I feel less equipped to keep up with every year. Currently taking a break from Twain by trying to finish "House of Leaves" by Mark Z. Danielewski and "A Wild Sheep Chase" by Murakami.
Falling behind in Allentown - Barney
R.Wilder~ Thanks, I could draw my own opinions, but that's good to know, anyway. Ratfink doesn't cover it, I believe. I have very strong feelings about First Amendment rights. Without them, it wouldn't be America.
L.
Lynn: Harlan went ballistic over Kazan on Politically Incorrect; there were others who were critical, but HE cut right to the bone and called him a ratfink, who ratted on his friends for his own career gains.
I had no idea who Elia Kazan was until I did a little research. For you, I share the fruits of my labor:
FROM IMDB (taken verbatime, the horrid grammar is not my own): http://us.imdb.com/Name?Kazan,+Elia
His selection for an Honorary Oscar angered many in the filmmaking community on account of him being amoung the first to cooperate with the House UnAmerican Activities Committee in 1952 which led to the Blacklist which ruined many careers in Hollywood because of their political beliefs and publicly stating that he had no regrets for that action. In response, there were loud protests against Kazan's selection of the award and many attendees of the Awards Ceremony itself stayed in their seats and refused to applaud when he received the award. For his part, Kazan quickly received the Oscar and left the stage with only a few thanks in response to the hostility.
Which led me to the oscars.org site, which had this to say in a Press Release dated Jan. 3, 2002:
Academy Exhibition to Examine Hollywood Blacklist
http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/02.01.03.html
What the hell, I've yet to see Devices of Wonder at the Getty or the Viking exhibit... something else cool for me to miss.
::sigh::
L.
David: Don't disappear! We're all getting sucked into some troll's lame crap. Hey, I got pretty beat up on the Salinger thing, and I still love you guys. Never once felt lynched or persecuted, but that's probably because I only post to read the sound of my own voice, right?
No one's going to piss in my Cheerios, damn it. Webderland rules. Anyone who thinks otherwise can suck the dwayne pipe. How about THAT for mature?
Bermanator
feelin' Minnesota and not trying to be nice anymore
Whatever: Don't worry about Justin... he's trained in firearms!
Hey, PAB,
Monsieur Whatever not only cares not to post under his own glorious name, he can't even bring himself to say the name of the person he's criticizing. Come on, have the guts to address me to my face, fella.
Justin is perfectly aware that I wasn't "persecuting" him. He's also probably aware that I wasn't joining some gang to peer pressure him into changing his mind. Basically I would have said what I said even if no one else had taken a similar position.
I explicitly said, more than once, that he was perfectly entitled to his like and dislikes, and that he could avoid whichever artist or works he chose; I merely critiqued some of the rationales he offered. It would appear that YOU have a problem separating the speaker from the statement, sir.
I was not aware that Elia Kazan needed my support. I like a number of his movies just fine. We talk about what we feel like talking about here.
Finally, if you think I just like to hear myself talk, then watch how easily and long I can disappear.
Just when I think I'm out...
Whatever: Did you even read any of our posts? How exactly did I (or anyone else) treat Justin "like some extremist, gun-toting sexist bigot who refuses to recognize the dignity of others"? If you have a problem with someone's opinion, then please direct your comments TO THAT SPECIFIC POST. Otherwise, YOU come off as someone who just likes to hear himself talk, without regard for accuracy or fairness.
As for Kazan: His body of work should be praised in spite of the lack of character he displayed and the lives he destroyed. So nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah **PPBBBBFFFFTTTT** (That's a Bronx Cheer, in case you don't know...)
(Yes, I've been home all day.)
Hey, Mr. Whatever:
Persecute? Employ hyperbole much? No one is persecuting Justin, just as no one was lynching Heather. Just poking at someone else's worldview, in a friendly sorta way. Justin himself was open-minded enough to rethink his stance while making excellent points that provoked a rather civil, interesting discussion. He hardly needs you to make his points for him, as he's doing fine on his own. So, post something other than meta-commentary or be hoisted on your own petard.
And I'd like to mention it's terrifically mature to point out other people's immaturity while posting *anonymously*.
Whatever indeed.
Bermanator
Brian: How about saying... very little to James Brown? If I met him, I'd probably say, "Mr. Brown, ummmm, thanks for making amazing music that has made my life better," and that's all I'd really have to say to the guy. It's the only true thing I can state about him for sure; nothing anyone could tell me about him could erase the joy his music gives me. It's a paradoxical state, to revile him as a person and admire him enormously as a musician, but there it is and it ain't gonna change.
I mean, I can honestly say that the interest I have in an artist's personal life is mostly prurient. I missed out on the whole Pynchon melee, but I would have weighed in on the side of the fans who focus on the work and not the artist. It seems they all have feet of clay, and that's OK. Who are we to expect them to be perfect? Or even nice?
Bottom line: beauty is its own excuse for being.
Bermanator
PS-- Justin, good for you for having the stones to reevaluate your stance. That's cool. I do think your point about artists' integrity is a good one and would have more resonance if you'd picked someone like Jim Morrison instead of Robert Altman.
Lynn-For helping him brush up his resume, my son invited me to see 'Brotherhood' last Saturday; I've never seen anything like it and the conversation(from the history of the period to some stunning images to the unintended humor of the misspelled subtitles) we had afterwards lasted for hours. Thanks for mentioning it. We should follow your example and 'revel in the variety.'
Justin-
While cruising through the neighborhood, I took the time to peruse the recent entries on this board. Jeez. Since so many seem to be going out of their way to persecute you for expressing your views, Justin, please allow me to speak in your defense.
You're perfectly entitled to disagree. You should not be treated like some extremist, gun-toting sexist bigot who refuses to recognize the dignity of others. You don't need to be pounded into dust in a group therapy intervention designed to "enlighten" you. If your prior experience with something/someone carries such negative associations, there doesn't seem to be any reason why you should subject yourself to additional exposure – unless it is your choice to do so. Yes, if you look hard enough, you can discover positive and/or negative characteristics about anything/anyone. But peer pressure is not a good enough reason to do something that is opposed to your principals or makes you feel uncomfortable. A multitude of people, things, places, events to experience and it's always your choice to do so or not. Let's be candid – it doesn't matter what the reviewers & critics & award committees have to say. If the work (cinematic, literary, etc) does nothing for you, then avoid it. Leave it behind. Here's a quarter, call someone who cares.
And while many of you may have the best intentions, to be quite honest, some of you just like to hear yourselves talk (example: the one who said "if you care to name a handful of people whose work you think is absolutely terrific, some of us will be happy to dig up dirt on them that would likely make you think less of them." How utterly childish). If your arguments in support of Altman et al were so solid, why is it not one of you raised a flag of support for Elia Kazan and decided that his body of work should be praised in spite of the lack of character he displayed and the lives he destroyed? Is that because your patron, who has expressed some strong opinions on Kazan, would disapprove?
Whatever
Brian~ re: Millenium. I loved that show. I wish they hadn't shit-canned it.
L.
Jim,
3 Women...sorry, I paid no attention to it.
Sorry about lifting my tunic again.
(Hey, if only more film critics were that candid and succinct).
Oh Jesus, Brian. That sounds like a GREAT idea for a story. What if, as a punishment, an artist LITERALLY became seperated from his work?
Harlan, are you listening? (Shit, I think *I'LL* write it.)
"Plus there's commentary from Altman in which he apparently rips into M*A*S*H the series, and Alan Alda in particular, calling the show racist (among other things)."
Now THAT is really interesting. Never knew 'bout that. I'm so brainwashed by the style of the series I have an impossible time adjusting to the colder movie version. On the other hand, Alda got on my nerves later in the series when he dominated its direction. He was properly balanced by Trapper and Henry Blake. Except for Winchester I hated the cast and character changes.
I take it stereotyping the Asians was the target of Altman's gripe. With David Carradine around how did that ever get by ME?
I gotta take a look at that at some point.
The MASH movie has some great moments but I find other films by Altman far more fask-inating.
My question's raised a pretty nice discussion (and I did it without telling people to "discuss," so that feels pretty darned good, heh heh). As I said, I don't think there are any solid answers we can follow.
For one thing, history imposes its own judgement of posterity regardless of what ethics we set for ourselves-- and that judgement doesn't follow any consistent standard of justice. Also, if we deprive ourselves of art because of something the artist did in life, then we're punishing ourselves more than we're punishing the artist.
Still, here's a question. If we're going to separate the art from the artist to avoid judging the art, that's fine. Why not use this principle-- separating the art from the artist-- to judge the artist? One might say to James Brown, "Look, dude, you beat the crap out of your wife. As far as I'm concerned, you didn't really create all that great music. You just happened to be the guy lucky enough to put it down." Not exactly a policy I'd follow, but is satisfyingly nasty, and maybe it's worth a little, well, er, um, _discussion_.
Oh, while I was thinking about this issue, I remembered one of the slyest jokes I'd ever seen on TV-- and believe it or not, it was from Chris Carter's gloom-fest _Millennium_. The scene was in an office, and Frank Black glances at a watercolored landscape hanging on the wall. For some reason, he gets one of his supra-cognitive flashes, this time of marching Nazis. Later on in the episode, he's leafing through a book on Hitler, and on one page is the painting he'd flashed on earler. Yep, the painting was by none other than Hitler himself-- and the office was a front for a Thule-oriented mystical society of neo-Nazis.
This, to me, was _hilarious_-- pointing out that Hitler might've had a future doing that bland, nondescript corporate-decor art you see in waiting rooms around the world.
Ok, so I'm not the only one, apparently.
Rob: What did you think of 3 WOMEN?
Joseph,
I'm sure you'll rave about Nashville as many do. My reaction to Nashville is purely a subjective one. I can't listen to the music. I don't offer that as a valid criticism of the artistic meritsof the film. It's the music. It is brutal. It is so savagely bad, it literally (and I literally mean literally) HURTS to listen to. In fact, I can't do it.
I know what the critics say about Nashville. I can see what they're saying and if that's what boats your float, I respect that. But I am incredulous that there is anyone anywhere in the world who is capable of listening to the music in that film without sobbing from the pain.
It's so unpleasant for me, I am unable to enjoy the rest of the film. But in no way do I claim it is a bad film. Simply that I can't endure it.
Justin,
Altman is a stylist, with his own pov, his own technique, his own language; some audiences don't connect with him. Satirical elements recur throughout his work. These are the films, of those I've seen by him, I think DO work well and recommend renting:
The surreal Brewster McCloud (a fantasy; probably my favorite of his).
The Long Goodbye (Elliot Gould as Philip Marlowe. Schwarzenegger appears as a crowny thug in this hyper early outing. Mainly a send-up of the detective genre).
McCabe and Mrs. Miller (which I think is fascinating).
Nashville
Thieves Like Us
The Player
I urge you to avoid Quintet (one of his few losers of the 70's)and most of the 80's, most certainly including Popeye.
And never mind any negligible opinions asserted by creative people - or anyone else, whether you agree with them or not; just check out the bigger picture. Literally.
I neglected to mention two names amongst the best directors working today:
David Cronenberg and Atom Egoyan...
Please forgive me, my Canadian brothers and sisters. I stand in shame...
An embarrassed Bag of Meat
Justin: I'm glad you changed your mind about GOSFORD PARK. The offer for reimbursment stands, if it's needed--you have my e-mail address.
I also agree that we shouldn't always give artists a moral pass just because we enjoy their work. My only issue with you was how you chose to make such a stand regarding Altman. Though I think David is fundamentally correct that the art and the artist should be seperated, that's an ideal, divorced from messy reality and the messier spectrum of human emotion. The bottom line is that...there IS no bottom line. We ALL must decide for ourselves when and where an artist's life impinges on our appreciation of his/her work. But keep this in mind: if you truly want to isolate yourself from any art that has an ignoble source, you'd better be prepared to live an aescetic existence. I suspect, despite your militaristic bent, that you don't want to join a monastary just yet. So pick your battles well.
Lynn: I agree w/ Altman, but I still loved "The Fast and the Furious." Vrrooomm!!! Sooo stupid, but I dig it!
Need a little eye-candy, once in a while...
"Vanishing Point," they don't make 'em like that anymore.
Altman's M*A*S*H just came out on DVD, and at least one reviewer took a fresh look at it and saw nothing more than disjointed anti-war statements, lots of blood that seems tame by Saving Private Ryan standards, and an overly padded ending (the whole football game).
Plus there's commentary from Altman in which he apparently rips into M*A*S*H the series, and Alan Alda in particular, calling the show racist (among other things).
IMHO, the series holds up a lot better than the movie. Nitpick about the crazy timelines (like how the show reset itself in 1951 in its tenth season, with Potter and Hunnicutt and Winchester in place long before Blake and McIntyre and Burns ever left), but the show was a pretty reliable entertainment, and touched on a lot of issues.
Back to Altman -- agree with statements that he is unpredictable, but still deserving of his place in the pantheon. Regardless of how bad Pret-a-Porter and Dr. T and the Women were, he belongs on the basis of Nashville, The Player, Short Cuts and now Gosford Park.
Justin:
I, for one, couldn't forgive anyone their reprehensible acts, but come to see them in context with the person. I've done a few things which in an ideal world would be seen as repugnant, but don't believe for a moment that the fact of these acts makes me less of a person. The same goes for others.
When I get interested in an author's, musician's, or artist's work, I like to know some of the background. Same goes for the politician: perhaps its a need for perspective that I have. But I never let the quality of the work be overcome by any opinion I may have concerning the life being led by the creative mind. The two are intertwined, but for me only in the sense that the circumstances of the life generally shape the writing, the music, the policies, whatever.
Now, Altman is one of the best working today: I'd put him there with Kaufman, Mallick, Copolla, and Lee. Whether or not I agree with his politics is another matter: one I'd surely like to discuss with the man himself.
Of course, I was one of those who soundly ridiculed "Quintet", "Ready To Wear" and "Popeye"...but just on their artistic merits, okay?
The Bag of Meat has always felt "Nashville" was Altman's best, and "Kansas City" is his most underrated.
"Mature" filmmaking is his bag, his niche, his lilypad. Why should the man say anything else? And how dare he tell me that the only thing I should be eating at the buffet is the caviar?! Dammit, I like hot dogs sometimes! Not all the time, but sometimes. Sure, Hollywood spends more money on summer blockbusters with no substance, just bustlines and bombs, but they're in it to make money. You want high art, go support your independent filmmakers. Go spend your $9 to sit in an ancient theatre with rickety seats and a unique aroma to watch the little guy on the big screen. The film is why you're there, right? Not the plush stadium seating, the Dolby Digital sound, the Haagen-Daaz ice cream bars. No, I can't live on hot dogs alone, but I'm certainly not going to pretend I can live on caviar.
This past year I saw several films make the leap from art house to multiplex. "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", "Memento", "Amelie", hell even "Chocolat" didn't start out with a large distribution. And I'm seeing even more subtitled films in the big houses. "Brotherhood of the Wolf" and "Iron Monkey" to name two that I saw and enjoyed.
It's a buffet, folks. I revel in the variety. But ultimately, profit is the name of the game.
L.
Checked out the BBC link that Justin wrote encapsulated his thinking; where Altman suggested violent Hollywood filmmaking could've inspired the US attacks, and that Hollywood must now stop showing mass-destruction in movies...violent action films w/ big explosions ---usually targeted at young men---amount to training films for such bold moves. "How dare we continue to show this kind of mass destruction in movies," said Altman. "I just believe we created this atmosphere & taught them how to do it." And, "Maybe there's a chance to get back to grown-up films ---anything that uses humour & dramatic values to deal w/ human emotions & get down to what people are to people."
I can't totally buy Altman's basic assertion that the terrorists were trained by Hollywood violence; just like I won't blame Scorcese and Salinger for Reagan's attempted assassination. But I wouldn't mind seeing intelligent, mature filmmaking as the norm. (This article made me think of a young person I've recently become acquainted with; he's bright, intelligent, and is an inspiring filmmaker (currently filmstudent). I've exposed him to "The Man Who Wasn't There," "Ghost World," "Lord of the Rings," "Mulholland Drive,""In the Bedroom," and although he found enjoyment in these films, his favorite of the year is still "Swordfish!" (Well, I was eighteen, once, too, I think.))
Justin, what is it about that article that encapsulates your
thinking about Altman? Is it that he condemns mass violence in film, and asserts the complicity of Hollywood? Altman is probably wrong; but shouldn't he be applauded for calling for filmmaking where humanity is more important than explosions?
Not a whine, but an honest question (ok, maybe it's a whine, too)...
Am I the only person on this board who thinks Altman is a great director?
Okay. David, Jim, and Michael have convinced me to rethink this. I'll go see GOSFORD PARK, alright? But I've never seen an Altman movie I've liked very much, although MASH was okay but not great. But in the spirit of open mindedness I'll go check it out and see how I feel about it. Mostly I'm going because of Helen Mirren, who I think is a great actress. I forgot she was in it, and I will gladly support HER work. David is right, it's difficult to separate these things out. But I still don't agree with the assertion that the art and the artist are really such seperate entities. It seems to me that as a society we are far too permissive and forgiving of "great" men who behave like complete jackals, be they politicians, rock stars, sports stars, etc. We know that if you have money and fame in this country, it will go a long way toward washing away your sins or at least the price you have to pay for them, and I do not--will NEVER--agree with that. Of course it MATTERS if an artist hurts people or behaves like his membership in the Basic Decency Club has long since expired. I said I didn't want to see Gosford Park because Altman said some things that I didn't agree with (I never said that he was not completely entitled to his opinon), which in retrospect was as goofy a thing to say as anything I was hacking on Altman for. So I'll go see his movie, and if I find that for once I like an Altman film, then good for me and good for Altman and good for the board for calling me on an indefensible position I had no business taking. But I still think anyone who doesn't care about the way artists behave, so long as their art is good, needs to take a good long look in the mirror. I grew up with Batman and the Justice League, right? I believe that the victim DOES matter, and I could never really enjoy an engaging and expertly-written book, for example, if I knew that the author was a reprehensible and dangerous character. Nobody is perfect, true, but there are varying degrees of imperfection and horror. There are lines. The book might be good, but it comes from a reprehensible place, and that does matter.
Chris,
I'll, sometime today or tomorrow, write out a longer and more thoughtful response to your opinions on "Nashville." In the meantime, I'll quote Roger Ebert, speaking to Joel Siegel after Siegel called "The Valachi Papers" a better movie than "The Godfather:" "There's a difference between a matter of opinion and being dead wrong."
Regards,
Joseph
Frank~ Thinking Americans can conjugate the verb 'to be'. Also, when a vicious dog bites one of your children, don't kill the dog. Under your interpretation, that would be a revenge binge. Maybe give him a hug instead.
L.
Dwayne Pipe (sounds like a porn actor) I am as real as humanly possible. I smell another anti-dissenter.
Frank Church:
GET REAL!
Hi ho all. Man, quite a bit on a rather thorny issue. Of course, I'm not one for keeping my mouth shut on such topics, but I've got a bit to say to Jay, then I'll climb in.
Jay: Well, we're probably closer to each other on the issue of intrusion than we'd admit. I don't like enpowering government to become watchdogs anymore than you do, especially in the atmosphere that's been heated by recent events. Ashcroft and his ilk are to be watched, and closely. He seems to forget that his job is to enforce the laws put forth by the people through their elected officials, not rewrite those his own morality disagrees with.
As for your assertions concerning profiling, well, as I read your point regarding inspections into one's background, I did a little traipse across my own hellhole of an upbringing: in the right hands, it could be built up to preclude me from everything I own, and the people I most love. Got to nod to you there. We'll both take our watches on surveillance.
Now regarding disagreements with artist's behaviour.
I have a copy of "Mein Kampf", one I purchased in my early twenties. I wanted to read it, after reading extensively around the history of the Great War of the 20th century (I count WWI and WWII as one conflict, the mistakes made in the settlement of the first guaranteed the occurrence of the second). Well, I have to say that the book did stick with me as an example of how hatred can twist an individual's insights and actions, and how easily a nation such a Germany could be seduced by the oversimplified rhetoric offered by Hitler and his policies.
Do I subscribe to any part of the book's praxis? Not by a long shot; his words, however, gave me pause to consider the horrible magnitude of what had occurred, and how it could occur again, without vigilance on behalf of the public.
I think it was Alan Moore: "Society won't be dragged at the point of a gun into totalitarianism: We would go willingly."
Any number of times, I've gotten into arguments with friends about my possession of the tome, and most want me to unload it. I cannot, both on the principle of freedom of speech, and as a person who believes in the admonition put forth by George Santayana, regarding failing to recall history. We need to know the face of hate and how insidious it is. To banish Hitler's words, as abomidable as they are, is to let those who hate win: they can say, "See? They fear the truth; they try to kill his words."
Would I let my cutlets read it? When they're old enough to understand the book in an accurate historical and social context, when their minds are shaped enough to question, to challenge the words on the page with intelligence and reason.
This brings me to my comment. We have to look at the art as the extension of the artist, whose works are as much shaped by his life as his personality. The most horrible souls have created works of unique insight, and the works themselves have to be considered. For me, there's no shame in seeing Dostoyevsky, who as our patron has written in "Prince Myshkin..." is completely reprehensible as a person, yet magificent as an author. The same goes for the Marquis De Sade, Niccolo Machiavelli, Edgar Allen Poe, et cetera, ad nauseum.
For me, the most important thing is the right to choose...
Patrick Henry DID NOT say: "Give me a Bag of Meat, or give me death!"
Justin, let me get this straight; you are saying that anyone who says anything bad about the central state is bad? Dissent is a democratic institution, unlike the military, and Altman was just flexing his political muscle. Our killing machine in Afghanistan should be the center of protest by any thinking American--of coarse there is few thinking one's left--to make known our immoral use of force in a forlorn place. Revenge is immoral any way you slice it, and our war is a revenge binge and nothing else. Eye for and eye went out in the dark ages, but will we ever learn? Thinks not.
Altman:
I have never quite figured out what I think of him. I truly hate some of his movies. I also quite like several but don't love any of them.
I find Nashville the most tedious unwatchable dreck imaginable. The real tough part is having to listen to approximately an hour's worth of the worst music God or Satan has ever created. This isn't even up to the standards of bad contemporary country like Shania Twain. It's like spending an evening at the Billy Ray Cyrus Memorial Karaoke and Genital Torture Club. The music is so bad and so relentless, it literally makes Nashville a physically painful experience. I don't know how anyone can endure it.
On the other hand, I think McCabe and Mrs. Miller is a fine film, if a bit overrated. Popeye is one of the underrated gems of the 80's and has to represent the best possible job anyone could ever do of adopting a comic strip to film. The Player is close to being a great film but isn't quite there. And Gosford Park is one of the best films of 2001.
One thing which turns a lot of people off to Altman's work is his disdain for narrative. Movies like The Player tell a story and ae more palatable to the masses but Nashville and Gosford Park both refuse to follow any narrative through-line with Altman opting for the role of anthropologist and observer rather than interpreter and story-teller. I don't like it in Nashville because of the music and the characters who, IMHO, are dull. I like it in Gosford Park because I think the characters are itneresting. Simple as that for me.
Altman is an acquired taste and one I haven't quite become fond of but who I have a craving for on occasion. No matter what, he should be applauded for his focus on some of the less traditional aspects of film-making. The vast majority of filmmakers hang their film on the skeleton of traditional Western narrative. Gotta show us a character or three, put them in a situation and show us their progression and change from beginning to middle to end. That's fine and well but it usually doesn't interest Altman and I think that's a very good thing even when I don't like it.
As for his political statements, they have nothing at all to do with his art.
Lynn,
That's not a skirt, it's a tunic.
Justin:
You're quite free not to like Altman's work. But when you try to come up with reasons to justify your dislike, your comments go irrationally overboard, especially with:
"And no, I'm not going to support the livelyhood of any artist who engages in behavior that is abhorrent and sets a godawful example. Because if I buy the crap they produce, I send them the money to keep living destructive lifestyles that are probably hurtful to a lot of people."
Nice ethical stance if you can make it stick, but I don't think you can. First off, buying the wonderful things you like from people of whose lifestyle you entirely approve is more likely than not going to support others -- in publishing, marketing, etc. -- whose human qualities are not so sterling. There are undoubtedly spousal abusers, alcoholics, drug addicts, and embezzlers tucked in amongst them. You can't separate them out.
Second, if you care to name a handful of people whose work you think is absolutely terrific, some of us will be happy to dig up dirt on them that would likely make you think less of them.
Conclusion? The work and the life are, ultimately, separate. You can't tell what kind of man Ellison is simply from reading his stories, any more than you could with Celine, Kafka, Simonon, or anyone else who does fiction. (It would be enough of a challenge even with nonfiction essayists!)
"I say if you write the greatest novel in history, then you take
the money you make from it and start buying women and drugs, wrapping your cars around trees, and luring underage girls into your bed, then your novel is worthless. 'Oh, but I'm an artist.' Fuck your art, you're a horrid human being who doesn't deserve to breathe the same air as the guy who sweeps high school floors for a living and doesn't hurt anybody, or the overweight girl who works at McDonald's for 5.25 an hour and doesn't hurt anybody.
Beeyotch."
Wrong, Justin. The life does NOT invalidate the work, just as the work does not validate the life. If an artistic genius happens to commit a crime of passion or desperation, that does not diminish the truth or beauty of the work he executed in calm, studied labor. Just as the work of art should not commute his sentence for the crime.
They are separate. Do not confuse the two. The novel, the painting, the film can do great good, bring great comfort, at the very least entertain, millions of people, perhaps inspire dozens of future artists -- and while I would hesitate to attempt a mathematical equation to measure that great good against either the personal evil done by the artist, or the good performed by your high school custodian and fast food clerk do, the value of that goodness is undeniable.
Ultimately, it is impossible to measure the good or evil that a person does. It's surely not the fast food clerk's fault if a high-blood pressure, high cholesterol customer steps up to the counter, orders a burger, and drops dead of a heart attack right there, is it (any more than Judas Priest, Suicidal Tendencies, or J.D. Salinger can be held responsible for the evil that fans of theirs have committed)?
You're quite free to judge and reject artists on whatever basis you will, Justin, but I'm telling you that your criteria are (inevitably) going to be quite arbitrary.
I'm a little surprised by the vehemence of Brian Siano's remarks about "honoring criminals" and forgetting the victims and the crimes.
The truth of the matter is, most art and artists get lost to history too, as well as victims and crimes. The art that lasts tends to add something to all our lives; it is life-affirming in some way. It continues to live. Victims and crimes die, as do artists (as opposed to their name, their reputation, etc.)
Although it adds something to the depth of our understanding to know and acknowledge the flaws of our idols, it's not necessary that we do so for their art to continue to live and do good, to comfort, to entertain, in the world. And in a way, it doesn't do any good to try to honor or remember the victims, really; because in a way, it's none of our business the same way that whatever Thomas Pynchon looks like or is doing today is none of our business.
Creation of art and human frailty or criminality happening to coincide is one matter. The ethical issue that bothers me more is to what extent an artist's abuse/neglect of others can be justified as a BASIS for the art, or at least the pursuit of it?
Faulkner once said an artist would walk over his own grandmother in pursuit of his art -- the "Ode on a Grecian Urn" is worth any number of old ladies. In some intuitive way, I balk at this. It's the same sort of rationale that got Jack Henry Abbott, a convicted murderer, sprung from jail because his writing "showed promise," and he promptly and fatally stabbed a young black actor and playwright who was waiting tables.
What attitude we take toward the work of a creator who happened to live a sinful or criminal life is one thing; to use the art as a justification for sin and crime is quite another.
Question from Bermanator: Should I boycott Thomas Jefferson's writings because he's a hypocrite?
Rob's Answer: Well, no, since the people and rights he and that group originally excluded had been "corrected" since then.
This doesn't address my point: that the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence was a hypocrite of the rankest sort, which gives lie to his twaddle about "all men are created equal." The fact that it was corrected later is meaningless, since Jefferson himself did not correct it and had no intention of doing so. In fact, he *owned* other human beings! I cannot support the works of a person like that.
Of course Justin is entitled to his opinion and his taste. I am just trying to prompt a discussion about the artist v. the art. Too many of the artists I enjoy have done bad, bad things. I'm not saying I would hang out with these guys, but sometimes beautiful things grow out of shit. I cannot therefore scorn the beautiful things. Maybe that's my moral subjectivity showing itself, or maybe it's a person in a glass house not casting stones. Whichever.
Bermanator
Insert the name Wagner, and delete the name Mahler in my former post.
Jazz artist Anthony Braxton worships the music of Mahler, Cage, and Stockhausen. When asked about rascist sentiments that the latter two had expressed,and the rascist connotations of the former, Braxton replied, "The history of music is not the history of nice guys." Listen to (or read) "Prince Myshkin, And Hold The Relish;" are the sentiments expressed about Doestoevsky's character going to keep us from reading his work?
