No, Berman, it's not your fault for asking the question. But it is your fault for continuing to be sarcastic and baiting when I practically BEGGED you to just let it go. This should rightly be an expository essay but I don't have time to format it so you'll have to take it raw. Your original response to Lynn was offensive on three levels :
(1) It imputes Lynn's character. It sets up Lynn as the bad guy by misrepresenting your original post as a "simple question" that should draw no offense. Asking someone who has come out against animal cruelty "Does this include eating meat as violence against animals? If not, why is that different?" is CLEARLY a baiting question, and is CLEARLY not "simple". The first question begs that Lynn should consider whether eating meat is violence against animals. The second question asks, DIRECTLY, that Lynn clarify the difference between eating meat and kicking a dog. This demands a response by setting up an accusation that if Lynn admits eating meat but doesn't show the difference, she is a hypocrite.
In essence, your post asks "Have you considered that eating meat might be violence against animals? Because if you haven't, you might be a hypocrite." Any time you ask a question that by default accuses someone of hypocrisy if they do not respond, you are by definition baiting them. And when your question demands the navigation of thorny moral ground (reconciling the fact that most of us are omnivores with an expression of horror over animal cruelty), it is far from simple.
Note: This is not an "interpretation" of your post. The conclusions I draw are implicit in the questions themselves.
(2) It is unfairly accusatory. It accuses Lynn of making a "common errors" in interpreting your 3-line response when she went OUT OF HER WAY to state that she doesn't think you are being deliberately provocative that she only found the tone "questionable". Aren't you the same person who took grave offense at being told you called someone crazy when you said you were worried about their mental state?
Your aghastness at someone misintrepreting a post that is SO SHORT is also illogical, and draws a conclusion that is unfair to Lynn. The fact that your post was short is exactly what made it EASY to misinterpret. It is brevity, not verbosity, that begs for misinterpretation. Lynn did not assume ANYTHING - in fact, she made it very clear that it was specifically the fact that she could NOT determine your tone that merited her response.
(3) It is dismissive. You say someone would "somehow find a way" to be offended, implying that someone would have to be a real jerk to find something offensive in your original post. You call her reaction "dismaying" implying that she falls so far beneath your standards as to cause dismay. I hope I don't have to explain how much of a dismissive blow-off saying "forget I asked" to someone who took the time to respond to a question YOU ASKED is.
Your response to Lynn is a slap in the face and an indignant stomping-off. And you did this early the very next morning after I came here and asked everyone to play nice.
Then, when I respond and am VERY VERY CLEAR about BEGGING people to not start shit, what do you do? You are sarcastic and snippy with ME! You accuse me of playing favorites - oh, I got onto you but I let Lynn "assert a hostile tone." I DIDN'T JUMP LYNN BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T DO THAT. But of course, that's not okay with you - I should accept YOUR judgement on these matters and not my own. Not to mention the post takes ANOTHER shot at Lynn RIGHT AFTER I asked you to stop.
You know damn well I am changing jobs, moving across state, and under all sorts of stress and pressures. You also know I come on here and ASKED that people please cool it so I don't have to deal with this shit. Then you EXPRESSELY start shit with me. It's more important to you to let me have one across the lip than it is to be in the SLIGHTEST considerate.
I went to the mat for you, Berman, when I damn well didn't have to and at the expense of a lot of my personal time. I know you never asked for it, but I did it. And I have gone to the mat for ALL of you guys, several times, with Harlan. You ask him. All I asked for from all of you was a LITTLE FUCKING COURTESY, that you bite your tongues and not say the petty and sarcastic little things you always have to come out with to get that last needle in. BUT YOU COULDN'T HELP YOURSELF, BERMAN. YOU WERE AGGRIEVED, AND BY GOD YOU WERE GOING TO SAY SOMETHING SHITTY TO ME.
That is the ESSENCE of selfishness. You were personally inconsiderate and sarcastic to me at a time when I admitted weakness and asked for a break.
I see while I was typing this, getting my lunch, putting arnica gell on my fucked-up foot for the 13th time today, that you and Lynn reconciled. But that doesn't help me now. You've shown that you don't give a shit about me, and that says to me you'll do it again.
So, that's it. Board posting halted. I don't have time to deal with this right now. And frankly, I don't like the way this board has gone lately.
You have an opportunity when you converse with someone to respond to the discussion or to pick fights. Lynn made a post that, yes, did have a few things in it that were a bit prickly but that was also at least 60% a legitimate and considered response to your question. You took that and did NOTHING but pick out anything that looked remotely like a rat turd. Have you considered that things go south not when people take offense or misinterpret (which happens in almost every interchange we have), but when people choose to FOCUS on that and do nothing but poke at the boil?
You are not obliged, in your discourses with others, to be kind or forgiving or even considerate of their feelings. But what you MUST do it maintain the minimum level of civility that allows us to have discourse in the first place. But many of you here can't do that. You spend more time picking at scabs and slapping at gnats than you do actually discussing the subjects you bring up. You are turning this board into a breeding ground for trivia and pettiness. If not outright nonsense.
I am sick of this shit. HARLAN is sick of this shit.
I'll turn this thing on again next week when I have time to manage it. Or maybe never.
PA~ I know you didn't mean anything. Really. And I don't feel attacked. I confess, when things sound confrontational, my debating skills aren't exactly Ghandhi-esque. There are just some questions that when you ask them, don't expect a middle-of-the-road, impassionate response. "Meat as violence" is one of them. It falls into the category of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" There's no right answer.
And yes, we do like to fight here. This is one of the most rational rooms I've ever been. And still, there's a badge of honor in having been burnt and coming back for more. It means you have the cajones to stand up for what you believe in, even when it's not the most popular point of view. I will say this. I've had to go the extra mile here to make sure that my true intent is communicated, knowing that vast quantities of vital bodily fluids might be on the line if I fail. The locals in SB have a phrase (beach lingo), "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch."
And you and I, we're still here, and we're still friends, right?
L.
OH yeah, as for me being paranoid: Maybe a little. I got the stuffing kicked out of me here recently and I'm feeling a bit sensitive to misinterpretation and misapprehension. I honestly didn't expect you to get pissed off by what I meant as a casual question. It's finals time around here and grades are due. Makes me a wee bit tetchy.
Also, the whole "I don't like your tone" has always been a weird issue. Often impressions of the author's intent form that the author did not imply. You could see, then, if that happens a few times, how the author would become a bit vexed, and perplexed, neh? That's all I'm saying. Yes, people here are good people, but I think people on here also like to fight.
Bermanator
Lynn: I think you're overreacting. Dragging keys down your car? Really?
It would be better if you forgot I asked. I did not mean to antagonize you and I didn't plan to follow up on your answer with some sort of scathing rebuttal no matter what you said. I honestly just wanted to know how you reconciled what seemed to me to be a paradoxical view about animal rights. I honestly don't see the comparison between this an asking people why they don't accept Jesus as the savior. Last time I checked this wasn't alt.meatlovers.
As you said, when you state an opinion here, don't expect the warm fuzzies. Expect people to tell you what they think, right? And I wasn't even doing that, because I don't think anyone really wants to hear what I think on this subject.
This does not have to be a brawl. I just wish you wouldn't assume you're being attacked when no one is attacking you. Unless the very act of asking a question *IS* somehow an attack...which could be a discussion topic in and of itself.
Bermanator
PA~ Y'know, I didn't "assert a hostile tone" to you. Controversial perhaps, certainly a wee bit passive aggressive or confrontational, but not "hostile". Did you even read what I wrote in response?
"Do I think you were picking a fight? No, not intentionally. But the tone was questionable enough on this end to put my back up."
Certain buzz phrases ("eating meat as violence against animals", "unborn children's rights", "bleeding heart liberal", "gun toting voter", "kubrick sucks eggs") are virtualy guaranteed to get someone riled around these parts. I balked at your question (which I did answer, btw) because it felt like those questions I've seen on Usenet, where someone waltzes in to alt.pagan and says, "Why don't you consider Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior? I'm curious. Just asking." It doesn't matter WHAT tone you frame that question in, it's confrontational. It needles, it irritates, it exacerbates, it incenses. Can you see what I mean?
So, no I didn't not assume a "hostile" tone. The implication for an impending confrontation loomed in the background like a three-hundred pound thug. And I just said, please, no. Not today. That really should have been the end of it. Following up my response with "Forget I asked" was the equivalent of said thug dragging his keys down the paint of my brand new ride. The passive-aggressive 'whatever' that we women so despise in men. Your continued petulance, "can't win for losing" attitude is starting to take on a distinctly paranoic feel. As if you want to feel persecuted around here.