On James Brown: like a whole lot of musicians, he has behaved like a whack-job on more than a few occasions. When he was at the height of his '80's hits, he was doing PCP! PCP!? That's a gutter, brain-rot, disease drug, for brain-damage cases, and those who wish to be brain-damaged. That's one of the times he beat his wife, threatened her with a shot-gun, and led the police on a high-speed chase. Obviously, if one is offended by someone's personal flaws (or crimes), it is natural to give pause over supporting their work. But even though I know the Godfather is a twisted whackjob, I'm still going to get funky with "Live at the Apollo Theater" when the feeling takes me. Now... the reason I chuckled over Altman's impulsive statements, was because it was evidence that the guy just doesn't give a shit! Instead of sucking up to the elderly Oscar electorate, instead of wearing an NYPD cap, or a USA t-shirt, or jumping on the band-wagon of Patriotism, he opened his mouth and told us, "I don't give a shit!" I only caught a sound-bite of a quote on a Cable News Network, in which he insulted Bush. It was not the insult itself that amused me; it was the image of an old guy who has had his share of accolades, awards, bright shiny prizes, and isn't playing The Game. Also, at a time when criticism of the Gov't has been likened to "Aiding the Terrorists," Altman has the cojones to thumb his nose at reactionary jingoism. "Gosford Park" isn't everyone's cup of joe; neither is "Nashville," or "Shortcuts," or "The Player," or "McCabe and Mrs. Miller." But the guy is definitely one of our greatest living filmmakers ---for his signature use of overlapping dialogue and sounds, to his unique vision of ensemble storytelling, to the variety and scope of his body of work. Yes, he has made some dogs. After years of questionable work, he came back with "The Player," one of that year's best films. (The subtext of that film is a parallel to the topic at hand ---personal morality, ethics, the responsibilties of behavior). I have been trying to think of an example of an artist that I myself have boycotted or avoided because of offending words, or behavior... and can't think of anyone. Celine, the aforementioned Fyodor D., V.S. Naipaul, Mingus, Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, Francis Coppola, Woody Allen, are some of the artists whose personal behavior or sentiments run against my own; I still dig them. But I bet I have my limit, my own threshold. (...though, Politicians are open-season.)
Rob~ Pull down your skirt, your bias is showing.
L.
P.A.,
"Thomas Jefferson, that hypocrite, owned slaves; does that mean I should boycott the Declaration of Independence?"
Well, no, since the people and rights he and that group originally excluded had been "corrected" since then. Otherwise, in the face of such BLATANT perpetuated hypocrisy, there probably WOULD have been contingents imposing their own boycotts today. As I stressed before, this is a subjective issue.
My argument is this sort of thing is a matter of individual whim. We all have lines drawn, even you, I'm sure, though you may not know it. My own "boycott" of Brown itself was disposition, as over the years I began listening to some of his stuff again. Memory of the wife-beating began to recede. I CAN tell you if he had killed her I doubt that would have happened. Perhaps not with you; it certainly would with me. That, of course, is easy for me to say about anyone who hadn't reached me in a personal and profound way to begin with - the essence of what art IS. (Right: I don't share the passion for Brown as you have; and you undoubtedly heard much more of his stuff, which disqualifies me as a judge for his artistry. And that's another problem in this type of argument. If I'm not as enlightened by his creative latitude and I come in more from the stand point of his actions, where does that set my bias? In his case this is all too easy for me to say, so I'm trying to raise a principle - a dilemma). And personal angsts are the engines of TRUE art. A real artist - a separate entity from the craftsman - I would EXPECT to be pretty fucked up.
This is a hypothetically ethical argument, and "whim" is inconsistant (it is emotion that's entirely at work here, at both extremes, not objectivity; this is where I am criticizing my own position): I trashed Leni Riefenstahl (then, again, though touted as a craftsman her work had dubious artistic impact anyway; she isn't one hell of a loss in any scenario) because of her Nazi tolerance yet I would listen to Wagner in spite of his blatant anti-Semitism. If the latter had been HITLER'S artistry would I have been so inclined? He had committed mass murder...I doubt it. Again: a line is drawn not by plan but by stimulus. Sometimes the fumes of ones repugnance can rise through the art itself. Depends on where the circuitry is connected.
But your point about expressed opinion was precisely part of my argument too. To condemn an artist for expressing a view is ludicrous and myopic. Furthermore, my so-called "boycotts" are strictly a personal choice. I don't believe anything should be subject to public censorship or "edited" (I've never been able to watch Birth of a Nation; I've seen enough clips. But I would never say close it away). Whatever boycotts one might be considering he/she should establish clear criteria.
In a final note, though I didn't catch what Altman said - and, again, who gives a shit about one statement - there are few critical comments one could make about the military that AREN'T true.
Jeez, ya take a day off to spend with the wife and look what happens.....
JUSTIN: Whoa, there, bwah! While I understand your personal outrage at Altman's comments, you definitely need a chill pill on this one. The artist is NOT the art, just as a priest is NOT the religion, nor a telephone lineman the corporate octopus that charges too much for DSL. People are flawed, errant creatures, but we are sometimes given the gift to create something better than ourselves. Hell, I know that you have enjoyed MY art, and yet as an individual I am guilty of horrible crimes against humanity and morality that would make most people either flee shrieking or throw ten-pound rocks. And I've even TOLD you about some of those....okay, not the squirrel incident, but you get my drift. If reprehensible behavior negates the validity of the art that people create, well, I'm going to have to give up a whole hell of a lot of art...and I, for one, am not willing to go there. Ease up, son. Put down the gun. Don't make me tolchok your gulliver into submission.
'Sides, I told you about Alfred Bester at least a year ago...Gully Foyle is one of the greatest characters ever created. "Course, I heard that old Alfie used to trap pigeons for ritual sacrifice...
JOSEPH: you think THAT'S a good chile recipe? Hmmmph! You don't know from chile! Drop me a line, I'll send you a chile recipe that'll curl your hair. Ask Lynn. She knows, she does...
Michael
can't stop sniffing his peck...
Brian/Everyone: I agree, there are no easy answers to this moral conundrum; I mean, what would be a good corrective to historical amnesia? Putting stickers on James Brown's CD's that say, "A classic by the Godfather of Soul, who is also an angel-dust snorting, wife-beating, egomaniacal prick!"? Broadcasting the gruesome photos of his wife's battered face on every tv show that features him? Reciting a list of the women he's battered after playing his songs on the radio? I'm not being facetious, I just don't KNOW how an artist's victims should be properly memorialized.
Of course, sometimes history DOES remember an artist's moral failings, to the detriment of his reputation--Ike Turner was an vital figure in the development of rock&roll, but he will forever be remembered as "the bastard who beat Tina." Maybe that's how it should be; you could argue that Turner was nothing more than an occasionally inspired musical journeyman with a knack for picking talented bandmates, so there's no great loss to popular culture if the public forgets him.
James Brown, on the other hand, was a genius who single-handedly changed the course of popular music. Even if you personally don't like his work, you have to recognize the historical significance of his recordings and bandleading, which inspired innumerable musicians to emphasize a more deeply African style of rhythm in their playing. Like it or not, he belongs in the pantheon of the greats, with Muddy Waters, Duke Ellington, Louis Jordan, Ray Charles, and the other great men and women of American music.
On the day he hurt his wife, however, he was just another sadistic asshole with a short fuse.
Like I said, I dunno what the answer is. One of my favorite musicians is Miles Davis. I own forty CD's by the man, and a gigantic poster of his face covers one of the walls in my library. His art has enriched my life beyond the telling. And yet, most of his personal behavior DISGUSTS me. He (rightly) railed against the unjustices perpetrated on blacks in this country, but he saw nothing wrong with HIS brutal treatment of an entire sex. Too many girlfriends and wives learned that, as far as Miles Davis was concerned, women were the true second-class citizens of the world.
I'd crawl through broken glass to see a performance by one of his classic quintets of the 50's and 60's.
But I wouldn't, to use that wonderfully piquant colloquialism, piss in his mouth if he was dying of thirst.
I have no idea how to reconcile this. Anyone who DOES, please e-mail me at...
Brian: I love Otis, too. His albums are "comfort music" in my house; if life gets a little too rough for the living, I put on THE DICTIONARY OF SOUL, or SINGS SOUL BALLADS, and suddenly, things aren't quite so bad anymore. I hope he helps you through your difficult times, as well. (I know you don't want to hear it, but you have my deepest sympathies on your recent loss.)
OK, for those of you who don't believe that the Stephen King retirement comment is recent, I found it. Sci-Fi Wire News. Here's the link www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2002-01/28/09.00.books
He told this to the L.A. Times. Recently, not years ago. And his website is responding to rumors with a response that does not really disagree with what he said.
-TODD
Article of the week: "Rescued from Oblivion" by Jeff Topham, http://www.sfsite.com/fm/show.html?rw,oblivion,1
A fine look at the neglected fantasy novel _The Lord of the Rings_ by J.R.R. Tolkien. Topham examines this now-forgotten epic, which had the misfortune of being published around the time of Mervyn Peake's wildly successful "Gormenghast" books. There is discussion of the rumored excised "pornographic" passages, and Stanley Unwin's request that Tolkien make his "Silmarils" sequel's tone closer to Peake. "In a further irony, Tolkien's invented language enjoyed the very popularity that had eluded his novels, and "French," as Tolkien called it, is now spoken by hundreds of millions of people around the world."
On Artists Behaving Badly---
This issue comes up alot in jazz circles when discussing the music of Miles Davis and Stan Getz and others who were notoriously mean or downright criminals. Yes, the art is remembered, especially if it is truly great art, that which is influential upon all future comers and/or are works of true genius. I can still admire Miles's musical contribution, while recognizing that he was an asshole for beating his wife. An understanding of Miles Davis's contributions to the music is essential for a complete understanding of modern jazz practice.
Great artists aren't necessarily great people. Thankfully, some (if not most) are.
As far as the victims becoming a footnote to the art of the offender, well, it is complicated and perplexing and sad. All I can come up with is is what my momma used to say, "Life ain't fair."
Huh. Weird casting of the day: Michael Clarke Duncan (from Green Mile and Armageddon) has been announced to play the Kingpin in the Daredevil movie. Could work.
sorry. stupid internet. couldn'ta been user error.
And what I meant to say and forgot to say was I guess, Todd, you could ask King himself if he thought about retirement if you decide to go to the benefit.
And having recently seen Gosford Park I will say that the movie may not be everyone's cup of tea. I thoroughly enjoyed it, but I think some critics are going overboard in their adulation of this film. It's a nice character driven film that's really not a murder mystery, but more of a treatise on class and people's perception of class (and with the added mystery of all people having mysteries (or, as mentioned in the film, "secrets").
Having said that, I probably would have enjoyed it better if the murmurings in the theater hadn't kept a low level background noise through the whole film. And two cell phones going off. The goofballs (including me) that saw Lord of the Rings had more decorum than these upper middle class white folks that saw Gosford Park the other night. Speaking of Lord of the Rings, I made the mistake of seeing Gosford Park in a multi-plex. And Lord of the Rings was playing next door. It got to the point where my whole fuckin' seat would vibrate from the music pounding next door. Thankfully, it was close to the end of Gosford Park and I was able to ignore the vibrations from the movie next door. But, that fuckin' murmur. I kinda felt like that guy in Scanners.
As far as art/artist: I'm of the opinion that you judge the art and not the artist since good art lasts longer than the artist. And we're all footnotes, but the art does remain.
And what I meant to say and forgot to say was I guess, Todd, you could ask King himself if he thought about retirement if you decide to go to the benefit.
And having recently seen Gosford Park I will say that the movie may not be everyone's cup of tea. I thoroughly enjoyed it, but I think some critics are going overboard in their adulation of this film. It's a nice character driven film that's really not a murder mystery, but more of a treatise on class and people's perception of class (and with the added mystery of all people having mysteries (or, as mentioned in the film, "secrets").
Having said that, I probably would have enjoyed it better if the murmurings in the theater hadn't kept a low level background noise through the whole film. And two cell phones going off. The goofballs (including me) that saw Lord of the Rings had more decorum than these upper middle class white folks that saw Gosford Park the other night. Speaking of Lord of the Rings, I made the mistake of seeing Gosford Park in a multi-plex. And Lord of the Rings was playing next door. It got to the point where my whole fuckin' seat would vibrate from the music pounding next door. Thankfully, it was close to the end of Gosford Park and I was able to ignore the vibrations from the movie next door. But, that fuckin' murmur. I kinda felt like that guy in Scanners.
As far as art/artist: I'm of the opinion that you judge the art and not the artist since good art lasts longer than the artist. And we're all footnotes, but the art does remain.
Whoops-- the last sentence of my previous note should have been cut. Ignore it.
Boy, this raises some disturbing questions. Now that Rob's given me an account of what James brown did to his wife, I'm probably not going to be able to listen to "It's a Man's Man's Man's Man's World" without some ghastly rotten.com image floating to mind. (For the record, I've never really liked James Brown that much. But I absolutely _adore_ the magnificent, wonderful, and utterly spectacular Otis Redding.)
But what bothers me is the fact that, a hundred years from now, people will be listening to James Brown's songs... but his wife will be utterly and completely forgotten outside of old biographies. Sure, we can spout the usual sentiments about how "the music will go on forever" and the like, and we can argue some kind of demarcation point between evaluating a human being and the art he/she created. But no matter _what_ we say, history _does_ forget the "personal flaws" and remembers the art.
The question is whether this is _desirable_. I'm not sure that it is. Matter of fact, I think there's something truly _awful_ about this situation. It's bad enough that horrible crimes are forgotten, and that suffering goes for naught in the end. But doesn't hailing the art of the criminal add insult to the victim's injury? That the victim will wind up as a footnote to the criminal's biography?
I don't think there are any easy answers to this. As I said, one can say that we shouldn't judge art by the artist's life-- but that'll be the case anyway, so it's not really an _argument_.
I'm not keen on the idea that a crime will be forgotten just because the criminal wrote or sang something that happened to earn posterity.
Todd,
I just sent you a note concerning King's appearance (along with others) in NY for a benefit for Frank Muller. There was quite a bit of info in there so I just forwarded the whole thing to you.
For others that may be interested, here's the gist:
An Evening with
Pat Conroy, John Grisham, Stephen King & Peter Straub
A Benefit Performance for Frank Muller and Family
February 2nd, 2002
8:00 p.m.
Town Hall
123 West 43rd Street, New York, NY
Hosted By
George Guidall
With Performances By
Pat Conroy
John Grisham
Stephen King
Peter Straub
Ticket Information:
Order Tickets Now
Tickets are available immediately by email.
Email: mullerbenefit@aol.com
Tickets will be available on January 12, 2002 at the Box Office at Town Hall and through Ticketmaster at 212-307-4100.
The tickets are a bit steep, but the proceeds go to the Frank Muller Fund.
Todd - King made comments to an interviewer with a British magazine a few years ago along the lines of how he felt he'd pretty much told all the stories he wanted to tell, didn't think that aside from the remaining Dark Tower books that he had more than a couple books left in him. I want to say that this was during an interview swing for "Desperation", but the mind grows hazy with encroaching decrepitude.
But since his change of publishers with "Bag of Bones", his writing has seemed more lively, and as a reader (to me at least), it feels like he's enjoying it more. He may have just needed to part ways with Viking. I don't suspect he's folding his hand and backing away from the table just yet.
Lynn, read between the lines on that short answer on King's website.....it says he still has books coming out, which is exactly what I said in my note (two completed books, and the Dark Tower final three volumes being written). I don't remember where I heard that he was considering retiring, but it was from his mouth (in an interview), not a rumor mill thing.
Joseph, forgetting all the discussion about boycotting an artists work because of what he said or his morals (hey, I will NEVER miss a Woody Allen movie. Never.), I have never been impressed with Altman. I know he is considered some wonderful treasure, but that list you supplied cements my opinion. MASH is not really that good a movie....the teevee show is much better (season one now available on DVD sans laughtrack!!). In fact, the only movies on that list that I can say I like, not love, like are The Player, The Long Goodbye, and Popeye.
Most of you know my politics, and thus I do not like what Altman has had to say, but that is not why I am not seeing Gosford Park until it's 'free' on one of my cable teevee channels. I'm not seeing it because he isn't a name that automatically gets me into a theater (like Scorsese or R.Scott or Spielberg or Coens or Coppola or Lynch or Parker or Anderson or many others). He's a name that screams "reviewers love him, I am bored by him."
Hollywood being Hollywood, if I boycotted everyone who did not agree with my politics, I wouldn't have much to watch. But I refuse to see someone's movies who has often disappointed me just because I'm force fed by many critics that he is a great talent.
-TODD
I'm sorry, maybe I'm just being morally relativistic, but I am not going to cease enjoying James Brown's genius because he did things that I think are wrong. Thomas Jefferson, that hypocrite, owned slaves; does that mean I should boycott the Declaration of Independence?
Now, I don't want to make a rich man out of an evil one by patronizing the work of a "bad man," but I look at it like this: it's not the art that's evil-- if anything, it might even redeem the lost soul. Most of the rock icons whose music I love so much had arguably quite degenerate lifestyles. I feel it's none of my business. Perfect people don't make art. If I were without sin, I'd cast the first stone...
Robert Altman, on the other hand, apparently said nothing evil. He expressed his opinions, which is his right and which did not hurt anyone. I don't give a rat's ass about his political views. Can't understand why anyone would. I admire his work, and if he wants to shoot his mouth of in his free time, that's great for him.
Gonna have to weed out your CD and book collection, Justin, if you wish to enjoy only the art of the righteous...
Bermanator
Regarding Robert Altman's comments, just imagine what it would be like having one of your more regrettable comments captured in print. Sure, his words may have offended many, but who here hasn't, at one time or another, made a statement that would send your mother to an early grave? Besides, opinions are not set in stone. What I believe today is not necessarily what I may believe tomorrow. Being offended by Robert Altman's words and refusing to see his movies because of them seems all too indicative of today's ever-present, all-too-popular cult-of-personality. You can--and should--be able to separate the art from the artist.
Switching on my handy Miracle Editor for that last post:
"Where I confess my prejudices LIE..."
Toldja I was tired.
Lynn:
I'd like to deliver exciting drama like my ceiling having collapsed on me and my taking a beam to the head but I didn't feel shit tonight. My neighbor across the ally did, though. I submitted to him the epicenter started and ended under HIS place.
Justin, All:
Worn, tired and shot I'm going to fire this off quickly:
Are "artists" (by subjective definition) exempt from "ethical" scrutiny?
Even I have certain lines drawn before I impose a personal boycott on an artist. I looked at some of Leni Riefenstahl's stuff yet took the exit in protest to her pro-Nazi schmoozing. I've never given John Wayne much of a chance, mainly because the majority of his movies would reflect the distorted world view he embraced - and all I found myself doing was rolling my eyes and making fun of him (unlike Heston who did a number of films that redeemed his insipid political philosophies; I mean he worked with figures like Orson Welles and Rod Serling). Disney, on the other hand, involved himself in the 50's black listings - with his asshole buddy Ronald Reagan (an act I despise); yet, much of what he accomplished will never leave me. To a great extent an artist's political slant has no effect on me IF his work has redeeming power. And I don't care if an artist has personal problems with drugs, alcohol, sexual preferance, a fucked up personality and so on.
Where I confess my prejudices is when I read what a guy does to his wife or commits murder or utterly ruins people. When I read the details on what James Brown did to his wife - he THOROUGHLY bashed her face to fragments and threw in a split bloody lip to balance things - I gotta tell ya being "king of Soul" was hardly redeeming. I couldn't listen to him, I couldn't watch him. I despised him for that. Hey: if O.J. Simpson had been some kind of great artist do you feel the murders and mutilations he'd committed would have turned you away from what he'd done prior? If I learned or was completely convinced Robert Blake had murdered his wife I'd probably have a difficult time watching him again. And THAT would be a shame. But that's how I feel about ANYONE who pulls shit like that.
Yet, Justin, to "boycott" an artist for expressing an opinion - hardly the composite of everything he stands for - is nothing less than puerility. LEAVING out the reality that ALL military leaderships are as dissolute as anyone and always have been, your angry defense for that constituent almost resonates the outcome of a successful brainwash. Like a religion. Stretch your latitude in standards a LITTLE bit, man.
When someone like Robert Altman comes along and does work with so much depth (aside from Heston and Disney, there were others guilty of asinine statements but the breadth of their work exceeded the importance and impact of their remarks) you don't condemn them for a mere opinion.
Oh, one more thing...
I thought Helen Mirren was incredibly hot in GOSFORD PARK. Is that strange? (Realizes who he's asking, and rolls his eyes...)
Justin:
Where to start, where to start...
First, if you're truly serious about boycotting the work of artists whose personal behavior you find abhorrent, you'd better be prepared to throw out most of your books, Cd's, videos, and DVD's. That's not hyperbole, just a simple statement of fact. There is, sadly, very little correlation between the subliminity of a piece of art and the moral uprightness of the person who created it. Maybe it's because the artist pours all of his/her nobility into the work, leaving little for day-to-day living; I don't know. But if you truly dug into the histories of your favorite creative minds, you might be shocked at what you find.
Second, whatever Altman has said post 9/11 (and I agree his statements about Hollywood's responsibility for the attacks have been, er, dopey in the extreme), that's hardly a good reason to avoid seeing GOSFORD PARK. A director, despite the undeniable power s/he possesses, is not the sole creator of a film; cinematographers, actors, editors, producers, set designers, sound men, and numerous others are just as important in establishing a film's mood and effectiveness. (And that's not even mentioning the screenwriter, who thought the whole damned thing up to begin with.) Will you boycott, say, LORD OF THE RINGS because the DP has a DWI record? (I'm not saying he does, this is just an example.) The acting in GOSFORD PARK is some of the year's best--why should the men and women responsible suffer for the perceived sins of the director?
Third, it IS a good reason to skip a director's latest offering if his last few projects have been less than stellar. I haven't seen DOCTOR T or PRET-A-PORTER, but I've heard they were putrid. But didn't you enjoy MASH, or McCABE AND MRS. MILLER, or THE LONG GOODBYE, or THE PLAYER, or SHORT CUTS, or NASHVILLE? Altman is a fantastically uneven talent; when he's on, his work is nonpareil, and when he's bad, he clears a theatre out quicker than chlorine gas. GOSFORD PARK is Altman at his best. See it. If you watch it, and you don't like it, or at least recognize the incredible artistry that went into the making of it, I'll reimburse you for the ticket.
I'm serious.
I'm not saying your stance is necessarily wrong, but I don't think you've thought the implications of it all the way through. More specifically: I love Harlan, and I think he conducts his life with honor and integrity. But he's hardly perfect, and I'm sure he's done his share of morally dubious things, just as we ALL have, at one time or another.
If he revealed some of the skeletons in his closet to you, would you boycott him?
Or would you look at his failings in perspective, and consider the totality of his life and work? Perhaps Altman deserves the same consideration.
All I'm saying is, don't be so rigidly dogmatic and judgemental. There's enough of that in the world, already.
With respect (you'd better believe),
Jim
P.S. I am, in fact, seeing IN THE BEDROOM tomorrow night. I'll let you know what I think of it, young warrior.
Just rockin' and rollin' here in the SF Valley! Rob, did you feel that out in Santa Monica? Caltech says it was 4.2, 3.8 & 3.7, all up by Simi Valley.
I'd better go take all the whiskey bottles off the fridge,
L.
Justin,
"As it stands, I just don't want to support his work because he pisses me off in addition to being a poor filmmaker."
Gosford Park (2001)
"Gun" (1997/II) TV Series
Kansas City (1996)
Short Cuts (1993)
McTeague (1992) (TV)
Player, The (1992)
Vincent & Theo (1990)
"Tanner '88" (1988) (mini) TV Series
Laundromat, The (1985) (TV)
Secret Honor (1984)
Popeye (1980)
3 Women (1977)
Nashville (1975)
Long Goodbye, The (1973)
McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971)
Brewster McCloud (1970)
MASH (1970)
Oh, yeah. That's the credits of a "poor filmmaker."
Regards,
Joseph
No prob, Lynn; it's just that that "discuss" business turns up on newsgroups a lot, and every time I see it, I grumble. Good joke, though.
Re Altman: I like his style, but man, the guy has a really uneven career. There are the great ones like MASH, The Player, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, Nashville, and apparently Gosford Park... but then there's Health, A Wedding, and Pret a Porter, the last of which was just painful to watch.
I'm with Justin on Altman's manners-- his comment about leaving the country if Bush was elected was utterly boneheaded. (And it still bugs me that he badmouthed Ring Lardner's script for _MASH_.)
On other fronts: I'm truly astounded at John Ashcroft's order to cover up those bronze statues of Justice. It's one thing to trample our liberties... but you'd think that taking the actual step of _literally covering-up Justice_ would give the fuckhead some _pause_.
Oh, and here's something _priceless_-- literally. Linda Lay, wife of Enron chief larcenist Ken Lay, told the Today Show that she and her husband are broke. Seems she and Hubby relied almost solely on Enron stock in their amazingly-undiversified portfolio. I get the feeling that she said this to make us think that Ken was a well-intentioned, but innocent victim-- frankly, it makes him look like the world's stupidest stock fraud.
And no, I'm not going to support the livelyhood of any artist who engages in behavior that is abhorrent and sets a godawful example. Because if I buy the crap they produce, I send them the money to keep living destructive lifestyles that are probably hurtful to a lot of people. I say if you write the greatest novel in history, then you take the money you make from it and start buying women and drugs, wrapping your cars around trees, and luring underage girls into your bed, then your novel is worthless. "Oh, but I'm an artist." Fuck your art, you're a horrid human being who doesn't deserve to breathe the same air as the guy who sweeps high school floors for a living and doesn't hurt anybody, or the overweight girl who works at McDonald's for 5.25 an hour and doesn't hurt anybody. Beeyotch.
J
P.A.: Altman was using some of the publicity he got from his Golden Globe win to take some shots at the military and political leadership in the U.S., but I don't have exact quotes for you because I heard about this on the television news, and exactly where eludes me. But we all remember Altman making a big fuss in 2000 about leaving the country if Bush got elected, which struck me as being a needlessly dramatic and irresponsible display even back then. I can point you to a more recent BBC article that perfectly encapsulates my problems with Altman, though.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/film/newsid_1604000/1604151.stm
He mouths off all this bullshit about how Hollywood taught the terrorists how to pull off the 9/11 attacks. Anyone who mouths off shit like that without properly backing up his or her arguments, particularly when they are in the public eye and should use their voices more responsibly, gets no respect from me. I suppose I'd see his movies anyway if they were really staggeringly good, but they aren't. If he weren't such a reactionary, mouthly loon who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, then maybe I would have been inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and go see GOSFORD PARK. As it stands, I just don't want to support his work because he pisses me off in addition to being a poor filmmaker. If Ridley Scott suddenly decided to go the other way and start criticizing the military and the government, I'd still go to see his movies because I think he's a good filmmaker when he's not directing movies called Gladiator. Altman just bugs me because I've wasted a few bucks on his flicks in the past, plus I have to put up with hearing him whine on the news. No thanks. I hope that answers your question.
Save your cash on GOSFORD and go see IN THE BEDROOM instead, if you're interested in checking out some of the smaller films in contention for awards this season. It's harsh, but it is exceedingly good, and the kind of gutsy filmmaking I'd rather be supporting.
J
Brian~ Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I was chatting with Faisal and the topic came up and I didn't have time that precise moment to elaborate. I wanted someone else's opinion. I honestly didn't mean to dictate.
I was actually wondering, since I hadn't seen the idea anywhere else, if there was some sort of remote and fleeting connection between Mefisto in Onyx and the Denzel Washington movie, Fallen. Bad guys jumping bodies, loosely affliated with the prison system. It smacks of something. Anybody have an opinion or am I smoking a rope here?
Just as payment for my bad manners, A Joke:
A large marching band in the South was out on the practice field one balmy autumn afternoon, going through their formations. Now this was a huge organization with some two hundred wind, percussion and assorted flag & drill team members on the field. In order for the director to be seen by all, he had to climb a twelve foot ladder and conduct the music from the top. (This is not an uncommon practice with large marching bands. Permanent platforms get in the way of pesky football teams.) The heat and humidity was wearing on the player's nerves, but the director stuck to his guns, insisting that they had to get a full rehearsal in before the big game. No sooner than he had stated this than the thunderheads opened up and the rain began to come down. Someone piped up, "*Now* will you let us go home?"
This was absolutely the wrong thing to say. "What the hell are you worried about?!" He snapped. "*I'm* the one on the top of this ladder. I could get struck by lightning out here!"
To which someone replied, just loud enough to be heard over the rain. "You're not that good a conductor!"
BA-dum-dump.
L.