And that was never my intention. Beware the self-fulfilling prophecy, and remember, we's all good folks here. We're not out to hang anyone. (Not even Frank.)
L.
Yeah well, Rick, I thought I asked real nice too, but I guess it's fine for people to assert a hostile tone where there is none. Clearly it's my fault for asking the question.
Can't win for losing around here.
Bermanator
Zoe,
My highest felicitations on your impending walk across the stage. Mazel Tov!
Regards,
Joseph
Hello, all -
Well, finally done with some major things! College, for one (still have to walk across the stage, but for all intents and purposes... done!). Bought a car, for another. And got down to read "'Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktock Man" for another.
After all the discussion on it, I had to see what the big deal was. Before I got to HE's explanation, I read through the story twice. Like many of his stories (second most recent being "The Whimper of Whipped Dogs") the finale - whether it be onomatopoeia, a single sentence, or a paragraph - gave me chills. Again, before I got around to reading HE's take on it, my first impression was simply that the Ticktock man had been thrown, that it was the first time someone had told him he had made a mistake and perhaps the first time he realized HE was susceptible to the same rules as anyone else. Perhaps also the first time someone had been brave enough to tell him so, too - a possible side effect of Harlequin's existence.
In any case - it was good for shivers and chills. That's the reason I've been enjoying reading HE's stories, personally- sure, there might be a more profound message, but the best part is when something in the story strums that primal chord inside, makes your belly flipflop, and you blink - because what if it WAS that way?
I'm off to deal with family and celebration and late fees. If I'm scarce it's because moving (as Rick is experiencing) sucks and starting the latest part of one's life is rather time-consuming.
--Zoë Rose
Jesus, Berman, "Forget I asked"??? The "fuck you, charlie" of debate? I asked REAL NICE. Obviously that never works here.
YOU PEOPLE WILL CONVERSE WITHOUT TURNING DISAGREEMENTS AND CLARIFICATIONS INTO STUDIED INSULTS (OR CRUDE INSULTS FOR THAT MATTER) OR THIS PLACE GOES AWAY FOR A WHILE.
I don't have time to be more polite or to explain why one needs to be careful about how one complains about the taste after opening a can of worms.
Faisal,
I don't know what's more disturbing: that Star Trek reference you made, or the fact that I wondered if it's green.
Mitch
Finally saw the new Star Wars movie this morning.
Suffice to say that it does wipe away the whiffy like smell of The Phantom Fart (aka The Purple Terror). It is terrific. I don't care what you people say, I don't care if it is corporate trash, I don care! Come on! Even if I stand alone on this, I say the new Star Wars movie is brilliant entertainment. Flawed, there are faults, theres a scene cut too short here, cut too long there but otherwise it is terrific. Also, homages galore for film geeks and it is the most violent SW film I have seen. Very dark, very action packed, the last hour glossed over all the faults. I'll happily have it inflicted upon me again.
FAQ
P.S. The only downside about this is that the next time I go to a bookstore, if I have any temptation to explore the SF section (which I rarely do nowadays), I shall find everyone and his locust scribbling away the backstory of Mr Lucas's latest episode thus making the shelves unavailable for something I really want to get (like say the collected short stories of Tiptree, instead I'll see 'The Sexuality of Star Trek: What does Vulcan Cum taste like').
P.P.S. I mean no offence to those writers who do write media tie-in spin off novel, books, etc. etc. Have to do something to put bread on the table.
Lynn: I knew after I posted that either you or someone else here would somehow find a way to become offended based on a simple question. The common error of assuming that you can interpret my tone based on three sparse lines of text is dismaying.
Forget I asked,
Bermanator
RICK,
You hang in there, Buddy. Moving sucks. I wish I could give you some sage advice, but I'm fresh out.
You can thank me later,
Cindy
Harlan,
We are adults. We can overcomplicate and overthink the living bejezus out of everything. We can take a simple kid's baseball game and turn it into the living hell that is Little League. We can take something fun and make it dull and dry. We can take something as vibrant as Shakespeare and squeeze and overanalyze overthink it until it becomes something that brings suffering, boredom and anguish to Jr. High kids everywhere.
And, we can take a simple mrmee, mrmee, mrmee and turn it into a maze of convoluted, confounding cowflop.
Including me.
I don't need to consult my inner child, since it never went in. But sometimes I just need to keep my inner adult locked up, bound and gagged. Except when it's time to pay the bills and rent.
Sheepishly,
Chuck
mrmeemrmeemrmee.
Frank:
You give liberalism a bad name around here. Your heart is in the right place, but your style leaves so much to be desired that I tend to avoid discussing topics about which I largely agree with you because you too often purvey them in an ugly manner.
I take a back seat to no one on this board on liberal issues (as a freshman in college, I went to the offices of the New Republic to get the autograph of "TRB" back when he was still Richard Strout), but I find I have to sidestep many of them because you're busy blasting away with your shotgun on them and I don't care to be tarred with the same brush as you. One catches more bees with honey, and makes more conversions with a light touch.
As to movies, one learns to adjust one's expectations to suit the film. In the past month I enjoyed "Spider-Man" and I enjoyed "Monsoon Wedding" and I enjoyed "Dogtown and Z-Boys" -- but for very different reasons, and I would not put them on a similar level in terms of quality.
And I believe it is Kauffmann, with two f's and two n's.
ALL: REGARDING THE MATTER OF THE TICK-TOCK MAN, All you guys are wrong! Including you, Harlan! Sit down, sit down! Don't try to tell ME that the guy who wrote the story knows what he meant. Here's the official explanation: The Tick-Tock man goes mrmee, mrmee, mrmee at the end of the story because that's how ALL of the automatic Timex watches in them days (the '60s, when the tale was written) sounded whenever they were wound too tightly. Which is what actually HAPPENED to the Tick-tOck Man by the end of this tale; and FURTHERMORE, the fact that he sounded like an overwound Timex reveals that the Ticktock man was ACTUALLY none other than JOHN CAMERON SWAYZE ("takes a licking, but keeps on ticking")! Whew! Yet another mystery finally solved. My brother Sherlock would be damned proud.
G'night,
Everettt C. Marm (aka, Infoman, aka the Sssshadow).
Thanks for clearing that up, Harlan. Looks like lonegungirl had the right idea.
Mitch
Just a check-in - I'm in the process of moving. I am likely to be totally incommunicando next week or so. Play nice while I am gone, which for some of you means please limit your posts to onomatopoeiac grunts.
We'll try to arrange getting a sound file of Harlan going "mrmee mrmee mrmee" up here when I'm settled. He does it well. He did it for me once and it cleared up all my Ticktockman questions. Also, some of my hair fell out.
Toodles.
If anyone has already made this comment, please forgive my lackadaisical scanning of the board......in regard to the cancellation of Politically Incorrect and anyone who is not happy with the decision: Ummmmm, ABC....owned by Disney. Remember?
I'm sure ABC is well aware that whatever ratings this new Kimmel talk show attains will not make much of a difference compared to PI, but they don't care. Kimmel will make a few jokes about blonde babes; and he might even ask a guest "so, what's your next project?", but at least he won't talk politics.
ABC. Disney. No surprise.
P.S., I'm not a fan of PI, but not because of the show itself, but for just two simple reasons: 1) 22 minutes and 5 voices trying to toss out their thoughts on some important topics.....actually less time due to the Maher monologue.....this ain't enough time to talk serious with so many voice. 2) That feeling of despair I would always have for that one stupid teevee actor/actress who is so blown away by any serious discussion that all they can do is nod knowingly and once in awhile toss out a clever bon mot that has nothing to do with the topic.
The show angered me even more when Harlan was on it. There should be one simple rule for when Harlan is booked on any talk show: leave everyone else in the green room and give them a fucking cookie. Hydrox for all!!!!!!!!!!!!
-TODD
Lorin O.
I think nothing is wrong with discussing Harlan’s stories here. This is the forum and Website dedicated to him. I’m not suggesting anyone has, but the only wrong thing would be expecting Harlan to answer our every query and explain his work.
This is probably a bit of a dilemma. We want to discuss his work, but we don’t want to badger Harlan, and we know he reads the board.
I think we just ask our questions, give our comments and thoughts, and if Harlan wishes to add anything, then “it be cool”. If not, then “it be cool”.
Something else that you can do is search the archives of Webderland. This question about mrmee was raised a couple of years ago. I find you can search the archives by using the Google search engine.
Which brings me to,
Rick
Google have cached copies of Webderlands archive at least back to 1999. Have you tried finding the missing data there?
Kerry
(all mistakes in spelling and grammar are my own)
Times like this make me wish I _would_ jump into discussions like the one on "Ticktockman," if only to show in advance that I knew what the ending meant.
There is one story of Harlan's whose ending has given me a long period of "Huh?" It's not that i didn't understand what happens at the end. It spretty clear. It's the moral lesson that the character seems to get at the end that I have some trouble understanding. I won't say which story it is. I figure, maybe I'll get it after some more of that "life experience" stuff.
I know, I _could_ ask Harlan... but for all I know, I could be missing something really obvious, or I could be making too much of something that doesn't require a whole lotta analysis, and I'm too damn tired to dodge a fireball.
I've been gone from the boards for a few days.....still haven't really caught up, but I just have one thing to say to your REPENT brainiacs:
mrmee mrmee mrmee mrmee mrmee
-TODD
Frank, stop touching my bosoms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
P.S., the wife and I saw Hollywood Ending AND Spider-Man, on the same day. We love Woody, we love independent films, we love over-intellectualized film, and we love good ole slam bam action special effects cartoon films. We love 'em all.
Of course, the most anticipated film of the summer? Eight-Legged Freaks!!!!!!!!!!! (and the sad thing is, I ain't kidding)
-TODD
I KNEW I should have kept my mouth shut.
mreemreemreemreemree...
HARLAN to MICHAEL:
The issue of DEADPOOL, at last!!!!!!!
You are a peach.
Many many many thanxxxxxxx, yr. pal, Harlan
HARLAN EXPLAINS mrmee mrmee mrmee mrmee mrmee:
Sometimes you people think too much.
The Ticktockman is mumbling to himself. That's all there is to it. Nothing more complex than that. What it SIGNIFIES, however, is that even though they have broken the Harlequin, a la Winston Smith, Everett C. Marm, poor bastard, clown and fool though he may be, has fulfilled Thoreau's dictum that "he serves the state best, who opposes the state most." He has thrown a spanner into the works. (I presume you all know what a spanner is, and are familiar with "a spanner in the works" as idiomatic jargon for "tossing a monkey wrench into the machinery.") He has moved his society an infinitesimal increment toward humanization, toward upheaval. He has subconsciously invaded the bastion of rigid behavior personified by the Ticktockman, who is the equivalent of J. Edgar Hoover, or The Spanish Inquisition, or the elders of Salem, Mass. And we see this in the metaphor of The Master Timekeeper being a little late--the "poison" of anarchy and chaos has been introduced by the Harlequin into the Ticktockman's received universe--but not only being a little late...but doing mrmee mrmee mrmee mrmee...which is another way of presenting mumbling to oneself, unsettled distraction, clearing one's throat, a new tic. Listen to my reading of the story, fer chrissakes; that's why I do them, to bring the reader down to the earth of simple reading pleasure--what you see is what you got--to dispell overintellectualizing just like this.
Your determination to overthink this simple sound effect with monstrously off-the-mark pomposity and hidden "significance" dismays me. If all the hundreds of thousands of people, men women children, students teachers savants, academics and plain for-fun readers, if NONE of them "get it," simple as it is...oh gawd I want to go away and lie down in the shade.
You people think too much.
Sometimes a mrmee is...well...just a mrmee.
(Try it. Just let your lips slip apart a micromillimeter, and repeat mrmee mrmee mrmee mrmee mrmee mrmee mrmee in a monotonal threnody, about thirty-seven or forty-two times, clearly but swiftly. You'll get it. I promise: you'll get it.)
Woefully, yr. pal, Harlan
PA wrote: "Does this include eating meat as violence against animals? If not, why is that different? "
*Gratuitous* violence against animals. Does that fit your bill better? I don't eat veal on principle. As for eating meat as violence, when we solve all the issues about violence between people, then I'll start worrying about keeping my food animals in the most humane conditions possible. Until then, evolution has given me a mind and body that requires a level of protein not readily available from plant sources (unless I'd become vegan before age four). That said, don't go there. Please. Picking a fight over something that neither one of us will yield on serves no one. Do I think you were picking a fight? No, not intentionally. But the tone was questionable enough on this end to put my back up.
Besides, I'm a second degree vegetarian. I only eat animals that eat vegetables.
L.
Jay,
"OH COME OOOOOON..."
That's OK because Maher stole that from ME. Technique and ALL. It works!
Frank,
BOORISH, eh? Does that classify me as schizotypal or merely homo moyen?
...anyway, even though you never qualify your arguments your artistic insights are duly noted.
Lynn said: "I have problems with violence against animals for the same reason I have problems violence against children. There's a special place in hell."
Does this include eating meat as violence against animals? If not, why is that different?
Just asking,
Bermanator
REPENT, HARLEQUIN!: You know what? Before Harlan tears into us like so much raw meat, I believe the final paragraph and the Ticktockman's last murmurings are only evidence of the Master Timekeeper's own hypocrisy. HIS little boo-boo is easily overlooked, while the average fellow on the street would have several hours detracted from his life in a flash. Nothing more, nothing less? Who knows.
FRANK CHURCH: Frank, could you simply get it over with and say in one single post what you want from us?
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
No, Im not an elitist--or at least the kind of John Simon type elitist, that Harlan talks about in the introduction to, "Watching". But I do know the difference between mainstream, money films and actual art. I mean, I went to see, Hollywood Ending, and I was one of THREE people in the movie. Three fucking people to see a film by the great, Woody Allen, but lines around the block to see some boring computer graphics masterbation, without any deep charactor study, or story. Believe me, I love the Spiderman comics, and the film has no sense of the comic.
I am far from an art snob, but I do feel this forum should have a high minded intellect quotient. Harlan, at least deserves that much from us.
----------------
Rob, your, "intellectual superiority" postings towards me are getting boorish. Please, let's not name call, like some school yard bully. Discuss, Spiderman, or NSync, or whatever you fancy, but be civil. Or try.
And going to my "corporate movie" point. I like a lot of mainstream films, but there are certain films that seem "obvious" to me; especially the ones with the fast food tie-in's. Spiderman is such a film. Artistically, on the same par as N'Sync. I mean, if I were to discuss the fine point of Tommy Boy, you all would drop the manure canister on my ass.
Now if Stanley Kauffman were to champion Spiderman, then I may just look at it a second time.
-------------------
And I have nothing against Todd, Joseph, we have this thing where we riff on each other. Good way to break the ice. Todd may be a wonderful guy, but to me he is a name on a message board. Maybe some time we will meet and become bosom pals, one never knows. I do respect Todd as a person and think he is a smart guy, but he does think low of me; which is a shame, since I am a great guy--or try my best at all times.
--------------
And Harlan: Thanks for the introduction to "Watching"; it made me think differently about Fatal Attraction. David Denby was right, and I feel bad that I liked the film so much. The Glenn Close Charactor was really badly written. Shame on the muddle head critics who praised it. David Denby was a class act, and so are you.
LORIN O.: Oh my god. If there's even a tiny hint of truth there...if that's even remotely possible...
But then, how do you explain the brainwashed Harlequin that was broadcasted on the communications web only just before?
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
JOSEPH: Yep. It's yours. Contact me via email to give me mailing instructions. And anyone else -- maybe just email me requests, so as not to clutter up Rick's living room with this fanboy stuff?
wearing his geek badge proudly,
Michael
Lorin,
Usually, I wouldn't be this bald about someone's interpretation of a story, so please forgive me:
No.
Lynn,
And a big "Webs away!" to you, my friend. (Yes, I'm so geeky I know what Spidey story that line is a joke on - it's an issue where Spidey teams up with the Human Torch and Torch keeps ribbing on him for not having a battle cry, like his "flame on!" Best Peter can come up with is "webs away!")
Regards,
Joseph
Am I crazy...(don't answer yet!)...or does the Ticktockman say, "mreemreemree" at the end because that's what the HARLEQUIN says?
It's been a few years since I read the story. However, my interpretation has always been that the Harlequin actually vanquished the Ticktockman, took over his position, and is continuing his battle in a more insidious (and clever) fashion, from the inside out.
Anyone?