Meat - Everything we do nowadays in the name of safety and security seems to ratinalize or justify a sacrifice of freedom. I don't think 4 months is an acceptable period of time in which to think through the ramifications of putting all our data on a little ID card to present upon demand of the government. I don't like the fact that a company hired by my bank has instant access to where, when and how much every transaction is that I make with my credit card. The banks, my company, my gym, my bookstore, is authorized to hand over my transaction and activity records now to whatever official asks them with a warrant - and soon even without. It works both ways. To avoid having psychiatric nightmares driving buses, we need to have safeguards. However, that right also erodes our privacy when it comes to our past. If I had a breakdown in the mid 1980s, I would hope that my ability to come back from it (or alcoholism, or soccer shorts fetish) would be my business unless it involved a felony conviction.
So when Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft start throwing epithets at those of us who beg caution over blanket access to my life and everyone else's, I get a little miffed. :)
Jay
Justin: What exactly did the venerable and excellent Robert Altman say that makes you so angry?
A larger discussion point: is it entirely rational to view only the art of artists with whose personal lifestyles we agree?
OK, I glean Altman has a problem with our military leaders. I can't imagine what he might have said on that subject that I could cause me to disavow the director of The Player, or how vastly different his views could be from many other Hollywood personages.
I ran across a similar issue when having a discussion with a friend's wife. I was talking about my great admiration for the music of James Brown; she informed me that she would not listen to his music because he was a convicted wife-beater. I was a bit flabbergasted. I mean, yeah, JB has done some bad smack, but... but... he's the Godfather of Soul! I can't disavow him because he has a screwed-up personal life. Just as I can't hate Planet of the Apes just because Charlton Heston is a gun nut, or Alice in Wonderland because Charles Dodgson was a closet pedophile. Do you see what I'm saying? (Hyperbole intended-- please don't anyone launch into a serious defense of Heston or Carroll, as you'd be preaching to the choir)
Without knowing what Altman said to offend thee, I regret taht cannot rouse a more energetic defense on his behalf. I will say that Pret-a-Porter was FAR worse than Dr. T and the Women, though.
Please elucidate your views so I may more accurately debunk them,
Bermanator
Heather,
You can keep the decoder ring...that thing's like the Monkey's Paw to me. I'll tell you some stories from my "Fear and Loathing" Days trolling Trek conventions that will turn your stomach. :) I was shoved by a three hundred pound woman who said "newspaper people always make us look like idiots!" while wearing purple spandex pants and a yellow halter. She was later seen mugging for the local TV news giving the "live long and prosper" sign and shrieking like a banshee.
Perhaps someone else found my reviews of Ellison's stuff on amazon.com too objective for an admitted "fan" and sent their letter in protest. Either that or he/she/it is just the runofthemill jackass as I originally suspected.
While you're tossing out URL's (I was surprised the BBC one works on this computer, cool).....
Could anyone suggest an online classical music station?
I like piano, strings, violin among other things...and am perusing the classics again to see what I like. (Did this a few years ago. Bought some CDs.)
Oh, and I like opera too. Most of the guys, especially. Domingo, Pavarotti, etc. And Bartolli (Cecilia) is pretty cool too.
Any suggestions, thanks.
(Condolences anyway, you two. She couldn't have been that old. Maybe HE was--I don't have a sense of how old Alex is.)
Stay close to the ones you love. I'm sure it'll help get you through it.
H
Cookie:
Yes, David Soul played Hutch, Paul Michael Glazer played Starsky, and Antonio Fargas played Huggy Bear.
Now, I return to the creeping sense of old age.
The Bag of Meat asks: How many can recall the name of the episode of "Star Trek", which David Soul appears in?
Oh, apparently there is a fairly large U of A publishing endeavor that takes submissions of art, photography, ficiton, poetry, etc., from all U of A students who wish to apply, and then prints the best ones in this massive volume at the end of the year. I only learned about this from my English teacher (The hot one, the one who makes me stamp my feet really fast, like Thumper, whenever I first see her. Rowr.), who let us know about this rather late. The deadline is Feb. 15. But I've had this idea for a short SF bit, inspired by recent events in Cuba, that I'm thinking of preparing for submission. If I can make the deadline, it will be my first submission since I was 18. Wish me luck, I could use it. Peace y'all.
J
I intended to go see GOSFORD PARK after I saw the Globes, as the clips shown during the show interested me. (Yes, I actually watch the Globes, and the Oscars, too. Two truly guilty pleasures of mine, of which I am suitably ashamed.) But there's no way I'd pay to see an Altman film now. He's more than welcome to criticize our military and political leaders, but I am sure as hell not going to support his easy, happy, fluffy movie lifestyle. Not if he's going to sit back and publicly, rudely armchair quarterback the moves of people who shoulder responsibilites the likes of which would crush him down into a pile of Altman goo. Besides, I fuckin' saw DR. T AND THE WOMEN, and it may be the biggest piece of shit ever filmed. My beagle could direct circles around Altman.
PS: Harlan, the Ph.Duuuuuh" had me rollin' with laughter. It just struck me funny (maybe because I'm trying to get into a doctoral program---though I'm after a D.M.A. not a Ph.DUH!). Anyway, thanks for the belly laugh!
Lynn wrote:
"Topic of the hour: HE's "Mefisto in Onyx" vs. Fallen(1998)(http://us.imdb.com/Title?0119099)
Discuss."
Lynn, baby, sweetheart, darling, this has nothing to do with you personally, but... when someone posts a note that states a topic, and then orders us to "discuss," my first impulse is to reply;
"NO. No, YOU discuss. YOU sit down and bang out a coupla paragraphs of opinion. YOU get the ball rolling by putting some fuckin' EFFORT into your little announcements, 'kay? If you come up with something INTERESTING, maybe THEN I'll think about tossing out what I think."
Don't do posts like that, Lynn. BAD habit.
A question from a great unwashed mass: is that David Soul the guy who was on Starsky and Hutch? If so, I believe his name has a silent "e" at the end.
Since we're nagging at Rick, I thought I'd join in. I have a modicum of experience in the area. Ask my old man. Ask my sidemen.
Anyhooo....
(shaddup shuttin' up)
I yell a second to Jay Smith's lack of spying abilities (Here, at least. Course, he was in the GREAT war, you know. Navy intelligence but....)
I was trolling the comment boards at Amazon.com a while back and ran into Mr. Smith. I suggested he drop by this place. (He said he'd lurked here once upon a time.) And he did so and came to yak at y'all.)
Course, maybe that makes ME a spy too. Hmmm.....
(Jay, I'll give you back the decoder, okay?)
H
'Mephisto in Onyx'... any info on the current status of the film adaptation, with possible star Samuel Jackson?
"Gosford Park" is, indeed, a cinematic gem. I loved how the orchestrated chaos of all those great actors came together in the end; how the mystery was solved for a few, crucial characters, and for the audience (but not in the stereotypical drawing room revelation a la Christie);how the mighty Helen Mirren got her big scene in at the end; and how two ugly Americans like Altman, and Bob Balaban could write with such verisimilitude about bygone British folks. Mr.Altman must be smoking the good stuff! Oh, and I also love how, in the midst of our nation's jingoist fervor, and during the Oscar awards push, that he shamelessly slags the current administration (and on foreign soil, too). Damn the torpedos, and pass the bong!
Topic of the hour: HE's "Mefisto in Onyx" vs. Fallen(1998)(http://us.imdb.com/Title?0119099)
Discuss.
L.
A quick one before I go out the door...
David: Yes, it's webcast on Mondays from the BBC Radio 4 site (see link above, see my post to Bermanator yesterday).
GOSFORD PARK was the most enjoyable film I've seen all year. Once again, Altman transmutes the hoariest genre cliches--in this case, "Upstairs, Downstairs"-style class struggle and Agatha Christie whodunits--into pure cinematic gold. Long may this dope-smoking shaman reign.
And now a confession: Once, many years ago, while drunk, I participated in a speck of nifty...
Jim Davis:
You've heard "Just a Minute" recently?!!! Wow. I remember hearing some extremely sharp wags engage in verbal fisticuffs on that show some 25 years ago. Totally different cast, I'm sure. Where do you pick it up now? Off the 'net? I haven't figured out how to pick up audio off the Web, yet, * sigh *.
Speaking of Stephen Frye, he has a delightful walk-on role in the immense and immensely talented British cast of Robert Altman's splendid new film "Gosford Park." Who else has seen this gorgeous gem of a movie?
Todd~ re: SK's retiring: His website says differently.
http://www.stephenking.com/rumors.html
L.
"Nobody sees my eyebrows. Nobody." ^_^
HARLAN TO RICK WYATT:
You still haven't changed that BBC4 billboard from 31th to 31st.
Nag nag nag nag nag nag nag nag, yr. pal, NAGNAG EPIMONDUS NAGNOID, Ph.Duhhhhh.
So, how solid are these stories about Stephen King retiring from writing after his next run of work? Is he experiencing a mid-late-almost-killed-life crisis, or might he be serious. Sounds like he wants to call it quits rather than keep repeating some of his themes into old age. Says that after his March short story collection and his fall novel From A Buick Eight(which he admits is, yeah, a strange car novel), his only writing plans will be the final three books of the Dark Tower series, all being written in one shot, and a limited teevee series about a haunted hospital.
His prerogitive, of course....but if he's serious, I hope his 'retirement' is just a long deserved vacation.
-TODD
Did any Chicago-area Webderlanders have success obtaining tickets for Robin Williams at the Chicago Theatre 2/26-27?
Meat: It's true that you did leave in a huff, but... please do not compare yourself to Eric. You do yourself too much injustice therein.
As for my shitty week... I'm not too good at blowing things off in general, even worse at it when they involve young lunatics with xylophones. Suffice it to say I should have listened to Lynn, at least about that particular issue.
And I never did get my shirt back. Sigh.
Bermanator
Rick Wyatt, hmmm, could we maybe have a transcript from the UCLA talk? Please, please? I won't beg, but I will set fire to myself like the ironic Buddist.
Chomsky was on C-Span on Sunday!! Great shit.
starring Sir Richard Burton, Oscar Mayer, and Timmy, the hamster with an overactive thyroid.
Hi ho, it's Bag of Meat here for another Webderland rendering.
Just a few thoughts.
Eric: not trying to flay a dead horse, but just a bit of time ago I believed I'd run afoul of the good folks hereabouts over a disagreement over comments regarding LOTR. Of course I did the Achilles in his tent sulk, and got the 'aaahhhh, shaddup' I deserved from those assembled. And looky, looky, all better now. Folks let me land fairly softly, a nice touch of class if you don't mind my saying. Well, like me, if you're gonna go, go, but c'mon back whenever, or wherever you can.
Jay, re profiling: Well, I've heard many of the tales of government, and corporations who feel the need too engage in anal inspection to verify one's bonafides. I find I agree with you on those inquiries that don't include investigation to avert potential criminal activities.
We've given ourselves great power to intrude; no suprise that some would take as much advantage as possible. The pendulum of societal change is often a wrecking ball; it's going to smash people and activities that aren't doing any harm as much as crush the ones that do.
Berm: Greek Fire? Ian Anderson? Evil Xylophones? Well, even I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but hope the shitty week was blown off successfully.
As to the humble narrator, the courageous Bag of Meat: He exeunts, to avert the cutlets' attempting to create total chaos within the confines of their home.
Please try to practice safe pecksniffery...
"They've got 280 hours of Superman as mp3s for $30. 97 hours of the Shadow
for $10."
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....280 hours of Kirk Alyn going, "I am Superman and...er...must...flee...they must...have....kryptonite...only sub-stance...that can...harm...meeeeeeeeeeee....*"
David -
Yeah, i guess its the fact that I'm relatively new and something I said (which wasn't specified) ticked somebody off into thinking I was a wolf in the fold.
But anyway, on your piece - I grew up under the illusion that America was a pure Democratic state, that the majority ruled on everything. My city, Harrisburg, has a Mayor for Life - Steve Reed, who has done such great things for the city that he hasn't had a serious opponent in over a 15 years. Congressman George Gekas hasn't had a serious challenge longer than that. Term limits are in the hands of the voters, not the government.
*** Rob *** I'm guessing somebody [other than our mentor] can give a real in depth analysis but unless your talking about pipe fittings or electrical code specs "G-8" would have to refer to "G-8 and his Battle Aces" which were to the WWI fighter plane / dogfight genre (yes, Virginia, it was it's own genre with at least 5 different pulp magazines devoted to that niche) what Doc Savage and the Spider and the Shadow were to the "man of action/crimefighting avenger genre. The best of these were briefly reprinted by Berkely with some pretty cool Steranko covers and then some reprint pulp covers.
In another group we are discussing some of the audio that are currently available and these links came up which I thought some of you might enjoy...
This is an addendum to all the Doc Savage threads and Mike's post about the online Shadow novels.
There's a website called the Cobalt Club
(http://testbox.cob.rit.edu/)
that houses MP3's of Doc Savage and The Shadow radio serials from the 30s and 40s. Not sure how complete they are (there are only two Doc Savage episodes: FEAR CAY and THE THOUSAND HEADED MAN) but there is a shitload of Shadow files.
Free to download and burn to CD. Gotta love the web for things like this.
Also, if radio serials are your thing like they are mine, there's another website that collects a whole slew of Orson Welles' Mercury Theatre broadcasts from the same time period.
(http://www.unknown.nu/mercury/).
Great stuff.
And this just came in as a response to that -
Gene Kannenberg just kicked me this link - http://www.otrcat.com/index.html
They've got 280 hours of Superman as mp3s for $30. 97 hours of the Shadow
for $10.
Have fun - Barney.
Rob: Looksee here: http://thepulp.net/PulpFAQ/g8.html
Lynn/David: What a coincidence! My two German shepherds are engaging in the very activity of pecksniffery right now!
I have become addicted to "Just A Minute," a Radio4 game show in which a quartet of wags and generally clever people must extemporaneously speak on a topic with no repetitions, hesitations, or deviations. Believe you me, you haven't lived until you've heard Stephen Fry hold forth on the etymology of "schadenfreude"...
What was G-8?
Today is a very special day.
Very special indeed.
Today is the first day I recall agreeing with Mr. Loftus on a political issue.
Mr. Loftus, I read your op ed piece on term limits and agree wholeheartedly. Does this mean I am one step away from persnifferyism?
-TODD
David~ Is "pecksniffery" something one wants to advertise? I mean, I know this is the '00s (oughts?) and we cast aspersions against no lifestyle choice, but -- is that even legal in Oregon?
::tongue planted firmly in cheek::
L.
Justin:
Your remarks on the creativity and intelligence of military officers reminds me (the things our memories capture!) of something I read many years ago in a biography of Borges. Seems he thought highly of a sensitive autobio by a retired general entitled _The Men I Killed_ -- because the officer was talking about the men under his own command at least as much as the enemy. But of course I couldn't steer you to the particular general.
Jay Smith:
You're suspect because you have "ties to the field of journalism"? Heavens to mergatroyd! I do, too. I was a reporter/critic/columnist for a daily paper for three years (and in fact submitted an op-ed piece that the Oregonian wouldn't put into print but just put up on their Web site --
http://www.oregonlive.com/public_commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/exclude/10108401305004150.xml
) but am clearly a Friend of Ellison. [And by the way, HE, you will indeed have to take a backseat to ME in nitpicking; I've done good work for you in that department, and you once grumbled to me about my "pecksniffery."]
Here's a treat for those of you who have read "The New York Debut of the Bird" (God, I hope I got that title right) but don't own a copy of "Doc Savage: His Apocalyptic Life". This is the genealogical chart HE references that contains the links between The Shadow, G-8, The Scarlet Pimpernel and Cordwainder Bird.
http://www.pjfarmer.com/woldnewton/savage_tree.gif
The full site is worth a look, too.
http://www.pjfarmer.com/woldnewton/Pulp.htm
Dennis
P.A.,
Ah, yes. We definitely want credit going where credit's due.
We'll just blame it on a parallex view. OR the need for corrective lenses.
To the user who contacted me from an anonymous email address and anyone else concerned:
I received an email from someone who suggested I have some connection to forces spying on Harlan Ellison because I have "ties to the field of journalism." To you I say, "get bent" and "next time you have a bone to pick, bring it to open forum or at least use a real email."
To the rest of you, this really means absolutely nothing, but in case you do have reservations about speaking to me for this shallow and stupid reason rest assured I would be stupid to mention it if I were looking for dirt. Any other reason is acceptable, of course. :)
We now return you to your regular Book of Lists and Elmer Fudd vs. Thomas Pynchon... :)
Jay
Meat: Oil for my xylophone! Only if it's Greek Fire. Xylophones=Evil. Jethro Tull notwithstanding, of course.
Rob: It was I who told Eric to watch his ass so as not to have it struck by the door I was kicking shut behind him. And now that I've said that, I'm sure he will go back on his word and post again. That always happens.
Joseph: Gimme Lean makes fake ground beef that is AMAZING in chili but is also good for burgers, meatloaf, and meatballs. Or SmartGround, which is soy ground meat substitute expressly made for use in sloppy joes and chili since it doesn't form patties. Not sure if you're really interested in this info-- is anyone else on here a vegetarian?
Thanks to all for info re: GMT and the BBC. I will be thinking of all of you out there listening as I tune in.
Bermanator
Harlan: Is there a good time on Monday to catch you for a few minutes?
Rob,
I think you mean PA Berman.
All,
Yes, it would be 3 PM. Yes, it's a 5 hour difference. Yes, I fucked up.
Regards,
Joseph
Golf Courses on Mars? Reminds me of a wonderful comic Gahan Wilson did for the _National Lampoon_ way back when. Titled "Click," it's the slide show and narration of a trip to Mars by the quintissentially ugly Americans. The kid's always scrawling graffiti on 10,000-year-old Martian ruins, Grandad snaps off a Martian statue to take home as a souvenir, and the tour guides make grotty jokes about Martian biology and religion.
Hello, all. Hope all goes well.
Just a bit of a notice regarding a remake of Ursula K. LeGuin's novel "The Lathe of Heaven", that's being put together for A & E. You can find it here:
http://www.allianceatlantis.com/PressReleases/AAC01_56.html.
Now, if Bermanator doesn't get respect and oil for her xylophone, I'm gonna stop posting. I've got a chicken, and I'm not afraid to use it!
Postus Scriptus: Heather is alive and well, and eating the chocolate and bubble gum out of her Canadian currency.
Postus Postus Scriptus: Meat is doing this postus crap to be an irritating smartass.
Joseph,
"Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. "
LOL
A SMASHING good delivery!
Eric doesn't perceive the difference between dialogue and mob mentality. Instead of being a sensitive flower he oughtta look at old posts to see how we've all gone at each other at one point or another. And still we're here.
Eric, c'mon, man: go to the surgeon and get some balls. Hey! I acted like a cowering, whimpering dork when I misread Harlan once or twice...OR when I DIDN'T...so, I took a trip to the surgeon. Check'em out - they're ADAMANTIUM, baby!
MAKE the trip.
I'm slightly upset to hear that Ray Kurzweil was such a bore. I read his book, THE AGE OF SPIRITUAL MACHINES, and found it engaging and endlessly fascinating.
So I got M-16 qualified this weekend during an FTX at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. I did well, but not good enough to be an Army sharpshooter like SOMEBODY we know. Rats.
This was the first time I ever participated in any mission-based training. I don't know what I was expecting, but I realized that the level of skill and concentration it requires to lead in a military environment is staggering. It's HARD, and the whole time I was watching the third year cadets running these missions I kept thinking to myself, "Holy fuck, I don't know if I could do this." And I'm a pretty clever bastard most of the time, so it was kind of intimidating to realize that I am neither smart enough, clever enough, nor fast enough on my feet to handle that challenge. NOT YET.
Just so you know: weak minds lacking in creativity will NOT make it through officer training in the Army. To lead soldiers in a combat environment, simulated or otherwise, is not as easy as it may look in the movies. NOBODY can just step in and do it. Every officer in the Army has had to go through this unbelievably intense training, and I look upon them now with a whole new respect, now that I'm cognizant of just some of the skills they must have packed away in their toolkit. To be an Army officer requires uncommon smarts and CREATIVITY, and I am more convinced than ever that some of the most bright, creative, and moral people are to be found in the warrior class. I really can't describe to you how impressed I was with what I saw. I was even an officer's kid, and I still didn't fully realize how mentally and physically challenging the job was. Still don't, most likely.
On another note: I try and I try and I try, but once again I find myself knocked back into the vast playpen of semi-literacy occupied by the Grisham-purchasing masses. Why do you do these things to me, Ellison?
He who had never even heard of Bester before today, and must now help fight terrorism by pumping some cash into the economy over at Amazon.com,
Justin
p.s. Here's a new expression for you. I picked this one up at the FTX this weekend courtesy of Master Sgt. Klein: gaggle screw. As in, "A whole gaggle screw of cadets." I'll be putting that one to frequent use.
"WHERE’S THE GOLF COURSE"?
Jeanine,
That was a sentiment about the prospects of colonizing Mars I will not forget. I was still laughing like hell on the way home. That gentleman, it seems, did not imagine either its ultimate urgency or the ramifications - from discovery of fossils that may be lying deep beneath the Martian strata stretching back
billions of years to the possible diversity of human genetics resulting from the vast variety of environments adopted by our descendants (air content will duplicate Earth's but gravity will have strong variations).
From so many thoughts and responses I had racing through my head at once as I listened to the panel I was trying to select and shape questions and/or comments to take up to the mike. But so MUCH was cascading through my brain centers I dreaded stage fright would cause me to lose my focus and freeze. (I'm great at table discussions but I really hate getting up in front of a huge audience alone; I'm ok if I'm up there as a group). I didn’t want to sound like a self-conscious babbling idiot up there. I got cold feet and now I have a couple of friends telling me I SHOULD’VE gotten my ass up there. Many of Ms. Butler’s themes I found intriguing and I would’ve directed some of my comments to her.
I really regret missing that clip when the bimbo (sorry, women-libbers) scoffed space flight. I was trying to time the right moment to leap for the restroom and I thought that would be it. Clearly, I was wrong. I should’ve gone during the movie clips; I found them too disjointed, hazy in their relevance and failing to evoke the real merits of these films. The image distortions should have cued me. Then again I didn't have to go yet.
I have to agree entirely in your phrasing with regards to Mr. Kurtzweil. He managed to subdue ME into somnolence with his monotone delivery alone. A number of areas he discussed were absolute turn-ons but he’d drag on ad nauseum till I began thinking about the bills I have to pay this Monday. I worked for a couple of scientists at my last job and they too lacked the talent to convey ideas with vigor or succinctness. They’d go on forever long after you’d gotten the idea. This is why Sagan was so remarkable; he knew how to communicate the complexity and ramifications in science effectively.
There was a thought I wanted to bring to Ray’s attention when he countered Harlan’s comments on the issue of religion; that 20th century ideologies like Nazism and Communism wrought as much destruction as any religion did. Ideologies, cults, religions: they all share the belief structure; blind faith seeped in a reality that needs no evidence. It’s probably the most dangerous feature of human consciousness; we need no evidence to perceive a reality. We rationalize instead of confirm. When this pattern bonds with our primitive territorial impulses we tend to want others to see things the same way. Hence, when I refer to "religion" I put all these variants in the same pool. In this light the 'isms' can all be regarded as religion and it falls in line with Harlan’s argument.
Anyway, I could go on and on. Basically, I really had fun. I WAS terribly disappointed when Mr. Bradbury couldn’t be there. A girl sitting in front of me told me he’d taken some fall. I certainly hope he’s doing ok.
UCLA used to be my old haunts but I hadn’t been over there in a few years. A lot of new buildings around the dorms I’d never seen.
Joseph: You're right on the time difference, but if it's 8pm in London, it would be 3pm in New York. Therefore, "I Have No..." will play at 6pm EST, on Thursday, January 31st.
Bermanator: You can tune in to Radio 4 with a 56KBS connection quite comfortably, barring the occasional net congestion, of course. You'll need to download RealAudio, if you haven't done so already. Also, they archive past shows, so "I Have..." should be available for listening after its initial netcast (but don't take that as gospel).
(If you want to treat my words in toto as Holy Writ, however, I certainly have no objection.)
Joseph wrote:
>EST is 5 hours behind GMT, so if it's 8 PM in London, it's 1 PM in New York.<
?!? Wow. I think you meant three PM. If you didn't, you and I desperately need to chat about whatever device you have that stretches five hours into seven.
Eric snivelled something about a lack of class and leaving. Eric, a lack of class would have been me posting your entire email's worth of personal attack on someone whom I call friend. A lack of class would have been laying you out in gruesome detail for all to see. That isn't what I did. Real class is to point out to others that your opinions differ, that any further discussion is pointless, that the article in question did not change your point of view because you're more stubborn than a dead drunk one-eyed borax mine mule. My observation was not a personal attack, it was merely a statement that some skulls are indeed thicker than others.
Melodramatic exits and accusations of buncy knickers aside, I hope you learn that around here, thick skins are not optional, they're required. Otherwise, you never get to have *any* fun.
Sincerely yours,
L.
Berman,
I've listened to a few radio plays on my laptop which has a 32,000 PCMIA card inside. My brother goes even further and records the contents on Mini Disc before editing any pauses out so making the recording more natural.
BTW - Anyone ever invent a radio that has a timer record function? It would be the third most useful invention in the world.
FAQ
PA Berman,
EST is 5 hours behind GMT, so if it's 8 PM in London, it's 1 PM in New York.
Also, everyone looking for a great chili recipe can stop. Pick up the novel "The 27-Ingredient Chile Con Carne Murders" and use the recipe of the same name. God damn, this is some good chili I just made. It's a lot of work, but isn't any good food? Vegetarians, you can substitute Boca products for the meat - they're quite good as meat substitutes go.
Regards,
Joseph
Been lurking for a rather sucky week, but now, a few thoughts (bitter dregs indeed):
1. Why does Eric repeatedly allude to the fact that Heather was "lynched"? Is that the prevailing sentiment around here, that poor Heather was tarred and feathered and ridden out on a rail? I just didn't see that, sorry. Hyperbole doesn't suit this situation at all, and I've been just sucking it up until now. Screw you, buddy, for characterizing us this way. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
2. On a related note, why do people announce that they're not posting anymore? So that we'll all feel guilty and beg them to come back? How melodramatic. Just stop posting and don't be such a crybaby.
3. Xylophones are evil. It's a proven, scientific fact. Stay away from them and those who cohabitate with them if you know what's good for you.
4. Anyone know if Robin Williams is going to perform his stand-up on tour, or was Chicago a one-shot deal? Can't seem to find any further info on the Web.
5. This may be a dumb question, but is there any way I, with a 56KBS modem and a plain old radio, could listen to HE et al in "I Have No Mouth..." on the BBC this Thursday? And how do I convert Greenwich Mean Time to EST?
Bermanator
Eric wrote:
"...I was then roundly taken to task for suggesting that had Thomas Pynchon acted "normal" about his private life (i.e. like most every other writer) the aforementioned British article would never have been written, for the interest to find his freaking face would not have been there.
Again, not an endorsement for anyone pestering anybody, just a pretty obvious observation that if you actively hide something, people get all perverse about trying to find it."
Translation: "I wasn't saying that if Pynchon had acted normal, he wouldn't have attracted attention... but if you act normal, you won't attract attention."
Previously, Eric wrote:
"I simply stated that his own mythos of excessive secrecy created an environment where people would actively try to seek him out. My limpid point, of which I'm now completely weary, was that had he just been routine about his image and his life, like just about every other writer in the universe, very few people would have cared. "
And, previous to that,
"...if Pynchon doesn't wish to be spied upon, he shouldn't make such a big deal about his secret identity. You can't deny he has done this...it's like daring the public, or the press, to find him out."
And before that,
"Avoiding journalists and photographers is one thing. Comporting yourself like the Green Hornet of literature for 40 years is quite another. If you hide it, they will look for it. If, on the other hand, you simply send your publisher a snapshot of your mug for the packaging, with the usual "lives with wife and kids in New York, you're just another writer who doesn't go out much. "
Translation: "If you try to _avoid_ attention, and you get it anyway, you either deserve it, or you're secretly trying to get it."
Sorry to indulge in this one last blast at Eric. But I like to make certain that the guy knows he's _VERY WRONG_.
I don't know if this is the proper place to ask this, but I noticed on the news page that HE was working on a script for Demon With a Glass Hand. I have seen no other news about this at any of the movie sites in their development sections and was wondering if someone could tell me the status of it.
Thanks
>And I would like to interject that I know Eric read "Xenogenesis" but apparently it changed nothing. Some skulls are thicker than others. <
Thanks for sharing, Lynn. My head may be thick, but not too thick to see a complete lack of class when it hits me in the face. As you were one of the people on this board who wasn't into shoring up their own perceptions by bludgeoning other people's differing views with personal attacks, I trusted you.
Bitter dregs. I post no more. It was fun, guys...I wish you all well.
--Eric
Hello from lurkdom...just thought I would give a small update on the UCLA roundtable for those that didn't make it.