Lorin
Joseph~
GEEK.
Lovingly,
L.
Michael,
You're a peach for the offer. Happen to have Amazing Spider-Man #328 (the one where Spidey punched the Hulk)? My cat bit the cover (no, really!)
Regards,
Joseph
HARLAN: I did indeed have a copy of DEADPOOL #61 at work. It'll be winging its way to you by the weekend. As for the other stuff, well, no line on that yet...but if you want to just send me a list, I'll post it at work and we'll all keep an eye out for that stuff.
That goes for the rest of you fanboy geeks as well...if there is something you're missing, let me know and I'll be on the lookout for it.
best to all,
Michael
Little Washu~ I haven't seen GINGER SNAPS, but isn't that one of the 113 Hollywood Clichés? You want to show how vile and worthless the villain is, you have him kick a dog?
Please don't get me wrong, I agree with you 100% about such things. I have problems with violence against animals for the same reason I have problems violence against children. There's a special place in hell.
L.
I think I can provide some kind of distinction between useful gore and tawdry gore (and no, not the illustrator, or the girl who sang about crying at her party).
In most movies where gore turns up, one has a sense of what the filmakers want the audience to feel. It can be something as simple as shock, or revulsion, or something complex-- like when the formerly sympathetic Jeff Goldblum dissolves his enemy's ankle in _The Fly_.
I just bought the DVD of _From Hell_, which is one of the more horrific films of recent years. It's got its flaws, and it doesn't hold a candle to Alan Moore's and Eddie Campbell's original. But the gore isn't there to titillate. It's realistic, and details are shown, but it happens to sympathetic characters... so it's intended to elicit horror and fear in the audience.
But in some movies, especially the _Friday the 13th_ series, one has the strong sense that the filmmakers expect the audience to _enjoy_ the gore in a very sensuous way. The lingering on the hyperdetailed damage, the elaborate ways of mangling a body, the baroque touches (i.e., a spear not just into someone, but into their _eye_)... all of which is intended to have the audience ooo hand aaahhh over the spectacle.
Washu,
Re: Ginger Snaps
Your comments on the dogs intrigue me. I'll have to watch the movie again to see how that plays out for me.
As for the gore-fest question you addressed to Harlan, my short-and-dirty answer is that the gore serves a purpose in Ginger Snaps, as opposed to your examples.
I stand by my comment about the movie: best use of a piercing ever!
Regards,
Joseph
LONEGUNGIRL:
GREAT speculation on the Ticktockman! The 'mree mree mree' thing confused me slightly too, but then again I've known a few normal people who have made very strange noises in their spare time.
Um...
Yes, well, anyway, I do like your interpretation of a faint ray of hope to the tale. I think Harlan always has hope of one degree or another in his stories...it's only the illiterate dopes out there who immediately believe they have nothing to say except doom 'n' gloom.
GINGER SNAPS: Just saw the lycanthrope flick last night, and...wow. It was probably the most melancholic movie I've seen in a very long time. I haven't been this depressed since seeing Terry Gilliam's BRAZIL. You could TELL this film was Canadian, just from the ending. I'm not going to go into detail at risk of spoiling too much, but suffice to say you don't see that type of conclusion in most mainstream cinema these days. Great performances all around, great atmosphere and style...I guess I only have two complaints.
The loss of sympathy I began to feel for Ginger as she transformed into a cruel, malicious creature severely detracted from my enjoying the film. I wished Brigitte would just get it over with and kill her sister, who had essentially become nothing more than a bane to her life. I realize the point was that Brigitte's love was the only thing that kept her from doing so, but I ultimately felt too much loathing and hatred towards Ginger to pity her fate.
And then there was the rather repellent anti-dog theme throughout the entire movie. One of the first images is of a gutted dog; three other dogs are slaughtered on and/or off-screen; and Ginger gleefully kicks a dog in the face. The humans, who receive their own horrible share of deaths, aren't nearly as disgustingly treated as the dogs in this film. If the filmmakers have serious personal issues they need to work out, they should vent them in anything but the cinema medium.
Which brings me to another question, which I'd like to address to
HARLAN: In THE THICK RED MOMENT, you chronicled your reaction to the gratuitous display of violence you witnessed in THE OMEN and the audience's own bloodthirsty nature. And yet, GINGER SNAPS has blood 'n' gore flooding out of the wazoo.
I am NOT accusing you of hypocrisy. GINGER was superb. I only want to ask your take on how GINGER SNAPS differs from it's own delivery of violence as opposed to an average FRIDAY THE 13th movie.
Sincerely, LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
P.S. Out of curiosity. Did Norman's mother in PSYCHO ever actually have a first name?
GEEZE
That one got away from be before I could correct the spelling on what should have been "Maher"-- sloppy, sloppy.
Solly Chollie,
Cindy
Jay!
You wrote:
"Now if Maher would MEDIATE the discussion between his guests, that would be better. As it stands, he's like Angelica on Rugrats and his guests are all a bunch of big, dumb babies who don't know any better."
I was unfamiliar with Angelica on Rugrats so I asked my five year old daughter, Paris, about her. Paris said,
" Angelica is Tommy's cousin who bees mean to him. She tells him what to do and she breaks his toys and she steals his candy. And she even broke his clown lamp. On purpose! She meant to! And she scares Chucky. And she doesn't eat her broccoli. Her parents think she's cute so she never ever ever gets in trouble."
Now I understand your description.
HILARIOUS comparison!
I enjoyed watching Bill Mahr, he is fascinating and quick. I frequently disagreed with his position on issues but I found that he had a tendency to make me think my own choices through more carefully.r>
Sometimes he was sarcastic and came across as arrogant, but that sort of naturally goes with the territory of being brilliant doesn't it? I wasn't offended.
But the bully picture you paint is hilarious.. I did see a bit of that from time to time. There again I think it could be the giant's tendency to step on ants.
LOL!
:)
Cindy
Seriously, Rob...
I understand the tension in the debates, but in matters intended for serious discourse is it the most effective means of debate to cut your guest off in mid-sentence with "OH COME OOOOOON..." followed by a prissy non-sequitorial analogy between the topic and a ham sandwich? That's Maher's gimmick! He doesn't know how to follow up a reply from an expert giving statistics and first-hand info so he backpedals into the emotional response that not only insults the guest, but fails to provide a sound, informed alternative. We always know HOW Maher feels about an issue, but his center-stage neither promotes discussion of alternative POVs nor how his logic works. He can smirk and snear all he wants, but it only proves he's not prepared to debate even the junket-booktour-movieoftheweek seat warmers he's invited to the party.
Now if Maher would MEDIATE the discussion between his guests, that would be better. As it stands, he's like Angelica on Rugrats and his guests are all a bunch of big, dumb babies who don't know any better.
Alex,
D'oh! I meant Jerry Brown - confused my odd governors of California with my odd NBA coaches.
Regards,
Joseph
P.S. Rumor likely to give you a coronary wuld be that the Bulls could use draft trades to pick up Iverson. Would never happen, but it's nice to dream...
Rob -
If you need a fix to fill the PI vaccuum, I understand tapes of the old Morton Downey Jr show are available on Ebay.
(ducks as Rob throws a promotional copy of Huffington's new cookbook and Deepak Chopra's latest guide to living at him)
:)
Sorry Rob, but PI, the few times I caught it, bored the hell outta me.
It was an intersting idea, but it suffered from its format. We had some useless monologue from Maher, then we'd get a couple of minutes introduction to the guests. They would gently spar around for more minutes, feeling out each other's opinion, and blam - the show was over. I was ALWAYS left wanting to see what would happen if the conversation continued for another half-hour - in fact, my thought was that they should film for an hour, or more - start out with some very quick, pre-taped intros for the guests and then show the most interesting half-hour. I just found most of the stuff discussed to be a boring rev-up to the REAL conversation, which we inevitably never got.
But that's just my opinion.
Alex,
Yes, PI has lost SOME of what it once had; I'd say that's pretty obvious. Sure as hell doesn't make it valueless, 'specially compared to the crap I have to put with everywhere else on the tube. Unlike with you guys, Maher's ego did not 'mar' the stir of topics for me. And while not EVERY evening holds me, many do.
I do, however, utterly disagree with your "corporate watchdog" bit (I mean if I understood you right). He didn't kiss their asses, including Disney's. Many of his remarks put him on the line.