Ray Bradbury didn't make it but the rest of the panelists did a nice job of discussing speculations about future technology and its possible role in the evolution (or non-evolution)of humanity. Other topics included genre fiction prejudices, the role of religion in guiding or hindering human development, and the difference influences of different types of media.
Clips from a variety of science fiction films were shown, sometimes not having a clear relation to the subjects of the panel. One interesting clip showed an old interview with, I think, Del Rey, Pohl, and Herbert--during which, a vapid blonde on the show expressed her opinion that (essentially) space travel was irrelevant. This resulted in the widespread expression of contempt it merited.
Mr. Ellison did his usual stellar job of being intertaining and thought-provoking (and sometimes just provoking), telling anecdotes about racial amnesia, Judge Judy, the increasing population of morons, and the Last Supper. He and the others on the panel did their best to save us from Ray Kurtzweil who, with the miracle of videoconferencing, attempted to subdue us into somnolence with relentless monologues about technology.
Questions were taken from the audience who seemed fairly typical for the sort of person who would come to that event--pro on books, speculative fiction, space travel, etc.
Afterwards there was booksigning and because I can never think of anything interesting or original to say to these great minds at the time, I left before my parking meter ran out. All in all, a good time was had by all, unless you were the descendant of the vapid blonde on the interview. Thanks to Mr. Ellison, for an enjoyable afternoon.
I am not calling you a pinhead, but the sentiments you so vehemently expressed, over several days, are very much in that class. <
Thanks for not calling me a pinhead, Harlan. I think. I will say (AGAIN), that I would never aver that anyone deserves to be harrassed, famous or not. The whole bleeding flame war started because I suggested that an article written by some British paparazzi who got a photo of Pynchon was humorous.
After being dutifully flayed for not heaping scorn on the British photog (despite the fact that I never voiced appoval or disapproval...apparently finding something humorously written automatically means you support the actions described), I was then roundly taken to task for suggesting that had Thomas Pynchon acted "normal" about his private life (i.e. like most every other writer) the aforementioned British article would never have been written, for the interest to find his freaking face would not have been there.
Again, not an endorsement for anyone pestering anybody, just a pretty obvious observation that if you actively hide something, people get all perverse about trying to find it. I got tired of pointing that out, over and over again...by then everyone had become convinced that I was some evil moron (read: pinhead) with no respect for the privacy of writers. Webderland lynch mobs can sprout up faster than dreck from a duck...just ask Heather.
I still stick to my guns about those two points. Damn the torpedos, anyone who reads more into that or into me has their own problems with microencephaly.
Yours, Eric
Well, a large bit of reading, but just a small post.
Re Bester: I'd never met the man, only came to be aware of his brillant talent through his writing. I can recall devouring "The Stars My Destination" (I still cry "Quant. Suff"! at strangers, just to check reaction.). A tremedous style, and break-neck pacing to his work.
All reet! All reet!
Alex; Gods, man, I'm so sorry. I hope that your grief runs only for a short time, while your memories of him remain stong for a lifetime. My sincerest condolences to you.
Best to all, BoM
Will the BBC4 show be archived on their site at all? Being as that I work from 4:30 in the afternoon to 3 in the morning, I've little hope of hearing it on-time.
As for things that have been said here--I live in a sadder world. I discovered Bester and Sturgeon only AFTER they died, and could not have seen or met these two impressive personages. Bester was an amazing styist of language and ideas, and Sturgeon is the writer I always think of as "the best". I was going to say "the best of all speculative writers", but then thought better of it; Sturgeon is more.
(Yeah; Twain was better, but there are Great Writers, and then there is Twain.)
Ah, well; I DID get to meet and see Harlan (and hope to again) ...
Brian--you get condolences from me, like it or not, because I'm in the same place you are right now. My father died late Friday night. I'm just back from the funeral parlor, all the solumn tsouris and contracts and arrangements, and we're still putting the funeral together. It's amazing, you don't have _time_ to grieve. Take care of yourself now, and I do the same.
Harlan--gotta add something to your Bester recommendations. While I think "The Indian Giver" (AKA "The Computer Connection") is underrated, I'm not suggesting the whole book be added to the Top Bester list--but one chapter should be added. It should be read by anyone who wants to write. Dead smack center in the book, the narration suddenly goes third person, telling the story of a thief, a masterful criminal who works miraculous crimes. It's a brief bit, very short, very snappy, but, oh, the _plotting,_ the _thinking_ that went into that bit. There's a whole extra book shmooshed in there. Everyone should read that, just to see how many wonderful ideas Bester threw away in the course of a book. A brilliant imagination that man had.
--alex
And I would like to interject that I know Eric read "Xenogenesis" but apparently it changed nothing. Some skulls are thicker than others. I suggest we flog that carcass no more, there are more productive carcass flogging topics to cover.
Oh, and I went to B&N to buy a PL/SQL programming book and came home with a copy of "Gravity's Rainbow". I'm still not sure how it ended up in the Computer Reference aisle, but if it looks like a xylaphone and sounds like a xylaphone, I take it for the *THUD* mild suggestion it is.
Hope the panel went well, still dejected that I missed it.
L.
My own Bester story isn't that striking, and I wish I remember more of what happened, but here it is. During one of the earliest Philcons I ever attended, I wandered into a forum discussion. I think I was there to see another writer, say, Joe Haldeman or Isaac Asimov, perhaps. I didn't know who anyone else was. But on the panel was this guy with a short, bristly beard, a cup of _something_ in front of him, and a gravelly, sardonic demeanor that grabbed my attention as soon as he opened his mouth.
At other conventions, I'd met guys who'd obviously _cultivated_ this kind of presentation-- usually pudgy militarists who'd go on about strategy, weaponry, or how prostitution were an honored profession in some ancient society or another. (Sort of like the way guys like Tom Clancy are always wearing navy caps and aviator jackets.) With those guys, I could immedately tell when it was a pose.
But this guy, well... well, for one thing, he wasn't an asshole. He was dark, funny, amazingly sharp regardless of whatever was in his glass, and utterly unlike anyone else in the room. I don't know what it was, but I had the sense that this guy had been more in the world than anyone else. There was just _something_ about him. Afterward, I went up and said I'd liked his comments, read his nametag, and decided that I ought to find this guy Bester's books.
On the Eric-and-Pynchon front, I'd like to point out that my comments were far _less_ polite and far _more_ insulting than Harlan's. Make of that what you will.
OH, AND BY THE WAY, RICK:
If you want to make your typo-correction on the BBC4 billboard complete, you may want to change "31th" to "31st."
I backseat to NO ONE in nitpicking.
HE
Question for the Day:
Why did they call it _A Beautiful Mind_, when John Nash spent so much time _out_ of it?
HARLAN RESPONDS: AN INTERLUDE
Barney, old pal: Don't even remember the remark via telecon to which you refer. So shine it on, soldier. Give your gorgeous daughter a hug and a kiss on the cheek from me and Susan.
Charlie: If you want some more comment on the win against Critical Path/RemarQ, give me a call. I'll be happy to accomodate for THE PARACLETE. But not here. The attorneys for Latham & Watkins trawl these waters regularly. Good morning, Belinda.
Mention of my departed pal, Alfred Bester, is always welcome here. He was the best. The sorrowful thing is that there was no museum or academy to house and showcase his GRANDMASTER NEBULA, so it was put into my guardianship for safekeeping till a proper repository presented itself. If there is one among you who has never read both THE DEMOLISHED MAN and THE STARS MY DESTINATION and the three books of short stories, you may consider yourself semi-literate, not to mention guilty of depriving yourself of literary joys seldom paralleled. Bester ran rings around most of us. And for pure unadultered reading pleasure, he was tip of the top.
I have a thread-gift for all of you, that I've been codifying for the last month, sort of a New Year's present. I'll be posting it en toto very soon. You will like it.
As for Pynchon, Eric, you mght have an arguable point as to his "deserving harrassment as concomitant to his celebrity," if--in fact--he had ever rigged up this elaborate Salinger-style Incommunicado MysteryMan Schema. But the truth of it is this: he just didn't cooperate with the hype machine. He didn't skulk or lurk or design the m.o. for clever anti-retro pr, he just simply doesn't like to be bothered, just simply doesn't care to be in the spotlight. He just likes to write his books, in his own good time, at his own speed, and to live a normal uncelebritylike family life in between. Nowhere, to my knowledge, is that so much as a misdemeaner, much less a felony, or the cause for Job-like cosmic retribution you appear to wish on him. Whatever lizard it is that has crawled up your butt about Tom, it feeds off a supposition that YOU have created, and simply bears no relation to the reality. Yes, I know him (and he says we've actually met, but of course I didn't know which of the hands in that signing line that I shook was his), but you must take my word for it, NO ONE deserves the unhindered attentions of rabid fans and critics. NO ONE. Those who suggested you read my essay "Xenogenesis," were steering you straight. I once heard some pinhead say, responding to a newscast that Marlon Brando's house had been burgled, "Well, if he didn't want to get his stuff stolen, he shouldn't've become famous." I am not calling you a pinhead, but the sentiments you so vehemently expressed, over several days, are very much in that class. You really must learn how to separate urban myth from reality, Eric.
Otherwise, respectfully, yr. pal, Harlan
**Fresh From A Season In Hell**
I am so far behind on the board I have just picked 1/18 as a starting point and am going to proceed from there. What this probably means is that everybody stopped talking about movies and solved all of the moral and ethical conundrums of existence on those days postings that I have not read. Oh well...
*** Harlan *** "Nuhdge For Kali!" Crom you're demented. I love ya.
Twain vs. Pynchon. Apples and fan belts. I think it's sort of like faulting DaVinci's anatomical drawings because now we have CAT scans and ultra-sound imaging. What both these men seem to have in common is there ability to take the language around them and through sheer vision and force of will drag American literature up a couple of flights of stairs higher than it's been before. Sometimes nosebleeds ensue but at least the view changes. Since so little about Pynchon is known I think I'll just stop there.
I don't think I had mentally credited Pynchon enough as the impetus for DV. I remembered that he was on the A-list for 1st solicitations but I didn't know it was for a reprint of that story. I had sort of remembered some gentle prodding from Silverberg, the Taboo anthology and something about something Judith Merrill had published or proposed to publish as being part of the mix. It's been a few years since I re-read the intro to DV so this is sort of hazy. My point is simply that I really didn't know the Pynchon influence was that prominent. And speaking of influence...
Your egoboo for the day Harlan - I'm in the kitchen admiring my daughters 3rd plush PowerPuff Girls fridge magnet [from Pop-tarts boxes] and bemoaning the fact that I still didn't get the equally kewl Johnny Bravo [thenkya, thenkya vehmudge] magnet and I still haven't had any coffee and I'm PISSED that she keeps getting HER magnet and she shakes the Pop-tart box at me and says "Free With This Box!" and starts laughing and telling me I'm going to end up in jail or drinking sterno or both. And it takes a second but I realize (finally) that she's riffing on the story I asked her to read last October from "Troublemakers". So that story does have some sticking power, if only to make me feel even more stupid in the morning than usual. :-]
Kickin' it way old school department -
The Beethoven / Mozart / Bach thread. Allow me to throw a decomposing hat in the ring for Brahms. I know very little about classical music so I fall back on the 'well, what do SMART people listen to' tactic. One of the smartest people I've ever met (profoundly sad but SMART) is Barry Malzberg. And Malzberg is a big Brahms afficianado. So I started listening to Brahms last year and I love his stuff. I also find a greater percentage of his stuff is listenable than with Bach and Beethoven [to my ignorant ears]. I have no objective way to back any of this up. I'm just saying he seems to be the one who gets populist short shrift and I just don't know enough about music to know why that is.
Belated congrats on ROUND 1 with the lawyers Harlan. Again, no in depth comments or questions because little pitchers have big ears. I do hope you're still keeping something like a day to day journal / writer's log about some of this stuff. Christ knows who said what and when is going to seem pretty murky in a couple of years.
Regarding my smart-ass remark to you on the phone - I'm going to stand by the spirit of that remark. Not the letter, the spirit of the remark. I don't like to think of you as up against it. I just know you fight better when you are [or perceive yourself to be] up against IT. Dig?
Well, that covers about a day and a half. I have about a humpty trillion things to do before the afternoon games and then I'll stick my bald shiny head back in.
Hugs - Barney
Oops. That's what I get for editing in mid-browser. Sorry folks.
Ohhhhh....IHNMAIMS on radio.....(salivates) on >BBC< Radio... Looking forward to it.
Meat - It'll come to the point one day where any job above ditch digger or slave labor will require a psyche test and/or background check. I have to have one done to make sure guys who run copiers in my store aren't pedophiles or Xeroxiphiles, or get high snorting toner... litigation and paranoia are leading us to a Bigger Brother than Orwell imagined. Can you believe you have to have to pass a credit check to manage some retail stores? You can't look at a person's racial profile to hire them, but you have to when you lay him or her off. Weirdness.
But these are weird times....
The Berks County bus driver contends he was "set up" when he drove 13 kids into Maryland in the company of pizza and a semi-automatic rifle. Otto Nuss was off his medication with the permission of his doctor who confirmed that the 64-year old had been suffering brain problems since the 1970s. He'll get a light sentence and parents will start their suits against the school district and the man's doctor for negligence.
Memories of the DeFeo killings in Amityville... we've got a 16 year old in Mifflintown (about 30 miles north of the 'burg) who allegedly murdered his parents and two siblings before fleeing to West Virginia. No other details are carved in stone, but it's beginning to ring like a "Devil Put Words in My Brain" case.
The Fire Police are quiet about the whole Harry Potter thing. It might be damage control time for the municipal types.
Strange days in Central PA...
Brian: well, I'm still sorry to hear. Glad you're feeling okay. I quit two years ago, after increasing pressure from the wife and cutlets. I've never felt better, and I'll say this: it can be done if you want it.
Helz: Thanks kindly. The folks here gave me a bit of a lift with their support. Hell, I've yet to find a parent who didn't side with me, and I see a fair number every day.
Jay: I work with kids, and wouldn't be adverse to a voluntary psyche profile as I had to have a criminal record check. My malfeasance was as a child; it din't enter into it. I've kids too, and want to ensure their safety as much as possible.
I'm not sure where in the US it was, but I recall an incident where a busload of children were kidnapped, and placed in a tractor trailer buried in the countryside. When I'd heard of the incident you mentioned, I just flashed back to it.
Not smoking cigarettes or watchin' Captain Kangaroo...
Don't tell Meat he's nothing to do...
Ohhhhh....IHNMAIMS on radio.....(salivates) on >BBC< Radio... Looking forward to it.
The Berks County bus driver contends he was "set up" when he drove 13 kids into Maryland in the company of pizza and a semi-automatic rifle. Otto Nuss was off his medication with the permission of his doctor who confirmed that the 64-year old had been suffering brain problems since the 1970s. He'll get a light sentence and parents will start their suits against the school district and the man's doctor for negligence.
Memories of the DeFeo killings in Amityville... we've got a 16 year old in Mifflintown (about 30 miles north of the 'burg) who allegedly murdered his parents and two siblings before fleeing to West Virginia. No other details are carved in stone, but it's beginning to ring like a "Devil Put Words in My Brain" case.
The Fire Police are quiet about the whole Harry Potter thing. It might be damage control time for the municipal types.
Strange days in Central PA...
Forgot to mention that I, too, wanted to congratulate the Bag of Meat for his evenhanded intervention in that situation-- more of us should do that, more often...
But to quote the Mighty Mighty Bosstones, "I've never had to, knock on wood, but I know someone who has, and I wonder if I could." Part of the reason I've never been there is that I, too, am in a DINK household.
That said, I wanted to throw out a name that hasn't been mentioned here in any of the various lists, who I was reminded of by the release of _The Count of Monte Cristo_ Friday:
Alfred Bester.
I count _The Stars My Destination_ and _The Demolished Man_ as two of the best novels I read in my early 20s, and as I'm sure most of you know _Stars_ (aka _Tiger Tiger_) was a retelling of _Monte Cristo_ (and Gully Foyle remains one of my favorite SF characters).
Just thought I'd throw that out there.
As for lists we've neglected:
FAVORITE STATE QUARTERS:
North Carolina (choosing to commemorate a technological achievement -- the Wright Brothers' first powered flight -- is way cool considered what NC could have gone with)
Virginia (just for the thought that anything in the US is about to be 400 years old)
Connecticut (I like the way the Charter Oak fills the whole space)
LEAST FAVORITE STATE QUARTERS:
Georgia (boring, clearly designed by comittee)
South Carolina (ditto)
Maryland (is the State Capitol really the best they could come up with?)
Well, Joe, I just had the _opposite_ kind of day. My mother's funeral. (I know y'all mean well, but please don't post or email me condolences. I'm bearing up okay.) In addition to Joe's comments about appreciating your family, I'd like to urge you all to GIVE UP SMOKING as soon as you can. Not only because Mom died of emphysema, but because a lot of my relatives smoke like chimneys, and now my best suit smells like an ashtray.
As for watching... well, have a look at the _Scientific American_ article on the addictive aspects of television, available at http://www.sciam.com/2002/0202issue/0202kubey.html, and try not to think of what killed the dinosaurs.
Ah. Well returned from my father's 60th birthday party, and hoping your all appreciating the family worth appreciating that you have. And enjoying that a 60-year-old-man now gets to play witha new DVD player and watch Cool Hand Luke in a remastered version. One of my father's favorite movies.
Regards,
Joseph
Ah. Well returned from my father's 60th birthday party, and hoping your all appreciating the family worth appreciating that you have. And enjoying that a 60-year-old-man now gets to play witha new DVD player and watch Cool Hand Luke in a remastered version. One of my father's favorite movies.
Regards,
Joseph
It was a typo, it was corrected this morning. Sorry.
Just taking a minute to say I won't be there; They don't allow sled dogs on the PCH.
Just noted a typo in the IHNMAIMS announcement for BBC4, In large bold type. Shouldn't that read Thursday, January 31st., not January 11?
I know, but I pick nits so well...
Still, looking forward to "Conspiracy Zone", Feb. 24. It puts a happy tear in my eye to see The Masked Avenger in action. But a caveat, Mr Ellison: Don't kill 'em, just scare 'em a bit.
Enjoy the afternoon all. Also: Pittsburg and St. Louis to win tomorrow, with the Steelers to win the Super Bowl.
Bye all, BoM
HE BBC Radio 4 Serialisation of 'I have no mouth & Im must scream'.
Harlan: Who worked on the adaptation, was it BBC Radio Drama in London or Manchester who dealt with the production? Good to see Radio 4 repair itself after the horrors of Birtism (though Dyke isn't much of an improvement).
FAQ
Well I wish I was nearer to UCLA then 3,000 plus miles or I'd be there! If one of you go and are lucky enough to meet Mr. Bradbury and Ms. Butler & of course dear Harlan please pass along my best wishes! Mr Bradbury & I do share one thing in common we both did our Navy Recruit training at Great Lakes (though several decades apart!)!
Harlan: I was going to do an update on the settlement in the "Paraclete" for the March issue (copy due on Monday). Did you have any comments to add beyond the joint statement that you could add here?
I'm probably going to be showing up tomorrow at the UCLA gig. I may bring along some skiffy geeks but I wouldn't trust them handling the KICK cards; they'll just take 'em home and roll 'em into joints.
Last time I walked out in a huff because I thought Harlan was pissed.
Last time Harlan had me cowering behind bookshelves.
Last time I missed out on the croutons and after-dinner mints.
Let's see if something can be done right this time.
(If I DON'T show up, though, it won't be because I didn't want to; my car just may not make the trip).
Lynn: I appreciate the thought, and far be it from me to shirk any sort of responsiblity, but I shall be unable to attend the gig. However, had UCLA been a little more forthcoming with info, I might have been able to swing it (damn...). Ah well, maybe next time.
-Andrew
Next time more than a few minutes notice might be nice. Oh hell, all I'd do is stand around and hand out KICK cards anyway. And Susan can grab Rob or Andrew to do that. It's easy. You ask Susan for the cards (she should have a few hundred left over from LOSCON) and just stand by the door, giving them to whoever walks by. It's good for your kharma.
HE, best of luck to you tomorrow, hoping you don't get a room full of skiffy geeks. I don't know why I'm wishing *you* luck, I know you'll eat 'em alive.
Here's cursing prior commitments. ::sigh::
L.
Octavia Butler...I checked out a book of hers..
thanks Rob, Meat
NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE HARK NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE
----------------------------------- yo! --------------------
Just caught up with Susan's post/notice of the BIG ROUND TABLE tomorrow at UCLA. And while I adore the woman, and understand that in importance I blot out the sun in her universe, I really do think she should have mentioned that among the IMPORTANT people on that panel will be RAY BRADBURY RAY BRADBURY RAY BRADBURY and OCTAVIA ESTELLE BUTLER BUTLER BUTLER BUTLER!!!!!!
Yes, I know I'm a draw; but, really, folks: BUTLER & BRADBURY on the same platform!!!!! And for free!?!?!?!!!!!!!
yr. pal, Harlan
MR. GREENAWAY:
Your posting of the death of Peter Gzowski (though personally saddening) is much appreciated. Likely, I wouldn't have known of it otherwise. Peter and I knew each other. We liked each other. He interviewed me more than a few times on Canadian television, and apart from his being an adroit and respectful, informed and evenhanded interviewer, he was unfailingly kind to me. A charming and unassuming man at dinner, and away from the cameras; very good company. A decent man. I liked him ever so much. And news of his passing adds one more dollop of dejection to the soup of despair so many of us have been compelled to sip, these last few months. Rest in Peace, Peter.
HARLAN
I don't like mags that are quarterly or bi-monthly, or whatever. They can be a vexing pain-in-the-ass to spot. Last summer on a day I had nothing better to do I submitted some words to a glossy genre mag called 'Scarlet Street'. I was informed they would run the piece. This would be the second mag in a row to print something of mine (the first was Starlog).
I spent months scouring the damn stands for this thing. Somehow I missed the fucker and finally had to get it directly from the publisher.
If anyone here ever stumbles by it, this is SS #43 with a colorized Boris Karloff looming on the cover holding up a Gothic candle.
My relatively lengthy submission was printed in the Letters section on page 4, so it's not like I was paid. Hey, I'm a loser, whatya want?
(oh, yeah: and this time I used my real name).
Back to Zero:
LOL
...Jeezus. Maybe you confused color with genre. I mean what does sf have to do with black, right? You CONFUSED the prof!
I never read Delany OR Butler. I know the former won many Nebula awards and the latter put out the Xenogenesis books among many others and Harlan played a hand in her becoming a writer. There are actually very few modern sf writers, or any other modern genre, I’ve read, though I did go through a number of short stories - in part thanks to Dangerous Visions. My priorities drew me elsewhere.
I enjoyed the Hell out of Ralph Ellison. I read Invisible Man and a couple of short stories by him. And I would also recommend Lorraine Hansbury’s 'Raisin In The Sun' any time: brilliant, amusing and incisive stuff (I’m a Sidney Poitier fan but somehow, after I first read the play, the film was a let-down; it just didn’t capture the animation and whim the writing seemed to create for me).
Anyway, sorry about your run-in with another lame prof.
Q: What does a pretzel and Bill Clinton have in common?
A: Both were items choked on in the White House.
Happy Weekend all, from the Meat group.
Been checking out the 'fantasy' genre. Came across a huge web site called Elfwood. Came across this artist. I liked her stuff--mostly portraits. She sent me another link of stuff she'd done. Mostly nudes, in this case. I like the poses, colors and the medium she uses. Take a look, if you wish:
http://garlen.roguechannel.com/eyecraft/eliza/index.html
Goddamn it! Superboy and Lois Lane inker Kurt Schaffenberger pased away today at 81. Man, we're sadly starting to lose more and more of the classic artists....
Mr. Zero:
Was going to mention your post in my missive, sorry to forget.
Astounding for me to read the anecdote you relate. I've only read one or two of Butler's works, but what I'd read impressed me.
Now, Delany, gods; I loved "Babel 17", "Triton", "Nova", and "Dhalgren", and "Aye, and Gomorrah" just misses on my list of favorite sf stories of all time. Once got into a very animated conversation with a fella, arguing that I'd like to see Spike Lee undertake one of Delany's works. I'd like to see what he could do with sf.
To Tom: Thanks.
Politicians poisoned the 21st Century Schizoid Meat!
Meat,
Thanks for the kind words, and I'm quite happy being a DINK. I've got plenty other channels for my parental instincts.
Regards,
Joseph
Good going Meat!
This discussion reminds me the following quote from the movie Parenthood:
You know, Mrs. Buchman, you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car -- hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father.
(IMDB - what a great site)
Hey, all. A bit of time and distance.
Just a quick summation and comment. I'm required by law to report the incident: too many time in the past the "It's not my business" attitude has resulted in little graves encasing little souls. Besides, it's simply not cool. I went through some of what the boy went through. Other parents I talked to told me of other incidents, some similar. We have talked to the cops, although I can't say how far investigation will go.
I wasn't looking for the kudos I got, just looking to get some steam vented, with the wife and cutlets out on a bit of a shopping excursion. Still, the Mrs. knew, and as a reward, I was given the Most Valuable Dad award, consisting of a R2-D2 mini M&M dispenser and mini M&Ms, of which I got not a single one due to ravenous children. The R2 looks pretty detailed, and now has pride of place amongst my bobbleheads.
BTW, someone had mentioned previously wanting a Harlan Ellison Bobble...c'mon Mr. E., waddaya say? You could be standing next to Maurice Richard, Cal Ripken Jr. and Ichiro in ceramic immortality; not bad company if you ask me. Funds for KICK could come from it, etc. Give it some thought.
On the subject of the kudos, much thanks. Proves to me there are decent folk out there; y'all will get to meet one in the mirror tomorrow.
just a bit of personal:
Rich: If it's your first, man, savor it. Don't miss a thing. I remember the day when Danny was born, right down to the colour of the suitcases and the intermittent drizzle we had, and still get a bit misty when I think of it. Good luck, for you and yours.
Joseph: Prior to Danny, I swore up and down I'd never have kids; afraid of being like the old man. Sounds like you might be a better dad than you think. Let if happen if it will; I know I'm better for it.
to Rob, Lynn, Michael, Eric, Frank, Kerry, (damn, hitting the back button's a pain in the ass) Alejandro, and others missed: thanks for letting me vent.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to explain to my youngest that dust bunnies aren't living creatures: She's angry at mom for sucking them up in the vacuum.
ROB:
Your tale of the foolish professor brings to mind this story:
As a graduate student about 5 years ago, I was taking a class on the 20th Century African-American Novel, wherein we read stuff by Ralph Ellison, Toni Morrison, Ernest Gaines, James Baldwin, Alice Walker, Richard Wright, and Zora Neale Hurston. So at the end of the class, the professor asks, "Are there any writers you would like to see added to the class in the future?" So I ask her, "How about Octavia Butler or Samuel Delany." She looked at me for a good half-minute and then slowly replied, "Well, they aren't really black."
Now, we could get into issues of body of discourse and "blackness" and so forth, but I just really found it troubling that she would be so outright dismissive.
So, as a present, I sent her Dark Matter, that anthology of African-American speculative fiction that came out a year or two ago.
As an aside, I had a chance to talk with Octavia Butler a couple of years ago, and so I related the story to her, and she rolled her eyes and said something to the effect of "Chip and I would be the perfect marginalized writers to include in that course: both black, one a woman, one gay, and both consigned by academia to the lower circle of science fiction." She at least had a sense of ironic humor about the whole thing.
For those with a good Internet connection, the BBC4 site is:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/
I'd still like to use a radio, though....
Viz., Susan's announcement, please note that you can "listen live" to whatever is on BBC4 at this URL
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/
>BBC4 radio broadcast adaptation <
Is this something broadcast nationally? I have a shortwave. Anyone know what frequencies this might run on?
thanks, Eric
To one and all:
TOMORROW: HARLAN TO TAKE PART IN SCIENCE FICTION ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION. Saturday Jan 26th 2:00PM to 4:00PM UCLA Northwest Campus Auditorium, DeNeve Plaza, LA, CA 90095. The event is free and open to the public. First come, first served seating. You will have to pay for parking @ UCLA.
Thursday, Jan 31st. HE to reprise his role as the voice of the evil computer AM in a BBC4 radio broadcast adaptation of I HAVE NO MOUTH, AND I MUST SCREAM starring David Soul as Ted. The show is part of the series Chiller. Jan 31st 11:00pm GMT.
All best--Susan
Hmm. I'll send Neil a message of support, but I dearly hope this doesn't drag him through endless tsouris. The bitter irony here is that Todd McFarlane began as a strong proponent of creators' rights. When did he join the Other Side? Neil deserves better than trying to enforce an oral contract against such hypocrisy.
But maybe this sort of crack-up was implicit as far back as the days of McFarlane's debate with Peter David. For those who never saw it, McFarlane made it obvious that he didn't believe the writer really contributed anything to a comic--that the real and only creator was the artist. But you'd think that even McFarlane would comprehend just how much Miracleman was a writer's creation (Moore's, to be precise).