And finally: a few of you seem really hung up on Maher's sticking it hard to some of his guests. A real 'Alice in Ego-Land' dilemma. I wonder if you consider that some of those guests NEEDED it (I turn your attention again to the likes of Heston). They were ALWAYS able to convey their points and opinions, and just as on this board with US, at a risk of drawing responses whose intensity is in direct proportion to the absurdity of the statement. It gets emotional at times (just look at Harlan in the Kazan debate) - Maher gets emotional, with refreshing honesty, while certainly not always being right - and I have no problem with THAT trip at all. Maher is not trying to be a Jay Leno or a Charlie Rose. He's being himself and he knows people hate him for it. I admire him for that even on the occasions when he gets on MY nerves, or might get too overbearing.
Like I've been trying to say, given some drawbacks and wear, the show is relatively fun and smart in an hour there is, to me, just nothing else to watch. It's like when Star Trek disappeared from the late night syndicated slot, which I would have a great time with after a fucked-up, boring workday.
Essentially, PI became a bit of an addiction of mine. Now I have to start all over again and find a new needle. Time for a flight to Amsterdam.
Jay,
Ah, I don't give a shit about PI criticism when it's FAIR; quality guests ARE less frequent. But the topics and temperaments ('cluding mine) and debates and questions to think about still come up...more so than anywhere else on the tube outside of PBS and two or three news magazine shows cut from the 60 Minutes mold. Unknowns appear a lot, some with brains some null and void, a crucial balance to watch the morons get hanged ('less Maher is out-numbered by the Hestons and Nugents). I still have a good time either nodding or giving 'em the finger. On occasion I even change the channel (never failed when Heston was on). And more often than not I absolutely agree with Maher's assessments. He even has moments of eloquence. He WAS a lit major.
At any rate, it's just a good, intelligent 20 minutes with which to close off yer waking hours. Now I guess it's back to mindless late night talk show babble, MTV or Howard Stern with his porno vixens. Fuck THAT shit. Well, LEAVE the vixens.
JAY; JOSEPH: Reel in them eyes. Black Canary is, in the context of this show, a sixteen-year-old runaway.
And she gets precognitive visions, too.
ROB: I dunno. P.I. was always better on Comedy Central, before it joined the Disney juggernaut, if you ask me. Maher seemed not only funnier, but more open to his various guests' opinions. I can't help thinking that once he started hanging at the Mansion and doing Viagra shooters with Hef, an ego explosion was inevitable. And it can't have helped to have had corporate watchdogs at his heels, making certain they had a nice tame razorwit.
I dunno. You simply cannot know how much I would LOVE to run some sort of BUG JACK BARRON freeform talk show--but I'm not certain how much of my soul I could stand to sell.
JOSEPH: Larry Brown? Not MY Larry Brown, coach of the next-year-damnit Seventy Sixers? Can't be.
ON "REPENT HARLEQUIN!..."
Just an opinion on the Ticktockman's mrmees--I didn't have the idea that the sound was either indication of literal mechanisation or of internal/spiritual death. My impression was that the world in general had taken on a clockwork nature. The Harlequin defied its oppressively orderly system and was neutralized by the Ticktockman because of it. Nevertheless, the mere fact of his resistance, short-lived and doomed as it was, had the effect of cracking the glassy perfection of the Ticktockman's punctuality--a possible indication of more changes to come. I saw the "mrmee mrmee mrmee" at the end as a sign that Ticktockman was not purring along as usual, and perhaps the oppressively orderly society would ultimately meet its end as a result of small incidences of rebellion like those of the Harliquin.
It is one of my favorite stories, although that certainly doesn't mean I understand it better than anyone else. I thought it was kinda uplifting. Anyway, if I've any gift at precognition, I expect we'll eventually be able to find out what the truth really is from someone in a better position to know...
"Maher milked his pissant talent..."
Jon...you and I disagree on lots and LOTS o'things.
For some reason, my fondest memory of PI was an evening with Al Franken, Larry Brown and Arianna Huffington, where, Franken managed to keep turning the discussion into stories of when Brown & Huffington where dating in the 70's. Smart ass of him? Sure. But strangely fascinating to watch.
Regards,
Joseph
Of course, the great Jimmy Kimmel is replacing Maher.
Y'know, I'd like the late night talk show thing to go back to Bob Costas, with his fantastic research staff and Costas' own interviewing abilities, or Tom Snyder, with that whole 'watch the coloured pictures fly through the air' stuff, along with the possibility of seeing, say, Ray Bradbury on an interview for 20 minutes with someone who asks him questions and then lets him talk. With Snyder and Costas, I've got fond memories -- "Second Costas!", Anthony Quinn breaking down, Snyder going toe to toe with Howard Stern, Snyder and Meatloaf discussing Lionel trains. With Maher, I've at least got the memory of Ellison and Fyvush Fynkel having a contretemps before Maher went to commercial, but that's about it.
Geez. I'm 33, and _I'm_ feeling old about this. Maher milked his pissant talent for about as long as he could and for way more money that it was worth: fuck 'im. Although I'd like to see Jon Stewart in the same format.
Ah, I'm such a soft touch.
Jon
Mitch,
Concering the "mrmee, mrmee, mrmee"; I think the reason he said that was because although he was made of flesh and blood, the word he lived in, that he helped maintain, was a very dehumanizing place. Everyone was being turned into ticktock automatons by the ultra-scheduled world they live in. I hate that part our wonderful world myself. Schedule this, time-manage that. Don't send that payment one day late. Late fees for this, etc. For me, it's no way to live. Remember the description of the people commuting to work on the commuter conveyor belts. Everyone on it stepping to the faster belt, side-stepping in unison like dancers in a Busbee Burley musical. People acting like machines. Then the harlequin drops a load of jelly beans (Jelly? BEANS?) and gums up the works. People spill all over the place, but the harlequin makes them laugh about it. They still had their humanity intact, if only buried inside. The Ticktock Man, however is the biggest victim of his own world. He goes slightly cuckoo when he finds out he's just a little late. His humanity has been completely extinguished. He is the ultimate slave to time. Inside, he's dead, his mind as brittle as that of any computer. That's why he makes the funny noises.
And now, a word from your Sun Safety Council:
Use Sunscreen. Really. Whether it's SPF 15 or something strong enough to let you get that job at Chernobyl, wear sunscreen.
Today, at around 4:00, I had a tissue excision for a biopsy. Dr. Hedberg shaved a nickel-sized chunk out of a quarter-sized scar on my left shoulder. A red, ugly scar I got from a massive sunburn from ten years ago. I had my nephew over, and being this was a nice, summer day, we went out to the pool. This apartment complex isn't all that upscale, but it has a great, well-maintained pool. We played in there for hours, splashing and rough-housing, having a great time. David got brown. I got burnt. Medium well. Left a wound and a scab on my shoulder that took a long time to heal.
Now, it's probably nothing. If it's anything at all, it's probably a slow carcinoma, the kind that won't kill you as long as you don't let it grow for several years. I'm not worried. Still, the anesthetic has worn off, and it stings a little, that nickle-sized crater in my left shoulder.
Wear sunscreen. Trust me on this.
Chuck
"I'm one of the 'burn and peel' people. You see us glowing at the beach." -- George Carlin
JEFFREY and R WILDER -
I think Jeffrey hit it. The quality of guests has gone downhill, which is strange since the exposure on ABC is MUCH better, even on overnight, than Comedy Central. I can only assume that it provides more screen time for Maher, who can take on the self-help gurus and self-promoting actors who don't want to risk coming off as confrontational. They tend to tailor their deep political philosophy into stand-up. The ones who know their game are either regulars Maher knows how to handle or politicians who are low-energy intellectuals who don't thrive in the environment Maher creates. At LEAST Dennis Miller was honest about whose political agenda governed the show.
Notice the bumpers where Maher is doing his own stand-up. He seems to pander to the audience. Yet now, as I watch, he is debating Monty Warner on Bush's opinion of Cuba (and vaguely worded so far)...he's losing the logic debate so he resorts to a "hanging chad" joke. Sad, really.
Sorry, Rob. I know you love the show.
Forrester~ I love the idea of the WWHD, but we'd have to limit it to tshirts & mugs. I don't know about *you*, but I don't have the time to go around cannibalizing typewriters, not to mention the ire we'd surely inspire in our esteemed patron.
But there's potential in the WWHD idea.
L.
Lynn-
Re: cafepress/webderland - was there any further discussion on the "What Would Harlan Do?" line of products? Like the WWHD bracelets made out of typewriter keys.