Check out the latest "Cerebus" by the way. McFarlane's a character therein, wearing a sloppy, oversized Miracleman shirt.
On another note, Lynn, don't stop with just the Straight Dope message board. "Cecil Adams" has a number of Straight Dope collections in print, each one a delightful compendium and snarky wit and amazing facts. The guy's a fine writer with sarcasm oozing from every pore.
--alex
And let's not forget the culture of hockey, which has yet to be commented upon in the press. Both at professional and amateur levels, the violence is palpable and encouraged. It's easily the most violent of all the professional sports, and you have to work hard to get something like an unnecessary roughness call.
--Eric
Additional asides about the death beating of the children's hockey coach.
Though still relavent to the larger issue I'd forgotten this particular incident was not as in black-and-white as other examples of rage and violence on the field. Apparently the coach was allowing or urging the kids to play rough and this guy, Junta, argued with him to knock it off. But he let the matter get out of hand. Had he not lost his head he may have been in the right: turns out this coach had served seven prison stints for charges that included breaking and entering, drunken driving and assaulting a police officer; he'd had serious drinking problems and had spent a lot of time in psyciatric hospitals.
On the other end of the arena we have Junta: turns out he had a track record for beating his wife, a number times right in front of his kids. She had to get a restraining order at one point. A bully with a rep, I guess, with 6 to 10 years ahead of him.
Two thorough assholes drew an inevitable outcome. This was nothing like the 20/20 report I saw the other night, where they'd hidden mikes under bleachers to catch on tape parents talking to their kids during and after the game; things like, "you let me down...you're a fucking disappointment."
Someone had to die tragically for the nation to really open its eyes on this issue; at least it wasn't Bill Cosby or Andy Griffith. Hopefully, a positive outcome will emerge from the incident in the long run.
The Mysterious Mister Zero
Yeah, that IS pathetic. This feckless effort by people at selling themselves as "experts" emerges a lot. It doesn't seem to take much for anyone to claim professorship these days at all. I wore out a story on this site way back about an argument I got into once with a lit professor who dismissed Harlan as a "genre" writer, yet hadn't read a damn thing by him (I'd asked her explicitly to be clear on that point).
Re: Kmart realism...in a nutshell, the very use of that term and its resonance illustrates Kmart's problem. "Kmart realism" doesn't speak very well about Kmart the company.
Notice how the term wasn't "Wal-Mart realism" -- which is just as lower-middle-class, but would also incorporate sprawl, the crushing of small businesses and the consolidation of commerce in many rural communities to one big box; or "Target realism" -- again, just as lower-middle-class, but putting on airs of being cool.
Anyway, here in the Detroit area where Kmart is headquartered, the implosion and bankruptcy is front-page news, and has many people in a tizzy. But the problems are not recent, and entirely relate to poor management decisions, residue from bad investments a decade ago (Builders' Square, Borders), and shareholder impatience with investing in a turnaround plan. They actually had a plan -- a good plan -- to completely reengineer their back end (marchandising, procurement and distribution), but Wall Street balked at the price and drove the shares down, so Chairman and CEO Chuck Conaway caved and laid off hundreds of contractors and consultants in mid-2001 -- including my wife, an organization development expert.
Just thought I'd share. Kmart's story is neither new nor unusual. Now Enron -- that's new. No one since Charles Ponzi has done as good a job of hiding financial realities for as long as Enron managed it. Regardless of the politics that may or may not emerge down the road, this I know: "Kenny Boy" Lay, Jeff Skilling and Arthur Fastow should serve hard time for what they did.
We interrupt this thread to bring late breaking news. Neil Gaiman is suing (finally!) Todd MacFarlane for the rights Miracleman and all the charactares he created for Spawn. More details (including the entire lawsuit) at:
http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=000714
Now back to your regularly scheduled discussions.
Joseph~ Thanks! I'll check it out. It sounds cool.
L.
Lynn,
The Straight Dope is a weekly column from the Chicago Reader (syndicated in various alternative papers), written by Cecil Adams, that answers odd questions. You can find it at StraightDope.com. The forum is a fun place for posting discussions and what not on various topics.
Regards,
Joseph
Joseph~ That is damned funny. Gonna be hearing that in my head all day. Thanks for sharing! What is the Straight Dope Message Board?
Thanks,
L.
Yes, I'm shamelessly posting something I read on the Straight Dope Message Board, mainly because it's funny as hell:
"And finally, to Jerry Lewis, and Jerry Lee Lewis.
You two both deserve to rot in the umpteeth circle of hell. Not because you directly affected my life in any way, but because for the love of God I lived twenty-four years without knowing you were two separate people. I went through life thinking that "Goodness gracious great balls of HEY LAAAAAAADY!" came from the same person. I thought that the performer whom the French strangely love was the same performer who married his underage cousin in Kentucky. You have no RIGHT to do this to me. You have no IDEA how aghast I was when this was explained to me. No, this was not explained to me in the privacy of my own home. No, this was not explained to me in the company of a few close friends, who would snicker momentarily and then forget about this. No, this was not even explained to me while giving a presentation to a board of directors. YOU TWO KEPT UP THIS CHARADE UNTIL MY GIRLFRIEND WONDERED WHAT THE HELL I WAS TALKING ABOUT. She'll never let me forget about this. She now has the nuclear weapon of relationships. She can merely whisper "Jerry Lewis!" into my ear and I'll curl into a mortified fetal position. She can win any argument, no matter how many cites I provide, or how many links to authoritative sources."
Thanks, Lynn.
And good point regarding too much fun. To paraphrase Gordon Gekko: "Selfish is good." There is nothing wrong with wanting to enjoy life with your significant other and spend the majority of time with each other (or, others if you're Mormon). Too many people have kids for the wrong reasons--or, even what they may think are the right reasons--and forget or have no clue that kids take up quite some time and effort and aren't always "just the cutest things". Some folks forget that kids aren't toys to be played with and then set aside and if more people realized this maybe we wouldn't have so many hockey dad's and mom's out there.
I'm done preaching so I'll just pass the plate around so you can give what you can. No double-dipping.
Good work, meat.
In the case of the "deranged hockey dad," the father who killed the coach was apparently enraged by too much rough play involving the kids in the practice, and wanted the coach to tone down the hitting...
J Stover
My friend sent me this email this morning, which I reproduce for you here:
The guy who wrote _Gilligan Unbound_ was on The Connection (NPR) this morning. A caller asked him if he had ever read The Glass Teat, to which the author said that he only knew Harlan was a "good science fiction writer" and hadn't heard of it. Now, outside of this blatant example of tunnel vision, what boggles my mind is that this joker, who is a professor at UVA and who claims to be an "expert" on pop culture, has no knowledge of The Glass Teat. I've said it before and I'll say it again, either of you [another friend and I who are both in higher academics] could easily write a book which would tear this dumb bastard a new one, and I anxiously await the day that I can read a book on popular culture that isn't a sychophantic attempt to cash in on someone else's success.
Bag-O-Meat,
Bravo. You stood tall and did something.
To anyone who might be interested, there's an article in the Chicago Tribune today about "KMart Realism" in modern fiction - has some interesting stuff, including some comparisons between the deliberately minimalist and shallow style, as opposed to maximalist writers like Angela Carter. Link below:
http://chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-0201250231jan25.story?coll=chi%2Dleisure%2Dhed
rich~ Congratulations! As my own nuptial day grows closer, the thought looms. House first, then kids... Maybe. We tend to fall into the category of 'Having Too Much Fun To Grow Up Yet', but as my nephews get older, I'm sure the both of us will reconsider.
Maybe...
L.
Meat,
My hat's off to you for your restraint. I know full well the anger you experienced and must say you are a better bag of meat than me in your restraint. I would agree with Lynn and say do the right thing again and report this guy to the proper Social Services.
Anything I add would be redundant to the comments already expressed regarding so-called parents and I only hope that I can learn from these types of things and raise my own child (the birth is only about a month away) in a better environment.
As regards the busload of school children: they'll hit this guy with 13 counts of kidnapping, but he won't serve a day; at age 63, with the dichotemy between the sweet and kind old man the neighbors know and the obviously conflicted guy who decided one day to show the kids DC with a .308 Springfield semi-automatic next to his seat, the court appointed psychologist and his attorney will see that he's quietly slipped into an institution - even though it's obvious that he knew what he was doing (he as much admitted that by telling the off-duty cop working security at the strip mall he turned himself in to that he had a bus load of abducted children).
And though I don't think he deserves any leniency or consideration for it, I'm at least glad that whatever battle went on in his head fell to the side of "Let it go" instead of the bloody alternative.
On the subject of idiots and children, that missing bus in Berks County was found...in Maryland 140 miles away with a bus driver armed with a semiautomatic rifle who intended to take the kids to see Washington DC. For more on this visit: http://www.thewgalchannel.com/news/1204845/detail.html
Of course, the "police boycott" has been downgraded to a "fire police boycott" of 8 morons in Lancaster County who called a reporter with aparently nothing else to do that day but slap an internationally known brand name on a centuries-old story of ignorance and elevate them to the status of witch-hunters...literally. You can read the intellectual debate on the subject here in Central PA by going here, but I advise caution when approaching the natives. They fear new things or change... http://forums.ibsys.com/viewmessages.cfm?sitekey=lan&Forum=79&Topic=5391
Lynn, I hope those links proved helpful to you. My take was that its an essayist quoting a journalist in a biased paper, so it's fifth-hand data. I take Hight Times with a grain of salt, anyway.
Be well,
Jay
All inall, this discussion is reaffirming my decision to not have children - and my desire to protect to the bone my nieces and nephews.
Seriously.
I never quite understood the parental instict until my siblings started having kids. Now I reall understand the impulse to protect a child from every nabbering nitwit out there. Kind of scary, no?
Regards,
Joseph
Parents and sports...where to begin? I even have problems at chorus and recitals. Some parents just want their kids to be perfect little miniature adults.
My six year old son played soccer and I had to deal with a sideline coach-dad. My son played for fun and, when we were playing a team this jackass had a particular dislike for, my son was put at center. For about ten minutes, he was rolled over on the field by kids about six inches taller than he was. This being the most important game in the universe to the jackass he started in with "Hey, kid...you playing or what? Get in the game or get the hell off the field!" I went to him and told him who I was and asked him to relax. He told me I should coach my son more. I told him to get bent and it was just a game and to ride his own kid if he felt like continuing to be an asshole.
About a minute later, when he thought I'd gone, he said to his wife. "If that kid misses another pass I'll beat his ass myself." I put my hand on his shoulder and said, "If I see you within twenty feet of him, ever, I will break you in half." Of course I said this calmly, without a scene and added, "and this is your last season in this league, I promise you that."
He stammered something unintelligible and lead his wife away. He went to the coach and demanded my son be removed. Now this is midget league where the point is to teach kids the game. They rotate positions and, even if you're lousy, you get a shot at it. The coach told the guy to back off for a few minutes until the next substitution round. When he called it, my son came out toward the coach and the jackass. I walked over and said to him, "you don't think I'm serious?"
He pulled his kid out of the game a week later after his son tried to pick a fight with mine. Fucking parents living through their children...I swear I just want to grind their skulls to paste sometimes.
Michael
Don't get me twitching too much: one a.m. you just MIGHT find the action figures, the ice cream, the comics and maybe even my favorite box manufacturers sitting here to greet you if things in this hang-out get as dull as they were for a couple of days.
David,
Preeee-slicely! :)
Meato,
Briefly, when I read your post an anger sailed through me as it reminded me of that July killing of a coach in Massachusetts by a hyper-enraged parent. It took that incident for attention to really focus on parental over-involvement in youth sport (in the days I played sports I don't recall parents tearing at their kids; I'm not clear just why this grew. I wonder if increasingly bad sportsmanship in the pros was a factor). It only took three solid punches for this fucking idiot, Thomas Junta, to bag himself a manslaughter charge and now the media is showing us how bad it's really become. Parents screaming at their kids because they can't do as well; dads telling their sons what disappointing assholes they are because they let them down, and so on. Primitive impulse is all these morons care about and for its sake they're willing to blindly humiliate their kids. To scare them with prospects if they don't do bettter. These "parents" have nothing less than my disgust, putting it mildly. A massive portion of them are neither worthy of being parents nor having the life invested in them by whatever brain damage cases THEY had as parents. It's time for our species to evolve: as with other recent events, it took a tragedy - its signals already having been there - for this issue to really come to the fore. If you've been coaching kids I can only imagine what you've seen and what you're still due for. It's going to take a long, determined set of solutions to cope with this problem.
BOM: I should have said I would have wanted to kill the guy YOU were talking about.
Chuck
Bag of Meat: I come from the state where the hockey dad killed a man. I think you did all right. I would have wanted to kill the guy. I wouldn't have done it, but I would have wanted to. Maybe you wanted that motherfucker dead, too. Admirable restraint on your part. I don't know if child protective services would be a help or not. I know someone who has worked in that area, who could advise on the subject, if you're interested.
As for the deadly hockey dad incident: It started out as a shouting match between two guys, the coach and a father. The coach is a big guy. A hulk of a man. When the fighting started, the big guy hit too hard. The other fellow died. A few too many foot-pounds per second per second. This is where restraint comes in, and I admire yours. If either of those assholes had a fraction of the self-discipline you showed, they'd both be alive, one guy would not be looking at prison, and several kids would not have had to witness this.
You did damn good.
Oh, by the way. Fuck lists. My attitude this week. Maybe it'll be better next week.
Chuck
MeatBag: you go. You're a hero just for giving enough of a shit to do something instead of the usual embarrassed look of helplessness most people exhibit at such times. I, too, try to school the people who shouldn't be parents, and I am now immune to the "who-the-fuck-do-you-think-you-are" look on the faces of these knobs. Kick ass! Take names!
Rob: what about your favorite action figures? Comic books? Ice cream flavors? You should be ashamed for posting such an incomplete set of lists...
KIDDING, people, I'm just kidding!!!!
Michael
stopping, dropping, rolling...
I regretfully write that noted Canadian television and radio personallity and writer Peter Gzowski died today at the age of 67 of lung disease. Peter was one of the most respected people in Canadian radio and television and wrote some excellent books on his experiences in tv and radio as well as about Canadian culture.
My prairs and deepest sympathys are with Mr. Gzowski's family and friends. Canada lost one of it's most best and brighest today.
Peter Gzowski
1934-2002
R.I.P.
Bag of Meat...
For the longest time, I firmly believed that no-one should interfere with another parent's raising of their children. But in the past few years, I've modified that opinion (I have two sons myself, so I am very sympathetic to parents and their troubles).
But I'm tired of seeing the occasional parent screaming at their kid in grocery stores, or grabbing them roughly in shopping malls. So I say something. Not loud enough for the kid to hear, because I don't want to cause any more problems within the family, but I make sure the parent hears it and sees my eyes.
Usually something along the line of..."calm down, he (she's) just a kid." Usually I get a stunned stare back, oftentimes with that "who do you fucking think you are?" look.
And that's fine...I made my point, and I can't expect them to suddenly break out into some Jesus smile and cry for joy at my wisdom. The shouting/grabbing/whatever always stops, and maybe next time, at least in public, they'll think twice...
Good for you at the rink. And I'd say you didn't have to be the manager to step in. If there had been someone like you at that hockey game where some father, right in front of his son, killed a guy, it wouldn't have happened.
--Eric
Brian wrote, "Since it's assumed that most of us admire Harlan's work, listing our favorite stories amounts to 'feeding of the HE and blatant kissing of his ass.' If Harlan ever wants to consult my wonderfully sterling and monumentally crucial opinions on his work, I'm sure he'll drop me a note."
Brian, we are not here to perform for Harlan and tell him all of our likes and dislikes. It is wonderful that he checks in from time to time, but this board is for discussion amongst interested parties.
I did not call for a list....I called for a discussion: not just the name of a favorite story, but why it affected us. Perfectly good topic for this board. I certainly didn't write about my favorite to inform Harlan.....that would be inane....I wrote about my favorite because I enjoyed writing about my favorite and reading other's thoughts on their favorites.
Must we only discuss non-Harlan topics because he doesn't want to hear about himself? Is he the only reader here that counts.
Love Always
-TODD
Hi all, back from holidaying in the city of Adelaide. I now have Borges and Kafka, and about 20 other books to read, so thanks again for the help.
Harlan – No Phantom T-shirts. Cheap plastic figures, tawdry plastic cups, shelves of comics, but no T-shirts. Comments from sales people were “haven’t seen them in a while”.
Meat – I can only repeat everyone else’s comments. Well done.
Lynn – Midnight in the Sunken Cathedral is now available on CD! Dammit, I waited a long time and then finally bought it on Tape, thinking it wasn’t showing on CD. I then spent several hours copying it to CD, as my Tapes have never lasted long (in comparison to a CD’s life). Curse my impatience.
Some of Harlans readings were available on mp3 when Napster was around. I think most of Harlan’s pirated works are a lot harder to acquire since he started his legal action. I’ve checked a couple of times through various sources, with no results.
I remember reading a post of the infamous e-book newsgroup stating, “Don’t post any of that guys stuff here, he will get you”. I doubt the real message is getting through, but it appears the threat of legal action is.
Of course, that’s not to say they still aren’t available. My quick 5 minute checks can find only so much.
Lord of the Rings – Ok, a dead thread, but I can’t resist. I have seen it twice. The movie had me under its spell within 5 minutes, and didn’t release me until the very end. I could go on with my opinion, but you have all heard it before from others. I just needed to raise my voice in favour of it.
Cheers to all
Kerry
Jay Smith reported:
> Rob -
> Wow. All those names went into Amazon.com
> and it recommended I buy you "Pat the Bunny"
> for Christmas (or "The Book of Lists 4").
Must have been the Tesla-Renoir-Bowie-Phi Delta Psi nexus.
I just do not see a bohemian in young Justin, but young squire, do make sure that the lady you make it with has her papers in order, or a doctors signed note.
BOM, a devastating story of parental neglect and malace. I see a long psychiatry bill in the offing for the youth hockey pug. Fathers like that should just be turned into fantasm dust. That Conservative crap about winning at all costs is what fuels this kind of nonsense. Just let the kids be kids for Gods sake! Fuck parental rights! This is mental abuse. Terrorism has many faces beyond the bearded muslim boogyman. Sick country we have, I'm afraid.
Meat -
Just another case that's a lost game away from becoming like that bastard who killed another boy's dad in front of a bunch of kids.
Good job, Meat. I'd have the police all over the cowardly bastard.
Meat~ Have you considered reporting him to Child Protective Services? I would consider what you witnessed to be child abuse. Even so, you did the right thing, tho' I have the sinking feeling it won't help the kid in the long run.
L.
Meat,
You did the right thing, most other people would have walked away or just said 'It ain't my kid'.
FAQ
Jesus On A Pogo Stick! What the hell's wrong with people? You'd think they'd have some sense of perspective, or at least be intelligent enough not to look like a fucking idiot in fron of everybody over a goddamn six-year-olds hockey game!
Sorry 'bout that. Ticked me off but good. Oh, and Meat? Good job. Handled it damn well. I might have found myself in cuffs after rearranging the guys coat over his head and giving him a few body shots before being dragged off.
Regards,
Joseph
Justin: If she's a real pro, there will not be a goodbye kiss.
Isn't that what you really want?
Note: What follows is a simple rant, not having any thing at all to do with those here. If you're not interested, please disregard.
This morning, 7 am, I'm overseeing my duties at the rink, checking the refrigeration units and brine flow, making sure we'll have good ice all day. Out on the ice, a game is ongoing between two teams of six-year-olds. Six-year-olds, irrespective the game they're playing generally aren't too athletically adept. Hell, most of these kids skate on their ankles, and the only purpose for the stick is to keep them from falling on their birdcages (helmet and masks).
One little shaver is standing in front of his opponent's net, propped up on his stick. The puck slowly crawls towards him, and he tries to swing, redirecting it into the net. Of course, he misses and the momentum takes him down onto his backside. From the stands behind he I hear his father start yelling:
"Jesus Christ! Keep your eye on the goddammed puck!"
I see the boy's face start to form into an expression of fear, one I'd seen on my face a few times growing up. Well, I saunter over and inform the father that he's out of line; of the rules concerning his conduct. I get a muttered "sorry", and behind me as I leave, I hear scattershot of "Who the fuck does HE think he is?". I fire a quick glare back, and he quickly drops to silence.
A bit later, I'm standing and watching. Sorry, but I find little ones at this age fun to watch. Sure, it's not much for talent, but I enjoy seeing the little buggers try. Once again, the little lad in front of the net sees an errant puck heading his way. Again, he swings and misses; again, he's down. This time, the father's cry:
"Fucking Kid! For Christ's Sake...!"
I'm down by him in a flash. "Sir, once more, and you're banned! I manage the rink, I do have the power..."
Well, for the rest of the game, he's silent. Still, I've got the staff in the concessions stand watching him, with orders to report any re-occurrence. None comes back, so off again to duties. I'm checking out the dressing rooms, making sure they're cleaned. Coming around the corner, I see the man who caused the earlier disturbance holding the boy by the scruff of the neck, and landing a hard smack across the kid's face.
Oh man, the moment before I spoke...Just my feeling a sense of rage.
I warned him that if his hand landed again, he'd be trying the same thing on me, with a guarantee of a far different outcome. I then banned him, and informed the boy's coach.
Gods, the kid was just six; the game's supposed to be fun.
Thanks for the tolerance.
BoM
Did I read that right? Justin's going to go to a whore and write about it? On this very board? Every frigging detail? This is going to be fun. Go Justin! Go Justin! Go Justin! Go! Go! Go!
FAQ
Getting better all the time...eyesight failing; hair thinning; muscles decaying; teeth falling out; libido gone; infections, viruses, disease running amok. But, hey, at least I'm not YOUNG anymore...glad to be over the hump, soon it will all be over.
Justin, said in the sweetest, most gentle tone I could possibly muster~
Hey sweetie, you think it's bad now?! You think it gets *better* when you get older?! You think just because you're a guy, you got some kinda corner on ... Okay, I'm shutting up now, before I say something I *know* I'll regret later.
You're young, you're intelligent, you're at college, you have your whole life ahead of you. And you expect me to give you *sympathy*? Please, Justin. Give me your post box number so I can send you some hankies. Or better yet, you come visit and we'll take you down the boardwalk and sell you for twenty bucks to a gaggle of Angelino divorcées or Brittany Spears fans.
Life could be a *lot* worse than Arizona, my friend. You could be in Des Moines.
L.
Justin,
I like to use lists like a toilet plunger. Now, hopefully, any fancies about listing, roused by bluffs or otherwise, will just pass right on through. If not we'll have to resort to laxatives.
Lynn: Thanks for the info regarding the 26th. Anne is suggesting that we make the trek, but, I'm still unsure. Do you know who else will be on the panel?
----------------------
RE: Favorite Ellison Stories
It's almost impossible to pick just one, but, if pressed about it, I'd say my favorites would be;
"The Crackpots"
"The Discarded" - First Ellison story I ever read.
"The Man Who Rowed Christopher Colombus Ashore" and,
"Deeper than Darkness"
-Andrew
Jay,
Book of Lists 4!? Holy shit! Mine all came from BoL 2!
Got some heavy catchin' up to do. It's vital to me to know the human capacity for boring a reader: the Tao of Lists.
I can't believe you guys called my bluff on the Trek thing.
Lynn: That's COLD, woman.
J
Brian,
Thanks for the link. Yes, Terry Waite. A naive but decent man who in my opinion should have punched Ollie North all the way to Krakotoa.
FAQ
Thanks Jay. I think I'll wait till I get home tonight to surf those sites. High Times is *just* what I need to show up in my corporate history files.
Eric, pass. My grip on reality is fragile enough as it is. But thanks, I appreciate the sentiment. I'll just make funny faces to keep you laughing until you pass out, 'kay?
So you want to hear something amazing? Okay, amazingly stupid, but still... I paid $25 for "The Voice From The Edge: Midnight In The Sunken Cathedral" and I get the package from Amazon, which is your average two CD sized box. Being the classic idjit that I am, I think "$25, box sized like 2 CD's, what I gots here is two CD's." I maintain that it's a logical conclusion to arrive at. So I squirrel it away for when I need a pick-me-up. (I was always the little kid who would take the proffered candy and put it in her pocket, saving it for later so that it could be savored properly. Yeah - I know - more issues than Sports Illustrated.) And the other day, I find my portable cd player in the bottom of my desk and that beautiful black shrink-wrapped package is whispering to me, "Go on, you know you want to." I cave. I crack it open, listen to the first cd ("In The Lonely Lands", "S.R.O.", "Midnight In The Sunken Cathedral") in my car on the way home from work, a bit confused at the notebook style sleeves that hold the cd's inside. I listen to CD#2 ("The End of the Time of Leinard", "Pennies Off a Dead Man's Eyes", "Rat Hater" *brilliant reading here) and lo! What do my wondering eyes behold! There's THREE more CD's in this pack! IT'S A FIVE CD COLLECTION! So my week has been much enriched and I think I may have to have my stereo in my car fixed so I can listen to more books on tape (it makes the commute so much more pleasant), although I doubt that any of the other readers are anywhere near the caliber of this one. (No ass-kissing. It ain't ass-kissing if it's the truth.)
L.
PS. I wonder if anyone's been keeping an eye out for pirated audio works of HE's, because this stuff is gonna show up in .mp3 sooner or later.
Listing:
And here I was going to suggest a top ten list of the best web sites by frequent and infrequent Webderland posters. There really are some fine ones, although the lack of a dedicated Heather-site is, I think, a shame.
J Stover, spending too much time playing with Google
I just want to pop in briefly to share a salutary experience involving one of my favorite Ellison stories. I'm currently teaching a survey class on communication theories, one of those intro courses that's a mile wide and an inch deep, where the theories roll by, like the cut list on one of those late-night commercials for the latest CD compilation of songs you already have,until the students' eyes glaze over. This morning we were covering George Mead's theory of symbolic interactionism, one aspect of which is the concept of internal dialogue as an indispensable tool in the evolution of the self. The idea is that we all engage in a dialogue with what interactionists call the "looking glass self" in the process of working out who we are day by day. It occurred to me that one good way of reinforcing this concept might be through an appropriate fantasy trope. So, I had them read "Shatterday." This morning in class we discussed the story in connection with the theory, and my sense is that it helped a number of them get a handle on the idea in a way that their textbook never could have. In any case, it was fun for me to be able to incorporate one of my favorite stories into the classroom.
Steve J.
Lynn,
I have not heard anything around here regarding the Durham Tech incident (I live in Durham) and as Jay says, there is an obvious slant in the article. I don't want to try to defend this administration's heavy-handed tactics (I'll leave that for Todd), but this "article" seems to come across as more anecdotal than any substantive evidence of questionable tactics employed by the government.
My main reason for disregarding (sort of) this guy's article is the recounting of that 22-year old's detainment and barring him from boarding a flight. Sounds like the kid raised some red flags and they checked him out. Happens all the time, but the article makes it sound like just another case of the FBI harassment of "good folk".
By the way, Brian, I don't think listing a favorite story is "feeding of the HE and blatant kissing of his ass." If it is, I'm sure HE would tell us to "fuck off" in his own polite way. More than likely, it was a lull in the conversation while people went to get refills on their drinks and gorge themselves at the buffet table. Like most conversations it would have petered out until a better topic popped up--as Lynn so graciously provided without the commentary.
And, of course, as I write this, Rob decides to post his lists. Man, it's gettin' harder and harder to keep posting in here.
Rob -
Wow. All those names went into Amazon.com and it recommended I buy you "Pat the Bunny" for Christmas (or "The Book of Lists 4").
- Jay :)
A couple o'my humble favorites:
Favorite Treks:
The Menagerie
The Corbomite Maneuver
Amok Time
City on the Edge of Forever
Space Seed
Where No Man Has Gone Before
Outer Limits
The Inheritors
Nightmare
Keeper of the Purple Twilight
The Invisibles
The Guests
The Chameleon
Demon With A Glass Hand
A Feasibility Study
Cry of Silence
The Prisoner
The Arrival
Many Happy Returns
Once Upon A Time
Fallout
Lost In Space
Island in the Sky
There Were Giants In The Earth
The Hungry Sea
The Sky Is Falling
My Friend, Mr. Nobody
Shows In General:
The Simpsons
The Tick
X-Files
Babylon 5
Frontline
Kolchak: The Night Stalker
Married With Children
Cheers
Taxi
Harlan Stories:
The Discarded
I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream
Jeffty Is Five
Repent, Harlequin! Said The Ticktockman
Authors:
Wilde
Poe
Wells
Ellison
Salinger
Balzak
Swift
Voltaire
Schulberg
Ballard
Twain
Artists:
Magritte
de Chirico
Van Gogh
Goya
Picasso
Scientists:
Sagan
Tesla
Einstein
da Vinci
Galileo
Gauss
Bolyai
Oppenheimer
Athletes:
Kareem
Joe Montana
Larry Bird
Ali
Magic
Stockton
Steve Young
Jordan
Kobe
Martial Artists:
Jackie Chan
Bruce Lee
Directors:
Hitchcock
Kubrick
Bunuel
Lang
Chaplin
Renoir
Countries:
Netherlands
Britain
Congo
Australia
sf movies:
2001
Forbidden Planet
War of the Worlds
The Invisible Man (with Claude Raines)
Jekyll & Hyde (by Mamoullian)
Frankenstein and Bride Of…
The Time Machine
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (original)
The Power
Incredible Shrinking Man
Them!