I haven't posted in a while, mainly because there's not a whole lot of ThrillStuff (c) in my life. I may have a job, which is nice, and the fight against the Historic District designation continues with optimism and good cheer... but outside of that, I'm boring this month.
I tuned out on _PI_ a long time ago, but I've been tuning out on a _lot_ of television lately. My disaste for PI was pretty simple: people would say things that I _had_ to argue with, but since I wasn't on the stage with them, anything I wanted to say wouldn't affect those dimbulbs one bit. I can live without that frustration. (Also, for years, the show seemed to have a quota of at least one right-wing idiot, usually Tucker Carlson, and between him and Maher's libertarian affectations, I had enough.)
And I caught the show with the two Israelis and Palestinians, and can say that R. Wilder described it extremely accurately. The Israelis would say something. The Palestinians would start to reply, and then Maher would interrupt them and start asking them why they didn't take all those _wonderful_ offers from the Israelis.
Oh, and back to Libertarian affectations-- I usually dig Penn and Teller in a tremendous way, but for some strange reason, they've cast their lot in with a lot of unsavory sorts. They've added their names to something called the Alliance for the Separation of School and State, a campaign to "get the government out of schools." (website at http://www.sepschool.org/). One might figure it's just another quixotic Libertarian campaign... until one sees that the Big Names, other than our favorite atheist magicians and a slew of Cato Institute drones, include the Rev. James Dobson, Dr. Laura "Do Me" Schlesinger, and the Rev. Tim LaHaye.
On a brighter note, Stephen Jay Gould's new book just came out today. Titled _I Have Landed_, it's the last collection of his _Natural History_ essays. So GO OUT and BUY the damn thing. READ it. WALLOW in Gould's exquisitely tuned sentences, and drink deeply of his understanding of the natural world. Then read his OTHER collections. ALL of them, dammit.
I was also confused by the Ticktockman's true nature. It wasn't the mask, but the final line that threw me off. Something to the effect of "He went into his office, going mrmee mrmee mrmee mrmee...", when he arrives late. I got the impression that he was an android, starting to break down.
So if he's human, what's causing that sound?
Mitch
The following was posted on the British? _SF Crowsnest_ site earlier this month... Look familiar?
http://207.201.173.29//sfnews2/02_may/news0502_3.shtml
The title is: "Muster the Goombahs! Loose the dogs of war! A call to arms!"
For me "Politically Correct" dried up a few years ago. Until recently I continued to watch, but usually turned it off soured by the choice of panelists. It has been quite a while since I've seen any interesting fiction writers like Harlan Ellison, or Paul Theroux. And most of the non-fiction writers are dull, self-help gurus, or partisan pundits (Christopher Hitchens is the only writer that I've enjoyed on PI this last year). When the show was on the Comedy Channel and first on ABC, it used to have dynamic combinations of personalities, not the heavy reliance on celebrity airheads. Plus, Maher beats the proverbial dead horse. He introduces a topic at the beginning of the program and flogs away, whether there's a spark of conversation or not. The last time I tuned in was a Middle-East topical program with two Israeli youths, and two Palestinian youths, boy/girl/boy/girl. For the entire half-hour Maher hammers away at the Palestinians concerning their obstinance, and not once plays devil's advocate against the Iraelis. It was obvious that Maher's pro-Israeli. Fine. He had a legitimate point, but he created one dull program. And that's the problem with "Politically Incorrect." Maher has a narrow focus, and as result his teevee show has become dull. Media reporters can write all they want about Maher's post Sept.11 comments about cowardice and bravery, or the low ratings, but for this former regular watcher of "PI" it was the pedestrian quality of the show that sent me away(now if Harlan Ellison is back on before it's demise I will certainly tune in).
R.Wilder
I liked the original incarnation of "Politically Incorrect" when it was on Comedy Central, at midnight, right after "Whose Line Is It, Anyway?" and "Mystery Science Theater 3000". Jay commented in a previous post that Maher's penchant for indiscriminately interrupting guests to belabor his own opinion gradually grew. The PI that I remember watching on CC had a better-behaved Maher, and the show seemed to resemble more of a heated discourse than a semi-structured shouting match. I also seem to recall (I don't really recall, I just seem to) that the general reasoning ability of the average guest was higher. Maher had pretty decent opening monologues and a great closing bit where he'd plop down with an old friend of his from his standup days as they'd read off whatever random material they'd thought up. All that went by the wayside when PI shifted to ABC; I imagine that these were ABC-mandated changes. I wonder if ABC issued very different criteria for booking guests and choosing topics. Under such circumstances, I could imagine one's patience easily wearing thin.
- Jeph
Ohhhhhhh. Lynn, not now with the quotes. Save 'em for that Bermanator. I'm still busy holding a cold compress to my head.
Hey! Wanna see a guy cry? Just check out the fluvial contours runnin' down my cheeks like a couple o'Mississippis.
...I HATES tv!
Careful, Rob. Don't hurt yourself. It takes thousands of training hours and millions of research dollars to be able to swear thusly. What's the line from Ripley's? "These people have dedicated their lives to understanding the risks involved." I'm not saying you're not up to it, I'm just worried for your health, that's all.
L.
http://www.cafepress.com/webderland
Stainless steel travel mugs, frosty mugs, tshirts, sweatshirts, tote bags! $5 of every purchase goes to the KICK Internet Piracy Fund.
Thank you for changing the course of my day into a shipwreck.
The news sucks! It utterly sucks: cancelling Politically Incorrect vexes the FUCK out of me! I've had a good time with this show for years. In concept and form, one of the few tiny niches of good tv in the network wasteland and the brain dead corporate automatons have to fuck everything up yet again.
ABC...you're a bunch of fucked fucking fucks!
Probatum est
JOSEH,
:)
Uh, I mean Joseph,
Look at the bright side, they won't have to worry about living up to some standard that can never be approached.
Family Affair was bad enough that they'd have to WORK THEIR ASSES OFF to come up with something that would disappoint those who are expecting Buffy! Jody! CISSSYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!
If you get a real writer and a cast that can carry it, it might be fun. The premise works.
HAHAHAHAHAHA I loved the show! I think I was eight or nine.
Cindy
Joseph,
I understand that Huntress is involved and supposedly a relative of Selina Kyle (Helena Kyle I think she's named). Interesting evolution of the character here.
I hope it's more "Buffy" than "VIP" in the writing. I'd love to see the Writer's Bible on the show.
Fear me, for I am Joseh, master of Lightning!
Anyhoo...
I'll admit to being curious as to whether Sherilyn Fenn can apporach the wonderful voice-over work by Arleen Sorkin. The costume would just be a bonus....
Regards,
JosePh
Sorry, Joseph, the keys got all funky on me for a second. 'Joseh'? What the hell?
JOSEH: Wow, more harlequins! Any idea if Sherilyn Fenn will be donning the same kind of costume her animated counterpart had? And WILL she say 'puddin' at some point or another?
Harley Quinn. Probably the best creation of the Batman animated series.
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
Cindy,
Agreed, but I think the problem in the 1st place is doing a remake of...that...particular piece of tripe.
Jay,
Hmmm....give me a second to find a cast list....hello! Well, these are some interesting choices. I can't wait to see Sherilyn Fenn play Harley Quinn, and Dina Meyers should be worth watching. The one who makes me nervous as hell is this Shemar Moore - let's hope he's not on the show much, as he already makes me lunge for the remote every time I pass by his inane posturing on "Soul Train." Anybody know anything about this Rachel Skarsten who will be playing Black Canary?
Regards,
Joseph
JIMINY CHRISTMAS
For a second I thought your post read that they were going to Cast Gary COLEMAN in the Brian Keith spot for Family Affair. After I recovered from my initial stroke, I thought God DAMN can you GET any farther off the mark?
I HATE BAD CASTING... worse than spoiled milk.
I would say the perfect cast would be Brian Dennehy in the Brain Keith position and John Rhys Davies as Mr. French.
Am I brilliant or WHAT?
Cindy
Joseph -
Did you see the cast list for Birds of Prey? Mmmmmmmmmmm.
And continuing the lineup changes, one good & one bad from WB:
Good:
* Birds of Prey, based on the Batman comics spinoff about three female crime fighters.
I'm really interested in this one, since this is one of my favorite current comics. Good stuff there.
Bad:
* Family Affair, a remake of CBS' 1960s comedy, starring Gary Cole in the Brian Keith role and Tim Curry replacing Sebastian Cabot as Mr. French.
Sheesh. Doesn't Gary Cole have any better offers?
Regards,
Joseph
As counter-culture shows go, PI had been a great one until Bill Maher decided his view was more important than the guests. Very early on I grew tired of the pouty, spiteful look that Bill gave just before interrupting someone and completely dismissing their point of view. It REALLY said a lot when it wasn't the sitcom star he interrupted, but someone who actually knows something about the topic discussed. It was funny and entertaining, but Bill was always there to make sure you didn't have to think too hard about anything important.
So, as it stands, ABC has my thanks. Too bad they couldn't retool it into something that balanced the entertainment with the information.
ABC Cancels "Politically Incorrect"
This was posted on yahoo news today. Guess ABC will be Politically Correct from now on!
Washu,
SheeEEEEEeeek.
FAISAL,
I sent that information.
Cindy
Lynn,
Here's a page where you can search for sellers of the book, but none will come up. What will come up is a link "Search at a local library," which enables you to see where the closest copy is.
Regards,
Joseph
Lynn,
Frankly, much as I'd love to get my hands on a copy of the Codex, I have to be sympathetic to a publisher here. How many people do you think they could promote such a book to?
Oh, and for those who missed earlier conversations, here's a description of the book with some fantastic images:
http://www.io.com/~iareth/codindx.html
Regards,
Joseph
Mrs. Ellison:
Great Rabbit Hole! Thank you for the nightly ninja story raids. By the way, the silly credits are a favorite part of the Rabbit Hole for me.
Back under my rock,
Bill
Will someone please explain to me why the "CODEX SERAPHINIANVS" hasn't been reprinted? Would this actually drive down the value of the collectible original copies?
Frustrated beyond knowing,
L.
Actually, Forrester, my words DON'T synch with my mouth. It's quite disturbing. Be glad you haven't met me in person...yet.
Bwahaha.
"Look! It is Godzilla!"
"No! It is Harlan Ellison-san! Run!"
LYNN: What, you think I would actually watch the DUBBED versions?
ROB: Okaaaaay, take a good long look at Electro's costume again and honestly, truthfully tell me the first word that comes to your mind.
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
HARLAN AND JOSEPH: Besides, I'm pretty sure that a copy of Deadpool #61 is indeed sitting on a shelf at work. I'll find out Wednesday when I go in and send it along.
RE: SPIDERMAN -- the one real big gap in my willing suspension of disbelief was the moment when all the New Yorkers begin throwing things at the goblin and yelling. Not one of them, NOT ONE, used the word "Fuck." Obviously, those were not real New Yorkers.
M
Harlan,
You're quite welcome.
Joseph
HARLAN to JOSEPH FINN:
Thanks, kiddo, but I only need the one issue, DEADPOOL #61. Buying the whole run at e.bay price would be wasteful. I can wait for a single copy to come down the pike. Not a matter of life and/or death. It's just a comic book.
Thanks muchly, inanycase.
Yr. pal, Harlan
"Lynn - Monday, May 13 2002 14:43:4
"Lil' Washu~ 'Much regards'? I've heard of warm regards, best regards, kind regards, but *much* regards? Huh? Have the Anime subtitles finally eaten away the English language portion of your brain?::wink::L."
Lynn - and when he speaks, do the words synch with his mouth?
Lil' Washu~ "Much regards"? I've heard of warm regards, best regards, kind regards, but *much* regards? Huh? Have the Anime subtitles finally eaten away the English language portion of your brain?
::wink::
L.
Alex,
No, I saw the multi-Hulks. I didn't read them though
Jay,
It was the hospital scene I first posted about and laid into with a vengeance. Does anyone here read MY comments?
Rob,
I take it you missed Peter David's brilliant run on The Hulk. He reimagined the brute as one part of a multiple personality, or, rather, three parts, with Banner himself as a fourth. Banner's father plays a major role in the brutalization of young Bruce. The multiple personality angle had appeared before, but no one examined it and ran with it like Peter David did. One of the high points of the eighties, in comics.
--Alex
Washu,
There is a fantastic recent Neil Gaiman book entitled "Harlequin Valentine" that might be in your line. You can ask your local bookseller or comic book store about it, but here's the description page at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/156971620X/qid=1021321754/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_71_1/102-7598785-2344100
Regards,
Joseph
HARLAN:
I actually like being called either 'Little Washu' or 'Benjamin', but not a hybrid of the two. Essentially, I reserve my real title for more down 'n' dirty matters. 'Little Washu' allows me to talk about, oh, the communist underpinnings of 'The Smurfs' without waking up in the morning feeling like a different kind of harlequin. (Imagine King Lear's Fool minus the wit.)
Thank you for sorting me out. And I must apologize from the bottom of my soul for the 'sci-fi' connection. I mentioned 'cyborg' off the top of my head (the top of my head is liable to kill off the rest of my body someday) as a means to ponder whether the Timekeeper is something less than human. Your statement that the Ticktockman is indeed 100% homo sapien is ironic in retrospect. I suppose it was the 'mask' detail that distracted me and I didn't make the more obvious conclusion that it was the Timekeeper's attempt to make himself MORE than human to intimidate the likes of Everett C. Marm.
Harlequins are fascinating to me, and yet there are amazingly few resources for research about them in my college library AND on the internet. I'd love to absorb more about them.
Much regards,
Benjamin A.A. Winfield
DAN -
I did see that problem, too. Perhaps Koepp knew he had already written a killer Thanksgiving scene that conveniently revealed Parker's secret ID and didn't want to spoil a scene so painstakingly constructed. :)
ROB -
It wasn't just me, but many of the people in the theater found themselves a little antsy during the hospital scenes while waiting for Spidey to go kick some Goblin ass. Spidey ALSO suffers from a case of tenative heroism. He WAITS, even after May gets her attack, he doesn't set out to find the Goblin. He hangs out and waits for him to strike again.
IN ANY CASE -
Now, this may be another stretch in the whole comic book logic protocol but say I'm a janitor at OsCorp. I know there's a glider in Area 51 1/2 being worked on by the military. I was the guy who cleaned up after somebody killed the main scentist in charge of testing. I wonder if any of these computers would have told anyone who was the test subject? Oh, and after the military leaves Oscorp for the rival corporation, some dink flying the glider from Oscorp blows through with pumpkin bombs and kills a bunch of people. Just as Bob the Janitor, I'm wondering: "Perhaps someone from my company is responsible?" Of course if I ignore that thought and continue with the beer and pork rind dinner, I'm sure to make the connection when the same guy shows up in Times Square and picks - out of thousands of people - the Board of Directors of OsCorp who had just fired Norman Osborne. While I'm making out my resume, I put a call into Detectives Logan and Brisco with a tip that perhaps Norman Osborne has been having a bad week.
Just more problems I find. Sorry to pee in the cornflakes of those who loved the flick, but I have higher standards for the writing.
Harlan,
Sorry - make that 3.99 for the four issues. eBay can be a wonderful resource for recent back issues.
Regards,
Joseph
Harlan,
There is an auction for Deadpool #61-64 (Funeral For a Freak #1-4) on eBay at the moment, asking price 9.99, ending in a couple of days. I'm quite willing to win the auction and then send the comics to you, if that would be helpful.
Regards,
Joseph
Dan,
I think ALL of us spotted and acknowledged gaffes in the film like you cited. I was generous about many of them - too much so , probably - because of the merits. But the Koepp/Raimi team, frankly, often has this kind of sloppy disregard for story logic. I have very mixed feelings about both.
The script IS uneven, with story implausibilities (like the convenient GG concurrent origin) but unlike one person posted here the pace was properly offset between longer, quieter moments (if ONLY some had been used more to their advantage!)and actions scenes.
HARLAN to BENJAMIN WASHU:
There are NO robots/cyborgs/simulacra/androids/aliens/men in black virtuals/ in "'Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktockman."
The Master Timekeeper is just a human being. That's the point of it all. Human beings do what he does, to one another, all the time. It is a simple story, with a minimum of "sci-fi" crap in it. It is another version of NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, if you will.
Harlan Ellison
HARLAN TO MICHAEL D. BLUM:
The five comics arrived today. Many many thanks!