Quatermass films
The Terminator
Clockwork Orange
20,000 Leagues (w/ James Mason)
Robocop (original)
Blade Runner
Solaris
The Birds
The Rock World:
Lennon
Pink Floyd
Springsteen
Billy Joel
The Stones
David Byrne/Talking Heads
Nirvana
Smashing Pumpkins
The Doors
Moody Blues
The Animals
David Bowie
Comedy figures:
Woody Allen
Mel Brooks
Monty Python
Laurel & Hardy
Chaplin
W.C. Fields
Sororities:
Omega Pi
Phi Delta Psi
Alpha Chi Omega
Foods:
Tai
Chinese
Phone Books:
Los Angeles Westside
Bay Area
New York
Boston
There: no more lists are needed in this forum.
Lynn---
Peace. In the spirit of the posts, I'll pass the e-pipe along....
Lynn,
On the guy himself - http://cybertraveler.org/niman.html
The article in question - http://www.hightimes.com/News/2002_01/unamerican.html
It's a column by a "journalist" with a specific slant/point of view.
It refers to and article in The Progressive on "The New McCarthyism" at - http://www.progressive.org/0901/roth0102.html
Draw your own conclusion. :)
Heyyyy Lynn: "High Times" rules! Last issue was groovy ---there was some article in it that was great, I think. Or was that the previous issue? Those glossy centerfolds of moist broccoli makes me socks roll up & down!
Eric~ Sorry for getting my back up. That's a perfect example of how what seems funny on one end reads completely unfunny on the other end. I'm not usually a touchy person, but since our last few correspondences were less than chummy, it lacked the note of congeniality intended. And unfortunately we don't know each other well enough to know what buttons to *not* push.
Truce?
L.
Lynn...it was a JOKE. A friendly JIBE. An attempt, obviously failed, at lightness, in the midst of all the sturm and drang of Taliban and Ashcroft...
Man, does everyone take a touchy pill before signing on to this board?
BTW, I have read High Times many a time, and it is a pretty decent magazine.
--Eric
Jay~ Thanks for the feedback. Anticipating results of your search.
L.
Eric~ Thank you for the conclusive evidence that you are an ASS. The article was forwarded to me, as stated in my post. I am not nor have I ever been a subscriber to or long time reader of "High Times".
To anyone else that cares: I just got a HERC notice in my inbox that Harlan will be participating in a "Science Fiction Round Table Discussion". Details follow:
January 26, 2002 - 2:00pm to 4:00pm
UCLA-Northwest Campus Auditorium
Deneve Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90095
This event is free and open to the public, seating is first come, first served.
If you want directions, email me and I'll send them.
L.
PS. And now I'm ticked because I already have plans this Saturday. Dammitdammitdammit.
Brian,
Heard the news on morning radio. Still not sure if it's the Police Department proper or just the volunteers in the Fire Police. The rurals in question are 30 minutes from me. Fear not, there are those of us in the area who are acting to correct this embarrassing threat to intelligence.
It's a long time before September 7th, so they'll change their mind. These are eight guys with orange vests and plastic badges. Someone will buy a few rentacops to direct traffic and laugh these guys out of their jobs.
"In a letter to the township and the YMCA, Fichthorn challenged the religious integrity of the YMCA, and questioned whether it was 'serving the will of God' in using the books"
Fear not. Don't let the dumbasses get the rest of you bent out of shape. We locals will take care of it. You hearing this Alex Jay?? :)
I'm more concerned about the bus that's been missing all morning in Berks County. 10-20 kids are on it and it just vanished in the fog and rain - no radio contact. Now that's a real crisis.
Lynn,
My check has Michael I. Niman as the author of "People of the Rainbow" a retrospective of 60s drug culture and state oppression and of several articles for High Times magazine. Must be a newer article for him.
Not conclusive, but I think I can track it down through Snopes or through a friend who reads all that stuff.
The real meat of your post, Lynn, is that you are a reader of High Times. I would guess long-term subscriber.
I refuse to list either my favorite Harlan stories or Trek episodes. Since it's assumed that most of us admire Harlan's work, listing our favorite stories amounts to "feeding of the HE and blatant kissing of his ass." If Harlan ever wants to consult my wonderfully sterling and monumentally crucial opinions on his work, I'm sure he'll drop me a note.
As for listing favorite Trek episodes... come on, gang. We can do better.
Following Lynn's lead of bringing in new and _substantive_ subjects... How about this? Out in Penryn, Pennsylvania-- about a two-hour drive from me here in Philly-- the local police force's eight members voted unanimously to boycott crowd control duty for the local YMCA's triathalon. The reason? The Y reads Harry Potter books to kids, and the local bacon thinks that this promotes witchcraft. Swear to God, the story's at http://www.salon.com/books/wire/2002/01/24/hp_boycott/index.html.
Here's an item for Faisal, assuming he hasn't read it already. Over at http://www.counterpunch.com/waite1.html, there's a piece protesting the treatment of Taliban prisoners at Guatanamo. The author is a man who's probably more entitled than most to have a grudge against the Middle East's more draconian figures: Terry Waite, the former envoy for the Archbishop of Canterbury, who spent five years as a hostage in Beirut.
Has anyone else been forwarded this article by Michael I. Niman, regarding Ashcroft and other various government agencies (FBI, Secret Service) and their random persecution of citizens engaged in "Unamerican(sic) Activities"? The article mentions a guy getting a visit from the Bureau after a heated political discussion at the gym, a freshman at Durham Tech being questioned by the Secret Service for "anti-American" posters he displayed in his dorm room, and an art gallery in Houston getting the third degree for having art critical of US foreign policy? I would like to substantiate these events, and so far, the only source I have for this article is "High Times" - described as an e-rag, so I don't even know if it's the pot smokers mag or not.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
L.
...How about Outer Limits, Twilight Zone, or AH Presents?
(braces for impact)
I'll see your favorite episode of Trek and raise you a medoicre episode of Babylon 5 and all the Emmy noms for X-Files. Going through your favorite Trek Episode is like showing off your favorite 1982 Topps Phillies cards.
>engagingly wholesome visage of Marcia Brady (is there any other reason to watch that show?)<
Marcia AND Carol. The possibilities are enticing. Carol as teacher, Marcia as student, you as the lesson at hand.
Oh, no...I'm not gonna get sucked into another list. I'm not gonna tell you anything about my preferences...ok okokok. Turn the juice off and take the cables off my balls.
How 'bout this: My favorite collection of Ellison stories is "Strange Wine". If I've gotta be pinned down, then I would say that "A Boy and His Dog" is my favorite story (off the top of my head and not rereading---though, I've always had a perverse pleasure in "Would You Do It For a Penny?", but I don't think it counts since it was a collaboration), but I think "Strange Wine" is as good a short story collection that anyone has ever written. I will not argue about this.
It also introduced me to his essays, which is worth the price of any admission to HE's theater.
I don't do Star Trek. Yeah, I watch it when the cables are hooked up to the balls and/or if the ear-ruputuring Dickie V. is screeching on another channel, or I'm so bored that I can't muster the will to masturbate to the engagingly wholesome visage of Marcia Brady (is there any other reason to watch that show?). Weeellllll, ok, there was the one Trek episode that had Kirk split into two "personalities" due to some transporter malfunction, written by Matheson, I believe, though I can't remember the name of it. I'm sure someone on this board will let me know. An effeminate Kirk is such a riot.
And Buffy and X-Files? Don't watch 'em. Actually, don't watch much television and, (dare I say it?), The Simpsons seem to be getting a bit...stale. I do like Malcolm in the Middle, though.
Fuck Frodo! Long live Dewey!
Thanks a lot Justin. Soon this board will degenerate even further into listing top ten episodes of each Trek series.....and then we'll be on a Buffy is better than X-Files binge and oy is this going to be sad..............
-TODD
Guilty "Trek" pleasure (that hasn't been mentioned yet): "A Piece of the Action"...Tommy guns! Bad accents! Pinstripe suits! Kirk drives a car! And of course, Fizzbin!!
Best "Trek" episodes:
"Balance of Terror" -- so what if it's a ripoff of WWII submarine movies, the tension was good and Mark Lenard was brilliant
"City on the Edge of Forever" -- Even in bastardized form, the best dramatic episode
"The Trouble with Tribbles" -- The funniest episode, with a strong ecological message to boot (parallel to the introduction rabbits in Australia)
Tholian Web. Kirk floats around in limbo, so rest of cast gets more time. Tholians very cool.
--E
Favorite Ellison Story? Depends on the day. Today it's "Grail". Looking for a lost love in Texas will do that. I've been trying to find her since I left Houston in 1992; earlier this week, I picked up my first solid clue to locating her in four years. And right now, I have no idea what I will see within that loving cup if I should chance to set eyes upon it, and yet I cannot not pursue it until the pursuit has been put to rest, even knowing that what I seek is, in all probability, not what I will find. So, "Grail". Today.
Favorite Trek? Gotta go with "The Trouble With Tribbles" - he's defeated the Gorn, the Romulans, the Klingons, Nomad, a salt sucking vampire, a rock eating Horta - and yet Kirk can't seem to stop a bunch of purring puffballs from wrecking terrible fuzzy havoc.
Favorite guilty pleasure Trek? "Plato's Stepchildren". Spock sings! Kirk plays horsie! They both get to suck face, and there's telekenetic midget knife fighting. This thing belongs in the "Bad Trips I Took Without The Help of Acid" Hall of Fame, and yet I can't... look... away...
Velvet said, in part:
"I'm touched."
So we've heard.
Also, let me just second Todd's "please stop." I'm not sure what Fair Use rules apply to song lyrics, but quoting them in their entirety without permission certainly can't be good. This is why I only put up a few snatches to "Authors".
It may be a far, far littler nit that I pick, but if anything, we on this board should be a little more sensitive to copyright issues, right?
Jeffty is Five is my favorite HE story and my favorite short story of all-time. I have described as friends as the closest they will ever get to a perfect work of short fiction.
My favorite non-fiction HE work is the piece he wrote about Jingle Jangle artist George Carlson.
Best Trek episode? It's a toss-up between Mirror, Mirror and City on the Edge of Forever. I think Spock's beard tilts the scales in Mirror's favor. Spock with a beard or Joan Collins? I'll take the beard.
Favorite guilty pleasure Trek episode: Arena. I am blinded by my love for this episode so I can't tell if it's any good or not. I just know it is possibly the most fun, most joyous hour of television ever broadcast. It's not a coincidence that Arena is the episode Bill and Ted are watching in the beginning of Bogus Journey.
Favorite Harlan Story: "Eidolons"
The messages in this story are easily some of the most poignant and poetic things I have ever read. In descriptions of simple events, sparks of revelation occur that light moments that most everyone has experienced. My favorite of these is the rage against the bony hand that writes "A picture is worth a thousand words..."
-Matt
ps. "Balance of Terror" as favorite Star Trek Episode...
Favorite HE story? Just one? No way.
At the moment my favorites are
Jeffty Is Five
Paladin of the Lost Hour
All the Lies That Are My Life
One Life, Furnished in Early Poverty
The Function of Dream Sleep
Shatterday
List changes from time to time, and it's not in any particular order.
Do you really need us to goad you, Justin, so you can use that as an excuse to finally get laid?
;)
L.
Why, "Spock's Brain," of course.
Oh, like you weren't thinking it.
No! No more lists!
...or else next time I'm going to go get a prostitute and write all about THAT, right here on this board, and I will spare you even fewer details than I did the last time. SOMEBODY LIST THEIR FAVORITE STAR TREK EPISODES! I DARE YOU! I DOUBLE DARE YOU!
Justin
Browsing the giant local book emporium today, I took note that *Troublemakers* has been displayed in the 'Self Help' section.
So has *A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius.*
Hmmm...
J Stover
Just before bed, so I can't separate one. Here's three that hit me in a way that I was left with distinct memories are:
"Repent, Harlequin!, Said the Ticktockman": I'd always loved the antic idea of hurling $150,000 dollars worth of jellybeans onto a slidewalk. My daughter loved it too, when I read the story to her.
"Strange Wine": Seemed to be karma involved; this one came at a time when things for me were really shitty.
"Paladin of the Lost Hour": Just the idea of setting things at peace, of endings.
The Bag of Meat yawns, stretches and heads for bed.
Alex Jay of the Ber-Man saith:
"Also, I wanted to hack off a certain Canajun lurker"....
Checking to see if I'm still alive, Alex? I'm touched.
Velvet
"All the birds come home to roost." Read it in Playboy when I was a young teen, and geeky enough to read the articles as well as gee-gaw at the pictures.
Sam Adams is a fine beer.
Best story? "Jefty is Five." It's a brilliant piece of work, drawing you in slowly, sneakily, so that you're hooked well before you recognize just how impossible the scenario is. Harlan evokes youth, and more--the yearning for our youth that we all hide. The attention to detail is marvelous. Those story and serial titles sound absolutely real, and they're an added joy for those familiar with the various pieces they're based on. If you know Edgar Rice Burroughs' work, reading about the fourth "John Carter of Barsoom" is not just an in-joke, but a special delight, a candy kiss embedded in the story. And then the ending, an ending no one can fail to identify with, if they're honest. Who among us has never failed a friend? Who has never nursed a secret guilt?
Damn, I could talk about it for an age. Better to just read it again.
--Alex
For personal more than academic reasons my favorite is "The Man Who Rowed Christopher Columbus Ashore"
Nah, Jefty Is Five is best story of HIS. Ending is devastating, still.
Let Pynchon be Pynchon. Writers are an odd sort, so why quibble about quirks in the battleware.
Eric, flow with the punches my friend. These posters are mostly cup cakes. By the way, Samual Adams beer is damn good. So not all beer here is bad.
The Man Who Wasn't There got robbed at the Golden Globes! This is the best film going dammit! Where else can you see a hub cap turn into a ufo. Smile.
Has anyone heard of talk show host, Micheal Savage? Vicious bastard, he is.
"I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream," is one of my favorite Ellison stories, and the first one I was exposed to. I was around 12 yrs old, trading comic-books with a neighbor kid who was a few years older than me. He took down the Pyramid paperback edition and read the last page of the story. "Isn't that cool," he said, or something like that. The imagery of the story's final moments had a major impact on my adolescent imagination. At the time, I was into comics and hadn't really graduated up to literature (other than school stuff). Within a few months I had my own copy of "I Have No..." "Ellison Wonderland," and "The Beast Who Shouted Love At the Heart of the World." Out of the latter volume, "A Boy and His Dog" fed my naughty little libido, at the same time it blew my mind; and the title story also had a riveting effect. Around this same period I attended a Star Trek convention with (again) some older kids, one of whom had a hardcover of the recently published "Deathbird Stories." I drooled over it, but didn't get my own copy until the Dell paperback came out; nearly every story in that collection had a stunning effect. When "Strange Wine" came out, I bought the hardcover fresh off the shelves; I've been collecting every Ellison volume since.
So, anyone want to start a thread on their favorite Harlan Ellison story an why (being that this IS the Harlan Ellison board)?
Not my favorite story, but the most important one to me was "Repent Harlequin!" Said The Ticktockman...important because it was the first time Harlan's name reached my still-forming brain. It wasn't even the actual short story, it was an adaption in Marvel Comics' Unknown Worlds of Science Fiction in the early 70's (I wasn't Bar Mitzvah age yet) and it featured beautiful art by Alex Nino (where is he today?). Damn, it impressed me and sent me searching for Harlan's work from that point forward.
My favorite story is The Deathbird (also one of my all time favorite books....I collect The Deathbird Stories editions). The mixture of pure, deep thinking fun and that goddamn tear jerking (every fucking time!) story of Ahbhu just blew my mind in the days when I first announced to the congregation (while wearing my 70's lime-green suit with spotted bow tie) that I was now a man.
Ah, memories.....it was around this same time that a friend of mine told me that he phoned up Harlan Ellison one night on whim because he found his home phone number in one of his short story collection. Of course, I didn't believe that Harlan would place his real number in one of his books (can't remember which one it was) but my friend was very honest and he told me of a late night call to the number and actually having Harlan pick up. Of course, he was shocked. Couldn't even think of a good "is your refrigerator running" gag, but he said that Harlan did chat with him for a minute or two.
What the heck was with that, anyway? Talk about a man not hiding from his fame......
-TODD
I get scolded last week for posting that National Lampoon essay on the humor of the Jew/Pizza joke, but now we've become the "favorite song lyrics website?"
Please stop.
-TODD
Steely Dan (c)1975
Bad Sneakers
Five names that I can hardly
Stand to hear
Including yours and mine
And one more chimp who isn't here
I can see the ladies talking
How the times are getting hard
And that fearsome excavation
On Magnolia Boulevard
CHORUS:
And I'm going insane
And I'm laughing at the frozen rain
And I'm so alone
Honey when they gonna send me home
Bad sneakers and a Pińa Colada
My friend
Stompin' on the avenue
By Radio City with a
Transistor and a large
Sum of money to spend
You fellah, you tearin' up the street
You wear that white tuxedo
How you gonna beat the heat
Do you take me for a fool
Do you think that I don't see
That ditch out in the valley
That they're digging just for me
CHORUS
I always knew you were a square, Brian.
::grin::
L.
The talk about a song about partying with writers reminded me of a song by the Five Chinese Brothers about Paul Cezanne. Here's the lyrics from some website:
Well, I love Cubism, it's my favorite style
When I see a Cubist painting I've just got to smile
But there's one painter, I'm his biggest fan
He's the father of Cubism and his name's Cezanne, Cezanne
Cezanne, Cezanne, the father of Cubism
Some people say that it was Picasso
Other people claim it was DeChirico
Some people think it was Modiglian(i)
But they're all crazy, it was Paul Cezanne, Cezanne
Cezanne, Cezanne, the father of Cubism
When Paul Cezanne sat down to paint a flower or a face
He had to solve one problem, three-dimensional space
He said, "Form is content." He smoked a Gitanne.
He was right. Now he's Paul Cezanne, Cezanne
Cezanne, Cezanne, le p?e de Cubisme
Well Cezanne's father wanted him to be an avocat
But Paul just looked at him and said, "Pfff, mais non, pa.
I want to be a painter, I know I can!"
Now his oeuvre's in the Louvre, he's Paul Cezanne, Cezanne
Cezanne, Cezanne, the father of Cubism
Well I had an aunt and she was in a coma
So we loaded up her bed and we took her up to MoMA
We got through the door, you wouldn't beleive what began
She sat up and started screaming, "Hey, where is that Paul Cezanne?"
Cezanne, Cezanne, the miraculous father of Cubism
Paul Cezanne is famous now and I think that's really nice
'Cause his melons look like footballs and his apples look like dice
So all you would-be painters, get out your brush and can
You may be the next Paul Cezanne, Cezanne
Cezanne, Cezanne, the father of Cubism
Cezanne, Cezanne, the original father of Cubism
>Can we let this one go, now?<
David, consider it dropped, like a bowling bowl into a swimming pool.
--Eric
Joseph:
Thanks for your thanks. And rich is right, the "official Bradbury site" is a PR thing put up by one of his publishers. It's very nice looking, and has a contribution or two from The Man, but it doesn't have a lot of depth or riches.
For quite a few years there was a very good site put up by real fans of his, which had tons of quotes, anecdotes, and photos, and I offered to help them keep it up, but it and the founders seem to have disappeared, much to my disappointment.
Eric:
Nice to hear a kind word from your end. Much as I tried to avoid singling anyone out in my post, I was afraid it would inspire more rancor anyway. Can we let this one go, now?
Hello, just in to see what goes.
Well, obviously, all have opinions on the relationship between both writers and those who propagate about their books, be it a fan, or a reader. I guess it's one of the reasons I tend not to like to get too close to any others at this site and other places and maintain my anonymity. When I view folks starting to get their hankles up, such as Eric and Brian, I start backing away.
Paul, I chanced upon you posting, re: the unfortunate scene between Tabitha King, and the fellow who invaded their home. I don't defend or excuse his conduct, but as the brother of someone who suffered from schizophrenia, feel this a chance to perhaps explain a bit of it to you and others, who may or may not suffer from that form of ignorance that makes otherwise decent folks woefully unaware of this disease.
Most folks that have been cursed with this ailment do not engage in any form of violence against other persons. In fact, the crime rates of those with schizophrenia compared to those of the "normal" population, actually work out to be about even.
However, the rate of suicide is proportionately higher.
Look, the person involved in the home invasion in question was obviously unmedicated and at risk to society and himself; that fact is self-evident. What bothers me in your posting is the seeming preclusion that mental illness triggers such behaviour. I hope I'm wrong in my conclusion.
Folks who tend to go overboard in expressing their like for some figure of celebrity most often never act out in any negative fashion, irrespective of illness or no. In most cases, those who do tend to have fashioned some prior conception of an imagined relationship with the celeb, and I've found it generally doesn't take illness for people to misinterpret their own intentions or the actions of others. We all like the feeling that person we've held in esteem would deign to take a minute to converse, to see us; in moderation it's a nice fuel to run our egos on. When it becomes excessive, then it becomes a problem.
I know, there's going to be a few who will cry I'm being PC, this isn't the case. But, for those who feel it is consider: In most cases, the PC defense tends to be the cover for having carelessly trodden on a human being and not being able to admit to ignorance about that soul.
Good old Tacitus: "Crime, once exposed, has no defense but in audacity."
A good afternoon to all, wishes a Bag of Meat
Good god, Alex, you're nuts. I just never expected to see a quote from "My Baby Loves..." anywhere. One of my favorite goofball songs (hey, you have to love a song that manages to rhythmically use Margaret Atwood and Gabriel Garcia Marquez).
Regards,
Joseph
Um ... actually, the Robertson Davies reference in my post was something of a double in-joke. I threw him into the mix partly because of a song by Moxy Früvous called "My Baby Loves a Bunch of Authors", in which the throwaway lines run the gamut from, "now I'm pounding the ouzo/with Mario Puzo," to "Who needs a shave?/It's Robertson DAV-ies!"
(Which line was changed after his death to, "Who needs a grave" ...)
"Ondaatje started a food fight/Salmon mousse all over the scene/Spilled some dressing/On Doris Lessing/These writer types are a scream!"
Also, I wanted to hack off a certain Canajun lurker ...
Oh, and I hope Christoper Nolan or Baz Luhrmann win. Both did fine, fine work. (Of course, my choice for actor of the year is Guy Pearce. You try shifting mood 6 or 7 times in every scene, dependning on what memories (or lack therof) are in your mind at that particular moment).
Rich,
Sadly, I've not yet seen "Waking Life" (and I'm pathetic, 'cause it was playing four blocks from my apartment), so I can't judge Linklater's work yet. However, based on his earlier films (I still consider "Befeor Sunrise" one of the most romantic movies ever), your nit is well considered.
Regards,
Joseph
Joseph,
I haven't seen "Gosford Park" yet, but am looking forward to it. My nit is that Ron Howard is up for the DGA award and not, say, Richard Linklater. Don't get me wrong, I like Opie as much as the next celibate sheriff, but "A Beautiful Mind" would not have been my choice.
By the way, the Bradbury official site is basically PR and not the nitty-gritty, down and dirty, rock 'em-sock 'em, demeanor of, say, this site. Still, the Bradbury site does give you info on his books, etc. and makes it a bit easier to keep up with the guy.
Infoman, here's a little bit more about the Tabitha King hostage story. I know this because the perp (his name slips me at the moment) was a Dallas resident, and when the story came out, half of the residents of Bar of Soap suddenly stood up and yelled "HE DID WHAT?" Our perp had a long history of schizophrenia, and he broke into King's house because he felt that the book _Misery_ was ripping off his mother's history (apparently his mother was one of those "Angel of Death" nurses), so he was expecting a portion of the revenues from the movie and the book. He also expected King to collaborate with him on a sequel to _Misery_, and presumably thinks that King is trying to keep all of the money from any such sequel for himself.
I'll have to go back into my files to drag up the particulars, but I can assure you that you don't have to be THAT famous to attract crazies. I still have one guy who continues to demand a cut from an article I wrote in 1996 because he allegedly came up with the same idea at the same time, and he refuses to believe that I made a whole $130 for that article. I won't even get into the person or persons unknown that shot up my old apartment after _Squashed Armadillocon_ came out. I still have two of the three bullets in a jar.
Cordially,
Paul.
Jim Davis: I don't know if the Dragon*Con story is true, but any tale of Harlan interrupting any git blathering about the future of vampire fiction _should_ be true. I know the lunch tales are true: he offered me a bit of his chicken salad sandwich when we were on a panel together at Readercon three years ago. Damn good chicken salad sandwich, too, if I remember correctly. (And yes, you can make all of the comments you want about "Well, for once, Riddell shut up." I've heard them all, mostly from my parents.) Personally, I think the idea of turning panels into lunch events is a good one: set up a buffet table in back for the panelists and let them nosh out. You have to admit that discussions of "I think the pumpernickel is a bit off" or "I'd do anything for a pineapple this fresh back home" would be a lot more interesting than some of the main subjects during convention panels. (If I were do run something like this, I'd have to bring about five or six Mama's pizzas from Dallas and let everyone argue the merits of pepperoni versus back bacon. God help us if we turn it into an ice cream social.)
Cordially,
Paul.
Rich,
Yes, thanks for the URL. Nice little article on Mr. Bradbury. Two thoughts occur to me:
Ray Bradbury has an offical site? Rocking!
Frank Darabont is being talked to about Fahrenheit 451? Rocking as well! A director who actually has a good chance of doing something good with the material.
My nit in my ass of the day, though, is Altman being insulted by the DGA and not receiving a nomination for "Gosford Park." Ridiculous.
Regards,
Joseph
R Wilder...
I just read it. Thanks for the suggestion, it was a good article. If anyone else wants to read it, here it is:
http://www.salon.com/media/1998/09/22media.html
--Eric
For those that are interested, there's a nice little piece on Bradbury on CNN.com:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/books/01/23/arts.us.ray.bradbury.ap/index.html
No, no. No thanks are necessary. It's my gift to you. All I ask is that you take no pictures of me and let me mind my own business.
Oh, and I believe the Pynchon horse is dead, but thanks for showing up everybody and drive safe. See you next week. Buh-bye.
{cue music}
{roll credits}
{fade to black}
Eric: Read "Big Game" by David Bowman, in the Salon.com archives. It's a piece on how easy it is to find Thomas Pynchon in NYC. Bowman calls Pynchon, "20th Century's last Wizard of Oz, as in,'Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.'" It seems that all the man wishes is to refrain from cameras, journalists, TV, and radio. He is not hiding behind the walls of a fortress. He does lunch with friends; hangs out with writers (Delillo, Rushdie), musicians; has a wife and child and spends weekends outside the city. Picks up his kid from school, chats it up with fellow parents, goes to baseball games. Sounds like an idyllic life in the Big Apple. I keep throwing in my spare change on this subject because I just don't believe in a Calculated Scheme To Hide From The World That Has Backfired And Brought The World To Pynchon... or whatever. If it is indeed pretty simple to find the guy, what does it say that there is just this one expose, with this one photo, and the single attempt by CNN to get video footage? More people have hounded Salinger over the years. Cadres, platoons, legions have descended on Harlan Ellison! As I write these words, perhaps a man, on the island of Manhattan, is sitting down to a plate of spaghetti, and a soft-drink, with a book on chemistry by his side. Who knows what he's thinking about? or what's in his heart... paranoia, or privacy --why should we presume?
David,
Your blastula line made me groan in appreciation. Kudos, man. *clicks fingers appreciatively*
Regards,
Joseph
>the classic I Have No Mouth & I Must Scream and Star Trek episodes."<
So THAT'S the one where Scotty is dealing drugs. Out of the engine room during the third shift, no doubt. I heard they rejected it because Sulu tried to drive the ship into a pulsar, zonked on galactic crack...
--a luxury most of us enjoy but celebrities cannot -- because as a writer that luxury is part of what feeds his art. He can still watch, notice, listen, research, without having to expend energy hiding from the world and fending off other people.--
--Have you noticed how bestselling authors tend to write more and more about writers? (How Hollywood writers and stars increasingly give us stories about Hollywood writers and stars--
Excellent points, David Loftus. At last, a breath of fresh air in the discussion. This would make for an interesting general investigation into the current state of celebrity and art.
--Eric
The Invisible Authors:
Alex Jay wrote..."The price of fame is fandom, and it can have a dark and dangerous side. But the thing is: Does anyone here (You
don't count, Harlan) know what W.P. Kinsella looks like? How about Robertson Davies (Dead, I know, but still)?
Charles de Lint? Steve Ditko?"
Hmmm...Robertson Davies was damn near omnipresent during once he started writing novels in the early 1960s, or at least omnipresent in Canada -- probably the best-known author by physical appearance in Canada next to Farley Mowat and, maybe, Mordecai Richler. The point's fine, but it's a strange example (Kinsella shows up a lot in the media as well, especially after his relationship with Evelyn Lau ended very publically).
And Steve Ditko, as everyone who used to read Fred Hembeck's work knows, looks almost *exactly* like the Dread Dormammu.
I don't know. In a world where I can't turn on the tv or pick up a newspaper without looking at Tom Cruise's mug or another carefully managed story on some celebrity, Pynchon's tendencies seem to be pretty small potatoes. Heck, he's probably hiding from academics as much as he is from paparazzi.
J Stover
Pynchon has every right to his anonymity. Actors who use their bodies as part of their art, especially those who employ public relations firms and go partying in public where they know they'll be seen and photographed, are a different matter. But a writer should be judged solely on his work.
I know we all want to know the person behind the work, but our desire doesn't give us the right to pry, any more than being attracted to someone gives us any right to demand even a minute of his or her time.
I think the "crazed fan" argument is a red herring. I doubt that concerns Pynchon, despite the strong paranoiac thread in his novels. I think he would acknowledge the unlikelihood of any of his readers making his life hell.
My suspicion is that Pynchon at least partly wanted to retain the ability to walk down any street unmolested, unrecognized -- a luxury most of us enjoy but celebrities cannot -- because as a writer that luxury is part of what feeds his art. He can still watch, notice, listen, research, without having to expend energy hiding from the world and fending off other people.
It's a way of keeping all of life available to himself, in a way that becomes increasingly impossible for the celeb. Have you noticed how bestselling authors tend to write more and more about writers? (Except for the actual murder, I found the great Donald Westlake's recent novel _Hook_ a dreadful disappointment.) How Hollywood writers and stars increasingly give us stories about Hollywood writers and stars (from "Notting Hill" to whatever-the-hell that recent one was with Cusack and Roberts and Michael Douglas's wife)?
Almost invariably, the phone-a-friend that celebs who guested on "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire" this past year called upon was an agent, a lawyer, or another celeb. What a sadly circumscribed life they must lead in exchange for all the goodies and attention!
Peg:
Writing and publishing a book does not automatically entail being in the public eye. The book stands on its own. It can be read and appraised by critics, reviewers, academics, and the reader on the street.
This is basically what happened with Pynchon: He never did the talk show circuit, never gave bookstore appearances, never artificially pumped the hype machine to get people to buy his books. If he had, and THEN said "leave me alone, you guys," we could call him a hypocrite, but he's always been very clear about his priorities and preferences. He is NOT a celebrity. Period.
Alex Jay Berman:
Actually, I DO know what Robertson Davies looked like ... with that huge, full beard, he looked a bit like John Muir.
Justin and Charles:
Yet more proof that I'm not a real man. I never pulled an all-nighter in college, and I turned in my undergraduate thesis three days before the deadline (or was it four...?)
"Unfortunately this country wants to know the State of the Author's Colon..."
Even worse, some folks watch like hawks for the Author's Semicolons.
Charles's meandering remarks on "wants" had a kernel of diamond-sharp truth to it: Was there any person, any advertiser, who demanded of this reporter, I want to know what Thomas Pynchon looks like? Certainly not the readers and advertisers of his publication.
Truth to tell, the people who might care -- me, for instance -- would probably be the same people who best understand and accept Pynchon's desire for anonymity.
So the true answer is: This reporter decided to pursue this story, because he thought he could make a sale and titillate some readers who would otherwise not have insisted that he pursue this particular fish.
Journalism almost inevitably involves some leeching, some fanboy pursuits, some living off the accomplishments and virtues of others. (I speak as a fellow whose sole means of support was news reporting for three years, when I regularly felt like a carpetbagger pushing into people's lives for one brief, intense moment and then disappearing in a puff of smoke, and I still do a bit of free-lance journalism.) With many of one's subjects, there are tradeoffs; they WANT your attention, or at least are willing to endure it to get something else they want (increased sales, free election publicity, etc.)
Pynchon didn't ask for any of the press attention he gets. If people read and loved (or even hated) his books, and never wondered who he was or what he looked like, he would be just plain delighted. As it is, the prying makes it more difficult for him to pursue the work that made us admire and respect him in the first place.
Give the man a break.
Jim Davis:
You pledged, "More specifically, I will now only date ovum." The word you want is "ova" -- plural, because I'm assuming you don't plan to be a one-blastula man as far as dating is concerned.
"... the author of 75 books and hundreds of short stories, including the classic I Have No Mouth & I Must Scream and Star Trek episodes."
How many Star Trek episodes did the Ellisonator write?
A.J. Berman: Too bad your uncle didn't hip you more. Peggy Lee was far more than a pop singer. And late, old-lady Peggy Lee is not representative of her artistic contributions to jazz and pop singing. She has been a tremendous influence on jazz singers. She was of the "less is more" school. She swung without trying or being musically fake. Musicians loved her too. She collaborated with many to create little-known gems of songs. Her lyrics are quite good: evocative, smart, and easy to sing. Besides, how can you not love an artist who sued Disney????
Harlan,
I read Janet Kornblum's piece in USA Today and I was pleased that Critical Path will be giving you control over your own work. Best wishes on your fight with AOL.
Sincerely,
Shane
I finally saw MULHOLLAND DRIVE last night. It was...a masterpiece by a director at the top of his game? An enervated mess that shows Lynch desperately needs a new bag of tricks? Whatever the case may be, it was beautifully photographed, and featured a killer performance by Naomi Watt. I'm going to have to see this one again before I make a final decision on its merits.
Peg: Does writing necessarily involve being in the public eye? Again, I don't think Pynchon expectations for maintaining secrecy are unrealistic, because he's been successful in living the life he wants to live. He doesn't want to have photos of himself published, so they (mostly) aren't. He doesn't want to be interviewed, or go on publicity tours, or appear on talk shows, so he doesn't. We can say "well, he's calling attention to himself with all this Shadowy Novelist business," but the fact is that we don't really know much about his private life, which is EXACTLY what the man wants. Sounds like a winning strategy to me. True, he occasionally has to deal with nosey assholes who, oh, I dunno, STALK HIM AS HE WALKS HIS SON HOME FROM SCHOOL, but would things be any different if he plastered his current photo on his book jackets, or had a regular slot on NPR, or hobnobbed with Bill Maher on PI? I really doubt it. He would just have a LARGER slew of lunatics to worry about, in my opinion.
I'm surprised that Eric would say that I "keep jumping in" with lengthy comments about him. I made _one_ lengthy comment; previously, all I'd said was that I suspected Eric of posting flame-bait, because his opinion was so ridiculous.
And that lengthy comment was in response to Eric's petulant whining about my alleged inability to understand his arguments. I wrote it solely to demonstrate that I _did_ understand his comments very well. Clearly, he has a bug up his ass about Thomas Pynchon, and he's decided to seize upon Pynchon's desire for privacy as a "good reason" for it.
I've seen nothing to revise my opinion on Eric.
Alex (or anyone else for that matter!): Common opinion hereabouts is that artists of whatever variety do not owe their audience anything but art. Fair enough I suppose. How do you reconcile that to the fact that they chose to enter a field where they (likely) knew they could be subject to a lot of public scrutiny, even if they didn't want it? Isn't there a difference between owing your public/audience, and dealing with the inevitable even if it's unfair?
Expecting to *not* deal with publicity seems like trying to avoid the blatant. I can sympathize with some of the circumstances, but ultimately it was their choice. We occasionally debate personal responsibility for our own actions on this board. Isn't there any responsibility on the person who chose to pursue a profession in the limelight?
I'm really trying to make sense of this....
All this discussion about Pynchon reminded me of something I read a while ago that stuck -- by John D. MacDonald in one of the last Travis McGee novels, _Free Fall in Crimson_:
In it, McGee -- a notoriously private man who only wants to be left alone with his houseboat and his friends to enjoy his ongoing retirement in peace -- finds himself being hunted. For years he had always left the smallest of footprints on society -- paying with cash, not having a "real job," avoiding the limelight at all costs, and so on. But by the 80s (this was written in 1981), it was no longer enough. Trav's economist friend Meyer and his girlfriend-of-the-moment set him straight, in a passage that was clearly John D. MacDonald talking to his readers.
I don't have the book with me, but the gist was this: In today's society it is not possible to disappear. You always leave some paper trail -- it is inevitable. The more you try to hide, the easier it is for someone who really wants to find you to do so. Your minimal paper trail is a beacon right to your doorstep. Therefore, Meyer tells McGee (and MacDonald tells us), the way to hide in today's society is to be everywhere -- to leave so many records and so much of a paper trail that your pursuers can't find the "real" you in all the blizzard of documents, receipts and other records.
That was more than 20 years ago, and it seems even more true now than it did when written. Pynchon, IMHO, truly seems to want his privacy and anonymity, but like McGee he's going about it all wrong, calling attention to himself in the process.
So that's my .02...just thought I'd share.
Attention, Chicago webderlanders:
Robin Williams is kicking off his first stand-up comedy tour in Chicago with two performances at the Chicago Theater February 26 and 27. For more info:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0201230035jan23.story?coll=chi%2Dnews%2Dhed
I didn't know Robin was a native Chicagoan!
Alex,
Er...actually, I do know what Kinsella looks like. But only cause I glanced at a copy of "Baseball Confederacy" the other day, and it had a picture of him.
Anyhoo, wasn't O'Hair killed simply for money, and not because of fame or belief?
Eric,
Your point being......? Oh, that's right. It's somehow irresponsible and sad for someone to be private.
Regards,
Joseph
The Great American Writers are having a party, in Writer Heaven. Writer Heaven, for those who’ve never been there, is a wondrous place where deadlines are infinite and publishers are only allowed to crawl on all fours. Royalty checks are delivered by wheelbarrow, and public signings are banned.
This is a party about 50 years from now. Hemingway is at the bar, of course, laughing it up with Fitzgerald over some tall gimlets. Faulkner is in a heated argument with Alice Walker about the artistic use of the N-word…Twain is just laughing on the sidelines, smoking a cigar.
Melville is noshing on a dolphin-safe tuna sandwich, raving about how hot Franklin Pierce’s wife was with Hawthorne. Norman Mailer and Harlan Ellison are getting into a fight.
Ray Bradbury is wafting on about city management with Walt Disney. Saul Bellow is blowing hooch. Emily Dickenson is surfing the jukebox, dismayed at the lack of ballads. Robert Lowell and Gwendolyn Brooks are parsing Stones lyrics. Salinger is arguing about the Knicks chances this year with a dubious Isaac Asimov.
You get the picture…it’s a good time. Music and cigar smoke fill the air, the buffet is loaded, the bar is free. Jacqueline Susan is coming over later with some hot friends, and Stephen King is pumped for that.
Where is Thomas Pynchon? Over there, peeping through a crack in the door. Hoping no-one sees him.
COOKIE, JIM, FINDER: I was not overly moved when I read about Peggy Lee. Not that any man (woman's) death does not diminish me, but the Peggy Lee I saw was a histrionic victim of horrible plastic surgery--a good voice, a good stylist, but not my cup of tea. All I saw was the pop songs of the type later to be done by the likes of Nancy Sinatra and Leslie Gore. I didn't see the singer who could be thought of as on a par with Rosemary Clooney or ... (Who am IO thinking of? Patti Page? No ...)
Now, my uncle is a huge fan, but he has never seen clear to share what was her greatness with me. I've missed out, it seems.
ON PYNCHON AND AUTHOR'S RIGHTS: There is but one thing a writer owes his public (and himself), and that is the Art. He or she owes those who would read his or her work the best work that he or she can produce. No more. A writer writes. That is all.
ON AD HOMINEM ATTACKS: They suck. They serve only to alienate and to drive people away from the points one tries to make. They boil out any merit in one's argument, transforming it (in the sense of how it is perceived) into nothing but a screed.
Don't do 'em.
JOSEPH: Don't forget Teresa Saldana, Sam Cooke, Al Green, Sal Mineo, Madelyn Murray O'Hair, Selena, and possibly Ed Kramer. And damnit, I KNOW there was an sf/fantasy author killed or wounded by a crazed "Number One Fan", but I can't recall whom just now.
The price of fame is fandom, and it can have a dark and dangerous side. But the thing is: Does anyone here (You don't count, Harlan) know what W.P. Kinsella looks like? How about Robertson Davies (Dead, I know, but still)? Charles de Lint? Steve Ditko?
Are these people somehow shirking their responsibilities to their audience? Hell, no. They're producing books. That's their job, no more. If one chooses to be visible, a la Harlan, Neil Gaiman, or even Danielle Steel, that is their choice--and it is one they need not make. Their responsibility is to the Work, and nothing else.
Here's the online link to the USA Today story:
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020123/3795180s.htm
Today's USA TODAY, Section D, page 3, the article is there.
Headline: HARLAN ELLISON AUTHORS A NEW VICTORY AGAINST NET'S PIRATES
-TODD
"The only thing I owe the public is a good performance." - Bogart
Publicity vs privacy -
I believe that if someone *chooses* to take a career path which is known to involve being in the public eye, then that person chooses to accept the associated risks. To act surprised or persecuted in response to the publicity is a sign of unrealistic expectations or ignoring the obvious consequences. If you argue that people are entitled to an "informed" opinion, then you must accept that they bear responsibility for making an "informed" decision.
This is not to say that actions taken to defend or maintain a private life are not appropriate (i.e., taking steps to mitigate the risks). This is not in defense of stalking or other extreme fanatical measures. This is not claiming that authors/ singers/ actors/ jugglers/ whatever *OWE* their audience something.
But there has to be some culpability on the part of the celebrity (for lack of a better all encompassing term) that they knew what they were in for, especially after the introduction of radio, moving pictures, and television. Maybe not how much, but certainly some....
>For what it's worth, Eric, I don't get your initial anger at Pynchon and his desire for privacy<
There was no anger. I don't care if Pynchon runs for President, or lives in a cave. I simply stated that his own mythos of excessive secrecy created an environment where people would actively try to seek him out. My limpid point, of which I'm now completely weary, was that had he just been routine about his image and his life, like just about every other writer in the universe, very few people would have cared.
For this observation, I've been pilloried as an idiot who wants to invade the privacy of all writers and has no regard for the personal safety of public figures.
I called Siano a creep because he kept jumping in with long posts not about the issue at hand, but about my own ability to argue it. This kind of witlessness may be easily explained away by a consideration of the source, but it's still irritating, and I swat flies.
Ok, maybe I DO have one more thing to add to this Pynchon thread:
Brian and Eric, cut it out. Engaging in personal attacks is just unseemly, so if either of you have any more venom to spew, take it to e-mail. Referring to someone as "stupid" or a "creep" is just juvenile, and does nothing to advance your argument. Attack the position, not the person. (For what it's worth, Eric, I don't get your initial anger at Pynchon and his desire for privacy. What exactly is it that pisses you off so much? I really want to know.)
Charles,
I have a very jaded and cynical view of the journalist's profession and an even darker view of pulp media. The obsession with celebrity is something that drives a billion-dollar machine of marketing, publicity and merchandising. Celebrities sell magazines and pretty celebrities with shit on their faces sell LOTS of magazines. (I should note that I use the title "journalist" loosely and, in the context of this message, with much disgust).
It would be a mistake to assume a reader would say, "I DEMAND to see pictures of Harlan Ellison in drag dancing with a delegation of Taliban transsexuals in a Nazi bar!" However, the average Joe Sloping-Forehead and Mrs. Sloping-Forehead will look at the front page of a Globe or a People or a Sun and see a lipsticked, heavily bearded author in a sequined blouse and go, "wow...that schmuck's worse off that we are!" ch-CHING. A better example would be "A" list movie stars in trouble, since they are our champions and the characters in our cultural drama, we need to see them in conflict - we LOVE to have them struggling in rehab, divorcing their wives, shooting their lawyers, wrecking their Beemers, schtupping their nannies... its a base, vile and disgusting industry, but a profitable one.
So if we stop showing them, celebrities don't get as much publicity. Really, is Julia Roberts or Madonna as big a star for her talent? Is George Clooney regarded as merely a master thespian? Which of the royal family cured cancer or saved the lives of a family trapped in a burning house?
We live in a world where firefighters, cops, scientists, social workers and real HEROES don't get magazine covers. Perhaps that's a good thing given how we treat those who step into the light for our attention.
Michael: I did write it. Four pages, took me one hour exactly. "Religion and Aristotelian Strategy in the work of Frederick Douglass," I call it. If that doesn't scream 'A' PAPER! then I don't know what the hell does. My strategy is to come off erudite as all hell in the title, then half ass the rest of it so I can hurry off and go eat microwave taquitos and watch action movies. Works like a charm.
Harlan: Heartiest and halest congratulations to you on your recent legal victory. To make an ISP own up to its responsibilities vis-a-vis internet piracy is quite an achievement, so you should be proud. Let's hope this augers well for the remaining battle with AOL.
Oh, and did you REALLY do this during the recent Dragon*Con? You smartass, you (said with the greatest affection, of course):
"That WAS a bizarre panel. My favorite part was when Harlan started munching loudly on his lunch as Laurell Hamilton went on about the place for Vampire fiction in the new Milenium. He was sitting right next to her and each time she started on a new point he would pass his bags over to one of the other panelists and ask if they wanted some." (Cut-and-pasted from another message board.)
Cookie: Peggy Lee was a singer of magisterial cool and killer taste, and her rendition of "Is That All There Is?" is one of my favorite recordings of all time. (The first time I heard it, I thought Laurie Anderson was covering an obscure Kurt Weill composition.) She Will Be Missed.
I don't really have much to add to the rapidly-overheating Pynchon thread, but I will note that Pynchon's quest for relative anonymity appears to have been successful. Given the public's insatiable need for personal information, to have only TWO photos published in all this time is no small feat. He seems to be living the life he wants to live, and I say that's worthy of admiration, not derision. (Though I'm still hoping he'll grant a lengthy interview sometime before he croaks.)
Here's a link to "Mortality and Mercy in Vienna," an uncollected story of his: http://www.pynchon.pomona.edu/uncollected/vienna.html
Seeing how I've been gone for three weeks (one of the shittiest three weeks I've experienced in recent memory, I will add), I'll just make a few quick observations on Recent Discussions:
1) "Fuck Buddy" is the proper term for a person that you have regular sex with outside the confines of a committed relationship. Got it?
2) NINE STORIES is Salinger's greatest work. I will brook no disagreement about this. (I will brook no babble, either.)
3) As for Casual Sex, Woody Allen said it best: "Sex without love is an empty experience, but as empty experiences go, it's one of the best."
4) I have changed my mind about dating younger women.
More specifically, I will now only date ovum.
True, the conversation isn't all that great.
But you only have to buy one ticket to the movies.
Yours, truly, sincerely, regards,
Otis B. Driftwood
Oh, and I just love remarks like Eric's about Puritan Americans. I wonder if there's any other nation in history that's acquired a worldwide reputation for dissoluteness _and_ Puritanism. What a great country.
Lynn,
Thanks for pointing out Xenogenesis. Just finished it. Talk about your textbook paper on obsession and invasion.
Jay
Justin said:
"Whenever I have papers to write for college that I haven't started on but are due the next day, I always seem to end up coming here for a while. I bullshit until I'm blue in the face, then I realize that I spent way too much time on the board, and invariably end up having only the final seconds of my waking hours in which to dash off whatever paper was required of me."
_Real_ men don't start their papers more than two hours before they're due. You're doing it the wimpy way.
Two papers, I suppose, would qualify as extenuating circumstances. So that would be okay. But anyway, what I am actually posting about, was Jay Smith's comment:
"Unfortunately this country wants to know the State of the Author's Colon and will pay to see it bold as life."
I disagree. The cynical bastards who'll commit such colon-probing because "we're just giving the people what they want" are not just cynical bastards, they're proceeding from a flawed premise, namely that "the people" or "this country" can "want" something. Only a _person_ can want something. Now that may seem unimportant, because cynical bastards always have studies to point to, or ratings charts to show you, which prove that even if not _everybody_ wants reporters to pry into the lives of celebrities and even non-celebrities, at least a hell of a lot of people do - so you may as well just say, for convenience's sake, that "the people want" something, and quit being austere and live in the human world.
Except...even if every television-watching and/or newspaper-buying person in this nation were queried on the matter, and even if every one of them said "Yes, by God, I want to know every last damn detail of the private lives of all my favorite celebrities, and even the English royalty too just for the hell of it!" are we to take these people's words for it that they do indeed want that?
"What do you want?" is an odd question; the more you think about it, the harder it is to answer. I can define my wants in terms of my appetites - I want to eat, I want to sleep, etc., but there are some times when I have motive _not_ to indulge my appetites, perhaps because I forsee unpleasant consequences of such indulgence (I won't have any money, I'll get the shit beat out of me, I'll get some horrid venereal disease, etc.), perhaps because of an ascetic desire for self-denial, perhaps something else. Which, then, is the true want - the appetite, or the desire to restrain appetite? And even when an appetite faces no restraint, can it always be translated perfectly into an "I want"? When it's afternoon, I haven't eaten lunch, and I feel a pain in my stomach I believe I want to eat. But this is really an inference based on experience. Indeed, in correlating my appetites to a phrase containing "I want", I always perform such an inference, one often so easy to make that I rarely realize I'm doing it, but one I make nonetheless. I suspect it is much the same with everyone.
Yet there's a deeper problem with this "I want" business. Namely that it is impossible for anyone to get what they want.
Consider: suppose I say I want a car. Suppose I'm not broke (drifting off into fantasy-land I know, but please bear with me). Suppose I buy a car and exclaim, "It's just what I wanted!"
Now, can I possibly be telling the truth? It would seem I must be - I said I wanted a car, and I got one. Ergo, I got what I wanted. But when I say "a car" I have some picture in my head, whether I wish to or not, of what "a car" is. Without some such picture, my only knowledge of what "a car" is would be derived from other words - i.e., "a four-wheeled vehicle", in which case _those_ words would be accompanied by some mental image in my brain, unless they too were defined by other words, in which case...all that's to say: one way or another, I've got some picture of what a car is.
Can the car I actually purchase, correspond exactly to that image? Even if, miraculously, every detail I can name in my mental image matches that of my real car, ultimately they cannot be identical for the simple reason that a mental image is _always_ different from a visual one. However clear my imaginings, I can't _see_ what I'm imagining except in a dream. Perhaps this is why people talk about their "dream cars"...but even a car in a remembered dream, is still _remembered_ and thus still different from the actual car before my eyes.
Thus, nobody can ever have _exactly_ what they want. Actually, I wouldn't _want_ to get exactly what I want: it would be repetitious and boring. The unexpected is always unwanted, though not always unwelcome. We can come close to our desires, but never reach them. Maybe that's why Buddha didn't care much for desire. Well, this isn't a philosophical treatise, this is about people without the decency to mind their own business.
What _does_ all this have to do with them? Well, this means those hypothetical people saying "I want to know about people's private lives" haven't done a lot of thinking. Not about what their wants really are, nor whether they can achieve them. When they say "I want such-and-such", they're just guessing. Even a cynical bastard would realize, after a little thinking of his own, that even the bottom line, much less truth and justice, wouldn't be served by pandering to their guesses.
And who knows, maybe if somebody gave them an unwanted thing like thoughtful, mature reporting, they'd welcome it. Who's tried it?
Well, an over-long response again. I seem to have a problem with those. Ah well. Better to say too much than too little.
Charles Wynn
L.,
Note that not all on my list were murdered - some were simply horribly victimized (f'rinstance, the Lindberghs).
Regards,
Joseph
Josef, my friend, did you *mean* to kill HE off in your list?!
WTF?!
L.
Eric,
Good onya, mate.
(And how 'bout that Russell Crowe? Helluvan actor -- impressed the hell out of me in "A Beautiful Mind").
Till next time, keep the shrimp on the barbie and leave a Sheila or two for the rest of us.
Brian--
You're more fun to read when you tell us about faking orgasms. Siano as regretful yet considerate lover is more beguiling than Siano as windy, insulting creep.
--Eric
Eric,
Jesus Christ On A Pogo Stick, you want a list?
Fine, (expletive deleted), here you go, including non-writers but still popular culture icons:
John Lennon
Sharon Tate
Charles & Anne Lindbergh
Harlan Ellison
Rebecca Schaeffer
George Harrison
William McKinley
Abraham Lincoln
John F. Kennedy
Harvey Milk
All people killed by obsessive fans and glory-seekers. Shall I go on? That article was not in the most remote sense funny - it was the story of a sad little man, who luckily was carrying a camera, not a gun.
Joseph
Infoman. I guess the ultimate end result of all of this is for any writer who's made the best seller list to take an assumed name, build big gates around their home, and never make a public appearance.
I don't know what else to say. If Pynchon is really afraid of the evil in the world, then hide he must. It's not limited to writers...shitheads are everywhere, and prey on everyone. One finally makes a choice, and if Pynchon's is to skulk, I won't quibble about it any further.
Eric
Okay, Eric, I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt, and ask you to demonstrate that you might not be as stupid as your opinions indicate.
First of all, you may be interested to know that Pynchon was averse to being photographed long before he'd even published his first novel, _V_-- in fact, for decades, the only photo available of him was hish high-school graduation photograph. He kept a low profile from the beginning, so I suspect his reasons are a little more profound than you've been giving him credit for.
You seem to think that Pynchon's desire for privacy is, at best, a misguided effort designed solely to attract loonies, or at worst, a calculated effort to attract attention. But I would really like to know how a writer can avoid publicity, avoid having his private life written about, and avoid the loonies who latch onto writers, and _not_ offend you in some way. What, pray tell, is the _proper_ way for Pynchon to be as private as he wants?
Given that Pynchon's desire for privacy predates his _fame_, I can't see how you could possibly make the arguments you've made. (Unless you're stupid or ignorant, that is.) Pynchon would stay private even if his books sank without a trace, so it's not exactly a career move.
In fact, this business about going to such lengths to guard his privacy is pretty silly, since it rests at least as much on the efforts of people to contact him. If he just declined interviews,. and people honored that, fine; we wouldn't hear about it. But people kept _trying_ to bug him. And thus the legend of the Invisible Man Pynchon came about-- if people weren't trying to hard to violate his requests, there'd be no problem. So don't blame Pynchon for the actions of others.
Another reason why I can't understand why you'd argue the way you do is this: if you followed your arguments, you're basically saying that people who want privacy should not write for publication. It's obvious that Pynchon's desire for privacy is an important thing for him.
You seem to feel that, if someone commits pen to paper, than they are somehow bound to some kind of publicity about their life. Sure, it's a risk that exists, but there is no _reason_ for that risk to be there. I see no rational reason why, if Pynchon or Gaddis or Salinger want to publish books, and have those books be their only voice to the world, that they _have_ to endure publicity.
Now, I've went back and re-read your previous arguments, just to make sure that I'm getting your p.o.v. right. I think I got your opinions pretty accurately. In fact, I also came across even _dopier_ comments you've made-- insinuations that Pynchon's done this to court attention, for example. So I can honestly say that this has been a wasted effort because you _are_ a truly stupid human being. Stick to the Grishams of the world, and leave the Pynchons to the grownups.
I don't think people earn a great living writing if they don't do out and whore themselves to the press and the public, do the chat shows, sit down with reporters who don't know them from the municipal dog-catcher, pitch and moan to publishers and network to writer's groups, booksellers, and such. It begs the question, how much of a writer is in the act of playing the part?
On the other hand, some writers write to tell stories, not to make a career of being a writer. I'd much prefer not to ante up the energy of being a marquee celebrity. I'd rather tell my stories and let the world judge them. If I knew there was a bigger pot of gold on the other side of a press conference or a writer's round-table, would I take it and put up with it, or would I sit in my office and hide behind a keyboard? College is pricey and when my boy gets of age, I doubt he'll be a grad student on the sale of a few stories and a poetry chapbook.
But on the third hand, what the hell does my childhood, my eating habits, favorite color, or my taste in shirts have to do with my writing?
There's nothing that requires a writer to become a celebrity except the desire to succeed in a bitch of an industry.
I once saw a picture of Devin Grayson...pretty face. Isn't she living with Mark Waid? Great writer, too.
Eric, though I don't recall other examples at this late hour, there WAS an incident with Stephen King's wife in the latter part of the last century. An intruder broke into his home in Bangor, Maine, claiming he had a bomb strapped to his body and threatening to blow up King's wife. And, apparently, there have been other strange threats (one from a woman claiming he stole her idea for his novel, MISERY). And a lesser known writer, Craig Nova, author of THE GOOD SON, TORNADO ALLEY, UNIVERSAL DONOR, etc., (whose new novel, WETWARE, is out in stores and is a dynamite read) had to let the FBI get involved with a threat involving him (that incident is detailed in BROOK TROUT AND THE WRITING LIFE, a memoir). Since Pynchon falls somewhere between King and Nova in terms of notoriety, it's safe to say that in a world where the mass of men will do nearly anything for their fifteen minutes of fame (or even for a chance to be close to someone they deem an icon, thus letting some "fame" rub off on them), Pynchon is a moving target for roving nutballs. But after doing a quick skim of this "thread" and seeing how many people have tried to convince you otherwise, I'm guessing this comment wont change your mind either (speaking from experience, once you've entrenched yourself in a notion, it IS hard to break free). Yours in yards and yards of relatively useles information.
I just received an e-mail about my use of the phrase "fuck off" on this board. The sender felt it was uncouth. I know they were serious, since they must have plowed back through scads of messages to find my e-mail address, since I've been too lazy to post it for some time.
But as I told that person (not someone who has been in the conversation about Pynchon) I must stick to my guns. I said “fuck off,” and I meant “fuck off.” Sorry if American sensibilities still cringe at the power and all-around usefulness of our epithetical gift to the world. Your beer is pretty watered down too, come to think of it…
The discussion on Pynchon’s anonymity fetish was winding down, and there were two sides in disagreement. Like most issues in life, the best position to have was probably somewhere in between. But suddenly Brian Siano waltzes in, out of the blue, with his ad hominem suggestion that I’m a moron and shouldn’t be bothered with, and then goes off-topic with some boring, revealing tale about his own inability to write readable prose.
So, what could one really say, except "fuck off?" If that rubs ye Puritans the wrong way, too fucking bad.
Eric
Cookie - I heard about Peggy Lee earlier. People at work will undoubtedly ask who she is tomorrow when I'm spinning a disc - as they did with John Lee Hooker back in June. I weary of the game of "Who?" we play, but no one ever seems to want to switch to "Battleship" or rummy.
Harlan (and anyone else who has two cents to throw) - completely off the topics at hand... I've landed a pair of seats for Diana Krall's Carnegie Hall performance in NYC on March 30, in celebration of the end of my recent bout of unemployment, and as I'm going to be driving five + hours up the coast from Virginia for the experience, I'm trying to decide where amongst all of those city blocks I'm going to sup prior to the show. Thus, my question: is there a particular establishment in New York that you would recommend I take my hard-earned ducats to for a fine meal? I suspect you know a place or two that would be to die for, and having introduced me to one of the finest lobster bisques I've had in a looooong time, I figured you were the man to ask.
And just a little shout out to the regulars - while I've been away, the banter here kept me sane... while I lurked, searched, relocated, prayed, drank, and struggled with what to sell to see me through (although it never came to that), it was good to have distraction. And I'd love to throw in on other topics and discussion, but it's been a long three months of resumes into the black hole of "We'll call you", and the hour is late - and blissfully, finally, I have work tomorrow.
Crazy as a red-assed bee,
Doug Lane is... The Finder
Eric, it's not a story. It's a speech Harlan gave at one of the writer's conventions. Recounting factual events of fans and just how far they'll go to get a piece of their writers.
And just because you haven't read about it, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
All I can say is this. Read the article.
L.
Lynn...
I'll try to find the story. I will not, however, attempt to be disgusted with myself for suggesting that Pynchon's own obsession with secrecy has created the very situation he wished to avoid.
As far as shielding himself and his family from the vagaries and hazards of public life, well, I don't know just how popular Mr. Thomas Pynchon is in the States, but might we not be overstating the case? Surely writers like Anne Rice and John Grisham, who seem to have no problem placing a photo of themselves on a dust jacket, would have considerably more fans or loonies to worry about. Yet somehow they've managed. Nor can I think of any other writer who seems to be concerned to the point of paranoia about their face being known.
I also can't think of any American writer, serious or popular, who has been assassinated, or kidnapped, or had his/her children abused or threatened...at least I've never read about it. And were it to happen (and I truly hope it never does), I strongly doubt that Thomas Pynchon is on any lunatic's short list of writers to stalk.
RE: Xenogenesis
Harlan~ Looking back on the hell that was 2001, I think the hug you gave me at Pink's pretty much tops the charts for the year. Coming home with my fresh, new, shiny, warm-from-the-presses Essential Ellison and cracking the pages to read "Xenogenesis" made the gesture all the more powerful and simply genuine. I still kvel* at the memory. You and Susan may just be "folks" but in my book, you define the word 'mensch.' Or should that be 'menschen'? Okay I'm all verklempt now... ::grin:: Just had to say thanks.
L.
Eric~ Believe it or not, I can actually see your side of the argument. Well, I used to be able to, at one time. The reason I *strongly* suggested you read "Xenogenesis" is that it speaks to the very reason why Pynchon would want to avoid his public at all costs, *even* if it means creating an air of mystery that makes him all the more, I dunno, susceptible? Is that what you mean? Even if it makes him more susceptible to the paparazzi and the nut cases who go looking for someone who has made it amply apparent that he doesn't want to be found.
Until you have lived the life of an author with *any* kind of fans, well-meaning and not so well-meaning, it is not within your purvue to render judgement here.
Please. Read "Xenogenesis". You will be shocked and appalled, and I hope disgusted with yourself, *AS I WAS*, when you realize just what kind of insanity Pynchon seeks to shield himself and his family from.
Again, respectfully yours,
Lynn
Hmmmmmmmm....
Maybe it's just me..Maybe Rick knows about this....
On THIS page:
http://harlanellison.com/kick/donate.htm
I click the PayPal donations link called:
Harlan Ellison Homepage
And I get this URL coming up on my browser:
http://harlanellison.com/kick/harlanellison.com/home
Which is obviously not a page...
R, when you have a moment...
H
>Eric's notes have been pretty much flame-bait-- I can't imagine an intelligent person actually holding his opinions, so I don't see much reason to answer him. <
Thanks for jumping in, Brian, with your over-arching summary. Glad to know you've got me so pegged. Gee, I guess I'm not intelligent, at least by your no doubt estimable standards, since I do hold these opinions.
That, or you don't have much of an imagination. Fuck off.
--I do not and will not buy the notion that the public is entitled to spy on people--
Nor do I, Alex. I simply said that a) the article was funny, and b) if Pynchon doesn't wish to be spied upon, he shouldn't make such a big deal about his secret identity. You can't deny he has done this...it's like daring the public, or the press, to find him out. In a perfect world, we would all just read the words, and not care a whit about the person behind them. But if this board is any indication, wanting to know about the writers is a big part of enjoying the work.
--So how is a sad and creepy hunter of an author different from the creepy nitwit who wrote the article you reference? Answer: not very. The cutoff is a man having a private life who doesn't care for people assaulting him with cameras while he's picking up HIS SON from school--
Agreed, Joseph. See above. Sad and creepy people can still write funny articles. And any man who wants a private life shouldn't pose as the Masked Writer for 40 years. Then he wouldn't be reduced to screaming obscenities at people in front of his kid. Sorry, I'm not sympathetic on this one. Pynchon made this bed (some would argue with calculated deliberation), and it never needed to be made.
Eric's notes have been pretty much flame-bait-- I can't imagine an intelligent person actually holding his opinions, so I don't see much reason to answer him.
I would like to add what could be another reason for Pynchon's dislike of publicity. Back when I was trying to write fiction, and shwoed a few things to people, they kept asking me questions that I really _hated_. Questions like, "What were you trying to say in this story?" and "What does this mean?" and "Why did you have this happen?" And a lot of the time, the things people were asking about were either really obvious. Or, it was something I'd written because I liked it at the time, and probably couldn't explicate my reasons. I mean, explaining one's own fiction really is like explaining a joke to someone who didn't get it the first time.
Now, I've never had any fiction published, so I can't claim any kinship with Pynchon on this.... but I suspect that when he was showing stuff around, he might've received similar feedback. Would _you_ like to spend your time explaining your stories to people? Wouldn't you rather that people took the work as its own justification, made of it what they would, and left you alone? And given the nature of Pynchon's work, can't you imagine that he'd get a lot of attention from humorless people with severe obsessions?
>I do not and will not buy the notion that the public is entitled to spy on peopleSo how is a sad and creepy hunter of an author different from the creepy nitwit who wrote the article you reference? Answer: not very. The cutoff is a man having a private life who doesn't care for people assaulting him with cameras while he's picking up HIS SON from schoolI highly recommend you read "Xenogenesis" before you open your mouth any further on the subject. Respectfully and sincerely yours, Lynn<
Oh, ok, Lynn. I won't open my mouth anymore on the subject. Thanks for such a respectful and sincere suggestion.
Ah, that's what I love to see in today's youth.....discipline!
Go write the fucking paper, boy!
Michael
Aristotelian as all hell, really
(sigh)
Y'all will just have to get used to my digital dyslexia. Sheesh, I am spoiled by spellcheck.
Jay
Alex,
On behalf of journalists who know better, I am sorry. Much of the business is, sadly, ambulance chasing and bloodfeasting. Ratings and Readership boom on tragic misfortune and I can't justify it except it seems to be a need in the consumer culture that is the western world. No nail has been hit more squarely than the one Don Henley drove into the media's coffin with "Dirty Laundry" and, like the taxman, the pimp, the pusher, the undertaker and the class bully we'll always be there.
I would like to think of myself as above such rabble, but we're all part of the same family and deserve the criticism of the private sector when we shove a mic or a lens in someone's face who's just been bitch-slapped by God and ask, "How do you FEEL?"
Unfortunately this country wants to know the State of the Author's Colon and will pay to see it bold as life. When I was asked to interview the seven brothers of a dead child offed by some gang banger in Lancaster (aged 4-12) under the ausicpices of shedding light on what violence does to a family, I walked away and threw the same finger up at them as the door shut behind me. So I hear ya and say "Testify brother!" though I know its futile to fight the will of commerce and villainy in this country.
Jay
I have to write a paper tonight. Whenever I have papers to write for college that I haven't started on but are due the next day, I always seem to end up coming here for a while. I bullshit until I'm blue in the face, then I realize that I spent way too much time on the board, and invariably end up having only the final seconds of my waking hours in which to dash off whatever paper was required of me. It's always worked before and I've gotten nothing but A's on those papers, so it's like a good luck charm. I'm not superstitious, but I do believe in sticking with a system that works. It so happens that I have nothing in particular to say this evening, but you'll notice that I have nevertheless managed to honk on for a whole paragraph now. I got skills.
So, to quote Eddie, the Shipboard Computer, "Do you wanna have a conversation? We could have a conversation." Let's talk about Aristotellian rhetorical strategy in the works of Frederick Douglass. In fact, who would be so kind as to write my paper for me? You fuckers owe me. My guts are still all over this floor. I was more than happy to save you from endless talk of 'Trek by exposing my pustule-scarred viscera, and I wasn't afraid to show that deep down inside I really am as much of an intolerable schmuck as I come off as. So, help me out here.
Do you want to know the problem with college? Of course you do. And I'm going to tell you. It's that it tends to eat into a man's DVD commentary track listening time. It's a tragic state of affairs, I can assure you.
J
Eric~
http://www.sfsite.com/isfdb-bin/pwork.cgi?a65f91
For: Xenogenesis
Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, Jul 1990, Gardner Dozois, 1990, $2.50
Edgeworks: Volume One - The Collected Ellison, Harlan Ellison, 1996, White Wolf Publishing, #56504-960-8, $21.99, hc
And also in the latest edition of The Essential Ellison, A 50 Year retrospective: Revised and Expanded, Morpheus, 2001,
available here:
http://harlanellison.com/herc.htm#book
As one person who has strong opinions about how people in the limelight should live their lives, but not being an author worthy of such attention yourself, I highly recommend you read "Xenogenesis" before you open your mouth any further on the subject.
Respectfully and sincerely yours,
Lynn
Eric,
So how is a sad and creepy hunter of an author different from the creepy nitwit who wrote the article you reference? Answer: not very.
It's simple: the cutoff is not a guy who doesn't want his picture in his books. The cutoff is a man having a private life who doesn't care for people assaulting him with cameras while he's picking up HIS SON from school. It's just plain sad behavior on the part of the "writer" who stalked him.
Joseph
Maybe it's because somebody bombed my father's car in the driveway when I was a child, but, sorry, I do not and will not buy the notion that the public is entitled to spy on people just because they've got their names on a book, in the papers, whatever. Fame is a fickle beast, and if someone who hasn't broken the law doesn't want the attention, the decent response is to leave the bloke alone.
Reporters have their jobs to do, I know--following reclusive novelists around isn't one of those jobs. Using their kids to track them down and invade their privacy is particularly loathsome. I speak as someone who was harrangued by reporters as a tad because they wanted to talk to my father the day after someone bombed his car. I have a finger for such reporters; the brighter ones can guess which finger it is.
Harrumph.
--Alex
Eric: The discussion of Pynchon on this board prompted me to randomly surf the net on the guy. I came across an archive of a Pynchon group that included comments by a previous girlfriend of TP who said that this privacy-thing, no photos, etc., was a manifestation of certain insecurities she felt the guy was burdened with... I stumbled on this site, so I can't guide you there. The woman was Jules Siegel's ex-wife, who left him for Pynchon.
Lynn, no, I haven't. Which collection is it in?
--E
Oh, I agree that Gravity's Rainbow is extraordinary. My tired point is that Pynchon's fetish for a mask back-fired. When one quietly goes about their business, the world quietly lets them.
It's too bad people "track writers down" like they did Jim Harrison. It's cultish and fannish and creepy. I personally think Ellison handles his own cult rather well...he has a forum here for us to vent, and he occasionally drops in, usually in acerbic form. I wonder if he appreciates how much something like this probably spares him awkward moments at his front door, when he's going out to rent a video, or something, and there's some lame-ass fanboy who just read Repent, Harlequin for the first time and just HAS to let Harlan know how great it was...
And while I think he's a good writer, I have absolutely no desire to ever see Thomas Pynchon to tell him that. I speak with my wallet when it comes to writers, or the occasional letter, for which I don't expect an answer.
--Eric
All right. So now that this particular lie is coming to pieces, the zany truth: Thomas Pynchon is a pen name for Dan Simmons.
Now. 'Dan Simmons' is actually a pen for Stephen King.
And 'Stephen King' is actually a pen name for Harlan Ellison.
And 'Harlan Ellison' is actually a small town minister located in St. Albans, VT, whose real name is Buntcake Quagmire III. He started out writing religous texts under the pen name 'Brother Gulliver', found he wasn't very good at that, so he got into pornography. That didn't go well, so he got into speculative fiction.
Anything else I can help with in the truth department, folks?
Until next time. . .
Eric~ Have you ever read "Xenogenesis" by Harlan Ellison?
L.
Eric: How could I guy write a book like "Gravity's Rainbow" and be normal! He's extraordinary! Oh, and Jim Harrison HATES doing public appearances, readings, and interviews, and guards his privacy vigorously. In the last decade he's avoided the Leland peninsula as much as possible, because that's where readers track him down. He spends much of his days in the Upper Peninsula or in a tiny house in either New Mexico or Arizona. I have two friends who tracked him down in the '80's (on separate occasions), and he was polite, but cold to one, and wouldn't speak to the other. Harrison did a mini-signing tour back around the time that "Dalva" was published, but only agreed if his buddies, poet Dan Gerber, and painter Russell Chatham were also signing their books. They appeared at my local bookstore after a long Chinese meal, and an enormous consumption of liquor.
Harrison staggered into the store with an expression of pure horror on his face. For a moment it looked like he was going to burst into tears. The owners of the bookery guided him, and the others to a table set up at the back of the store. "Yeah, that's right," bellowed Harrison. "Put the alcoholics in the self-help section!" Can we honestly put the word normal in any sentence that describes these writer fellows? Oh, I guess J.G.Ballard is a rather normal chap. Except that he wrote "Crash." And he has an odd fetish for medical textbooks.
But he loves the music of Derek Bailey, bless his soul! Strippers, odd sculptures, and the insect music of improvisation!
Two fingers of scotch, and a pleasant reclining chair, that's what J.G. loves after a hard day's work at the tablet. A fine, up-standing single dad, too.
>we can only speculate on why he avoids journalists and photographers<
Avoiding journalists and photographers is one thing. Comporting yourself like the Green Hornet of literature for 40 years is quite another. If you hide it, they will look for it. If, on the other hand, you simply send your publisher a snapshot of your mug for the packaging, with the usual "lives with wife and kids in New York, you're just another writer who doesn't go out much.
Nuff said, this one is obvious.
>And what is "normal?" <
Oh, I dunno...what about J.G. Ballard? A great writer, critically acclaimed...when was the last time he was tailed by would-be photogs when picking up his tykes from school?
Or how about Jim Harrison, a very fine writer whose even had some not very good movies made from his books...he manages to live a peaceful life in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. We know he's there, we've seen his glass eye in the jacket pics...yet gosh, I don't think he feels his privacy is unduly invaded or that he needs to be on Entertainment Tonight.
Normal...I'll tell what's NOT normal. What's not normal is making a huge deal, for decades, about how you want no-one to ever see your face, despite your literary merit and popularity, and then to go to great exertions to make sure no-one does, to the point of where even your own handlers don't meet with you in person, and then expect to NOT arouse the curiousity of the usual suspects, i.e. the mainstream sensationalistic press.
Someone of Pynchon's obvious intelligence should know better. He's built a pretty big myth of secrecy around himself...what the hell does he expect, especially when he's got a new book out? To be treated "normally?" It's a bunch of crap, and anyone who cares enough about him would tell him so.
--Eric
Eric: I thought the Pynchon "expose" mostly amusing; I disagree, though, on your "Fuck him" attitude ---we can only speculate on why he avoids journalists and photographers. That is his right. And what is "normal?" Being profiled on Entertainment Tonight? Being chased by rabid dog journalists from Publisher's Weekly? Hosting a daily radio program on the joys of physics, THC, and prophecy by erection?
Or is normality showing up at a Lotion concert, wearing a Godzilla t-shirt, a middle-aged guy who approaches the band afterwards. They dig the guy; he starts showing up at more shows; they know him as Tom. One night, backstage, Tom spies one of the musicians reading "Slow Learner." "That's my book," says Tom. The cat protests, "No, man, it's mine." Tom, "No, I mean that's MY book!" Lotion is impressed. Lotion asks Tom to write liner-notes for the next album. Tom ---an abnormally cool middle-aged gent---agrees. Rather than "Fuck him," I say, fucking cool, dude. Hey, Tom, what do you think of The Strokes?
Ok, I was not defending this guy's taking a picture of Pynchon. I simply said the article was "humorous." If that's being read as a defense of stalking authors, then I can't help you.
It was a funny article, i.e. it was not written in a serious vein. Whether or not one agrees with the premise of snooping around to grab a photo of a recluse does not change that fact.
As for Pynchon, fuck him. He's built this mysterious rep deliberately, with great effort, and don't think he's not aware of how it helps sales and hushed-tone discussion on boards like this. A simple jacket photo with the usual three-line blurb on his books and no-one would give a shit, certainly not a London Times reporter. Even Ellison, who has no love for the media, manages to include this basic information for his paying readers. And when Harlan's feeling whimsical, he'll offer up an obviously false but very funny alternative.
So the greatest American writer has brought this on himself. When he grows up, his kid can realize that all those creepy guys with cameras were basically around because his Dad was too arrogant, too neurotic, or simply too socially stupid to realize that if you want to truly be left alone, than just act normal.
Eric
Frank Church: How has Christopher Hitchens sold out the left?
First, I also wanted to congratulate Harlan on his settlement victory, and continued courage to endure the much longer fight still to come against AOL Time Warner (and yes, even though I do subscribe to AOL, have Time Warner cable at home and use RoadRunner for my Internet access, I am not on their side in this matter).
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "this is not the end; this is not even the beginning of the end. But it is perhaps the end of the beginning."
Second, I too had wondered about the lack of Latinos/Latinas in sci-fi, and am glad the issue is getting an airing here...
"...Hollywood pretty much used to cast ethnic looking actors and actresses as Latinos, Asians, Arabs or any so-called exotic nationality while Latinos, for awhile, were cast in the roles of Native Americans. I mean, i don't have enough fingers in both hands and feet to count the number of times both Ricardo Montalban and Anthony Quinn were cast as Indians in so many Westerns. "
I not that some things never change -- as Exhibit A, I give you Robert Beltran playing the "Native American" Chakotay on Voyager...
Sorry, Eric, but that guy is a horse's patoot--and, worse, he is a self-righteous, pompous ass of a horse's patoot. The papparazi are the people's representatives? Only if "the people" are a bunch of nosy voyeurs, capable of neither grace nor manners.
Also, he's an incompetent researcher. He's confused the rejection of the Howells medal with the Irwin Corey acceptance speech at the National Book Awards.
So here we have a snooping jerk who invades Pynchon's privacy by taking advantage of his connection to a child, and who can't do research that requires a whopping two minutes on the web. Tsk. Why O why would Pynchon pass up some time with this guy? Gee. Can't imagine.
--Alex
To Eric, et al:
Well, my friend I don't think the intrusion into a man's life on the pretext that "He's famous, and I helped make him that way, ergo he owes me" is in any way justified.
But, if you want funny at someone's expense, try this:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/691593.asp?0si=-?cp1=1#BODY
I should be in charge of Homeland Security, says the Bag of Meat, who thinks he's got the inside on airline security.
Don't forget that Gene Roddenberry is a sour subject around these parts. Shhhhhh.
Well, Pynchon's "I want to be left alone" brooding is kinda strange. Just be thankful that you are successful and remember; it could be worse.
Here are the best essayist's writing:
Gore Vidal
Chris Hitchens (even though he sold out the left)
Robert Cristgau (the rock critic)
Howard Zinn
Noam Chomsky
Louis Lapham
Molly Ivins
Jim Hightower
Micheal Moore
Henry Miller
many more...
Eric,
How on earth does being a novelist equal a compliance to a media-driven culture of celebrity? Hell, he wants to be left alone and judged solely on his work, rather than his personality? Absolutely fine by me. He wants to dance naked in Times Square and spend a few days in lockup? Fine. But don't feel that the unwitting invasion of his privacy is anything to be defended. Hell, defending British journalism? C'mon!
Joseph
Eric~ Go read "Xenogenesis" by our cherished guest of honor and see just how funny you think such behavior is. Pynchon's desire for anonymity is righteous and justified, and anyone who violates that desire is beneath contempt.
L.
Oh god, lighten up. The prose was written in a humorous vein, classic British tabloid-reporter. Yes, Pynchon's obsession with secrecy IS absurd, given the fact that he's a freaking novelist.
It doesn't take much on this board to unleash righteous dander, does it? Thanks for the mini-lecture.
Regards (sincerely), Eric
Eric,
That's supposed to be FUNNY? A supposed reporter tracks down a man who prefers to be private and has made this very clear, otherwise known as stalking him, and this is supposed to be "humorous?"
Sheesh. No wonder Devin Grayson doesn't want her picture taken to feed the cult of celebrity.
Regards (somewhat),
Joseph
RE: Pynchon
Here is humorous article, recent, and most likely all true. Includes a fuzzy photo. (You wouldn't want a CLEAR one, would you?)
http://www.suntimes.co.za/1998/06/07/lifestyle/life01.htm
Hey, do any of my fellow Chicagoans have any experience with DePaul University, specifically with their Adult Education program (called the School of New Learning)? I'm considering going back to school to finally finish up a degree, and just wondered if perhaps anyone could give some feedback or second-hand feedback.
Thanks,
Joseph
The Meat says:
Well, anecdote shared with a couple of librarians, including my sister-in-law indicates that Pynchon is adverse to being photographed, or likewise annoyed by those who would intrude on his life.
Methinks Mr. Ellison is a pretty good person, to put up with us yokels as he does...
Myself, getting into GR, and finding I like it more with each passing page. Must admit, I like Slothrop's rather unique talent; seems to me that Pynchon's creativity must've been fully charged that day.
Well, off to attend to domestic duties, some more reading, and some guitar.
Y'all off course will buy the second album from that famous totally unknown blues legend The (Whiter than Wonder bread) Bag of Meat, titled: I've Got The Upper-Middle Class Blues?
Last year I stumbled on a site that had a series of photos of Pynchon picking up his stepson from a Manhattan P.S. Can't recall what site it was, but it recounted how mad Pynchon got when he realized he was being photographed.
Years ago there was a rumor that Pynchon was one of various pen-names for Ron Goulart.
Hey, maybe Pynchon just doesn't like being photographed. Hell, neither does comic writer Devin Grayson (who I'm embaressed to admit I never knew was female, not that it impacts on her fine scripts).
Regards,
Joseph
David, we can pretty much rule out the Pynchon-as-committee rumors. For one thing, the man's not a total recluse. He's married, apparently has a kid, and keeps away from the media. People who've met him-- ranging from old friends like Mimi Farina to the rock band Lotion to the young lady I once met who chatted with him at a wedding-- have given fairly consistent descriptions of an extremely likable guy who's unspeakably brilliant.
I remember that _New York_ magazine had the ill grace to hire a photographer to sneak a picture of him on the city street as he walked his kid to school. And when _Mason and Dixon_ came out, 20/20 did a segment about the Mysterious Pynchon-- and got Pynchon to agree to be taped, sort of. He asked them to tape a shot of New York crowds, and he promised to be _one_ of the people in the shot. I get the feeling he held up his end of the bargain.
Yes, Virginia, there is a Thomas Pynchon. He lives in the hearts of his thousands of fans. Why, he might even be _lurking among us now_.
David, I don't think we need to "rule out" the possibility that Pynchon is a pseudonym for a hydra of writers. There's no reason to believe it in the first place. It's simply one of those wild rumors that started up because he maintains his secrecy. Amusingly, another rumor was that Pynchon really is J.D. Salinger.
In both cases, there's an excellent reason to reject the rumors: Pynchon has a very strong, very consistent style. It is found throughout his work. It doesn't resemble Salinger's at all. I find it quite impossible to believe a collective of different writers could have achieved that consistency.
And, in any case, Pynchon really hasn't written all that much! The size and density of his novels--particularly "V." and "Mason & Dixon"--give the appearance that he's written an incredible amount of material, but, really, there are only the four novels--one of them barely novel-length--and a handful of short stories. Those are the product of close to half a century of writing. Harlan has written far, far more, without such rumors arising.
Hey, Harlan, do you keep a stable of writing munchkins in the dungeon under Ellison Wonderland? Are they expensive to feed?
--Alex
Alex Krislov:
Can we yet rule out the possibility that Pynchon's a collective of writers? Just because a person who calls himself Pynchon stands in for him now and then, that hardly settles the issue. (I understand when _Gravity's Rainbow_ won a literary award, Pynchon sent a stand-up comic to accept it on his behalf.) You haven't met him in the flesh, have you, Harlan?
Regarding the recent discussion of J.D. Salinger, there's a new collection of essays out called _With Love and Squalor_ (ed. Kip Kotzen & Thomas Beller) in which 14 fairly young writers talk about Salinger and his influence on them. (I hadn't heard of most of them.) I came across a copy over the long weekend and skimmed through the first few pieces -- very interesting stuff. Mostly admiring, but a few harsh words about Salinger's supposed limitations.
Lynn,
I'm with you on Gaelic Storm! They put on a hell of a great show, and they always looks like they're enjoying themselves immensely.
Regards,
Joseph
P.S. Now where's that Road to Dublin....
A good example o' happy pipes, me boy-o's: The pipes played in "Braveheart" were Irish pipes by Irish pipers because Scotty pipes were far too annoying to hear for 2 and a half hours.
Okay - Faisal, Rob, Lynn, Dave et al... riddle me this....
Rumsfeld is on the tube again. He just justified not holding our Taliban guests as POWs "It's time to 'tap down' some of this hyperbole," he says to the press corps.
According to Rumsfeld, we don't want to elevate the Taliban and Al Qaeda to the status of a worthy combatant. Raising to that level gives them and other terrorist groups more credibility than they deserve.
Same breath, he says that these people were captured in the process of "fighting a war against the Taliban and al Qaeda."
So is our "war" on terror more a police action against defenseless, insignificant population? Sounds pretty arrogant to me. Geneva Convention or US Constitution...which is better to try these bastards under?
On British detainees: Tony Blair is fine with the status of his nationals now in our hands, though he admits some members of Parliament (who are "not the government") may have opinions to the contrary.
Joseph~ I have had the distinct pleasure of seeing Gaelic Storm perform live and damned if they don't sound ten times, a hundred times better live than they do on their albums. And can I just say Patrick Murphy? ::swoon::
Signed,
Honorary Johnny Jump Up Girl,
L
Oh, and if you want happy, try listening to an Irish bagpipe (difference is that the air is supplied solely by hand and arm pressure, leaving the player free to sing). Now there's some good dance music!
Alejandro,
It's fun to take non-Celtic friends to Celtic Fest and watch t