You're correct, of course, as to the size of my collection; and that it stretches back to the '40s. What I AM having an almost impossible time locating is an issue of DEADPOOL #61, from a few months ago; and copies of the newsstand versions of TALES OF THE MUTANTS, MARVEL KNIGHTS, PUNISHER and the two/three other dual-published versions that were sold only through Target or K-Mart or somesuch kinds of outlets. If you have any, or know of someone who has them for sale, let me know and I'll give you specific issue numbers.
And thank you ever so much for the offer of assistance in filling in these blanks.
Yr. pal, Harlan
Washu,
Hmmm. You spattered me with mixed feelings:
We're s'oitenly in agreement on the one-villain-per-Marvel flick. But your variables are truly troubling (man, you can tell this is a boring day for me). I don't remember Electro being too pathetic; he was among the more brazen. I do remember good stories focused on Parker's hassles built around Electro's li'l affronts (incidentally, I always dug Marvel's tradition of multi-issue storylines and multiple subplots). Likewise, I don't remember the Lizard being self-pitying (Conners, yes. He had good reason to be...I mean how would YOU feel?); he was a perennial ego-maniac boasting of his superior strength. And Sandman was among the most obnoxious snots to hang in the neighborhood. He was NEVER self-pitying; practically from a fetus in Big House U.S.A.
The Hulk: I don't think Abominiation was goofy. I dug him as a true annoyance. I did consider the Leader corny.
But Banner's father: what did HE have to do with Bruce's fate?
Re: Spider-Man
Possibly I've missed this, but with all the discussion about Spider-Man I've yet to see anyone comment on what I think is the story's MAJOR gaffe, i.e., GG paralyzes Spidey and whisks him away to have a private conversation about ruling the "Empire" together, yet GG doesn't even think to remove Spidey's mask at that time. No, that little revelation has to wait for the Thanksgiving scene because revealing it when GG has Spidey in his clutches would ruin all that is to follow. For this reason, I'm wondering if the paralysis scene was added after most of the film was shot. It seems too obvious a gaffe to have been overlooked before the film was shot. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Hey, does this mean I have the makings of being a super villain since I'm obviously more intelligent than a crazed, steroidal maniac?
I tend to side with Jay on Spider-man's appeal. I don't like repetitive torture of a character for the purposes of melodrama. Buffy (sorry for the mention, Buffy-haters) this year has the stink of certain eras of Spider-man upon it. You know, the ones in which everyone close to Peter gets killed or maimed or humiliated or cloned, in which Peter gets maimed or fired or poked with pointy sticks again and again and again and again and again and again and his clone does too and he's thrown out into the street and he's got six arms and Aunt May needs another full-body transplant and oh, no, Spidey burned his dinner again too and Galactus ate his apartment and the Hulk squashed his car and then pooped on the seat and hey, Daredevil, don't come to me with your problems, dagnabit.
I don't need my fantasy characters to be problem-free--far from it. But humiliating and torturing old Spidey over and over again strikes me as bad story-telling. If vicarious serial masochism turns your crank, then fine--it's pretty much an opinion thing.
Jon
JAY: Hmmm. So you believe the film's narrative may have been structured better if Spider-Man or the Green Goblin had come before each other as opposed to the same time? I think I might agree with you on that...the timing of Norman's transformation into GG at a different point of Peter's transformation into Spidey would have made sense.
ROB: I really think the Spider-Man movies should make an effort to keep the strategy of one villian per flick. No matter how hard one may try to organically fuse a second baddie into a film structure, it ultimately becomes superfluous and dead weight. Besides, the majority of Spider-Man's villians are either A. too pathetic to be main adversaries (Electro) or B. tragic, self-pitying wusses (The Lizard, Sandman).
ANG LEE'S THE HULK: What can I say? I'm very interested in the development thus far of the project. I like the idea of Bruce's father being the villian of the piece, even though in the comics he was dead before the series even started. Bruce's dad, I think, was far more disturbing and frightening than the standard goofy supervillians a la the Leader and the Abomination. Brian Banner was partially, if not solely responsible for the creation of the Hulk within Bruce's psyche.
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
LITTLE WASHU -
Re: Removing Sticks from Our Butts. I must have missed the semester of classes that clarified what failures in logic are acceptable and which should be nitpicked within a thread of the material. All I can tell you is there are elements that I can digest and others that scream "PRODUCER TOLD WRITER TO MAKE IT FIT!!" At least in the original Batman, there was talk of Bats being around for a bit before Jack Napier fell into a boiling vat of Plot Development. I just find it lazy when relationships are forced because they fit a desired effect or contain characters that "must" be involved.
ROB -
I dunno, man. Spiderman hit me because he never let the bad guys see him sweat. It had conflict as necessary in all stories and his conflicts were far more real than others, but I was always charged by his on-the-job energy despite missing Aunt May's meatloaf and his date with Gwen and MJ at the House of Whacks. :)
I'm trying to wake up here so I'm going to babble a bit more (if I lie back on that bed yonder I'm gonna fall asleep again; 'n I have ta be oughtta here in an hour). So here's more bullshit:
Parker's woes, tragedies, losses and public cry for his blood: I hope the sequel goes much, much further with ALL of that.
I just read the sequel is to feature both Doc Ock and the Lizard. Given the relative complexity of the character I think it's a mistake bringing in two baddies (even if they too are tragic characters). More likely to get bogged in extraneous action at the expense of character. For once the dictum, "the villain is more interesting than the hero" doesn't apply.
The issue of his web-shooters: yeah, that should wake me up. They got rid of them entirely and I wouldn't have done that. I approve of the mutagenic angle but the web-shooters could have been devised to control and vary range better. So devising them still would have made sense and it would've reinforced for viewers the inventiveness and brains Parker had.
Read a bit about Ang Lee's Angle on the upcoming 'Hulk' movie. Sounds like he's being very theme-oriented, which is encouraging. He's getting rid of the gamma bomb element in the origin story; I just hope there's no semblance to the Ferrigno tv series. I hated that show, man. And isolating the trigger of Banner's transformation to anger is lame; in the comic, he only needed to get excited and things would get out of control. That made it scarey. I remember anytime the military finally got a hold of Banner, he'd start distressing, "...pulse is pounding..." and Ross would cry out, "...oh, shit. The needle! Fer Godsake, get the NEEDLE!" Poor guy was ALWAYS being sedated.
...ok, I'm going back to bed.
Washu,
You think Harry should have been minimized?
I think he was critical; his link between Parker and Osborn would be catalytic in a love/hate friendship. This is the stuff of ironic tragedy, man.
Just found out that my cartoonist friend and his girlfriend are extras in the _Spider-man_ wrestling sequence. I told him to make sure to put it on his resume as 'Star of Spider-man.'
How's this for typewriter stuff?
In Chicago, Mobile-Obil died and [Neil] Young--scanning the classifieds for a new set of wheels--found Pearl, a $400 black 1954 Cadillac that burned oil by the case. Perched atop the jump seat in the back was an old Underwood typewriter on which guests were invited to share their thoughts. "We always kept paper in it," said Mazzeo. "Anybody could go sit down, read a paragraph of what somebody had written and then take off from there. It just kept goin' and goin'." The Never-ending Novel's main contributor was [Neil] Young...pages of Young's ramblings (including lyrics for such songs as "Daughters," "Star of Bethlehem," and "Bad News") exist from this time... -- From _Shakey_ by Neil Young and James McDonough, 2002.
Cheers,
Jon
Jay,
" Spiderman doesn't endure because he's troubled and broke all the time. He's INTERESTING because of it, but it's the JOY and the FUN of his heroics that make him work."
O'no. That I TOTALLY disagree with. Generations get attached to him precisely because of the clinging webs of his daily problems and worries. That IS what makes him endure.
"Wow...can you imagine getting bit by a mutated spider on the same day your best friend's dad subjects himself to psychotropic steroids so he can better control the attack glider he happens to be working on for the military?"
Jay, sometimes some of us have to remove the sticks from our butts and allow jumps in coincidence/logic to just enjoy the film as a whole. If the story's at least PARTIALLY good, I don't have many qualms.
Although I have to agree on the 'Harry Osborn' angle (spelled 'Osborn', no 'e', fellas). He should have been a far more minor character, alotting more screen time to the conflict between Spider-Man and the Green Goblin.
Ah, well. STAR WARS EPISODE II opens shortly, and we'll see if that little punk Anakin Skywalker can knock the big, scary spider out of his No. 1 position at the box office.
REPENT, HARLEQUIN: Just re-read Harlan's story, and it just struck me how vague the description of the Ticktockman really is. Other than mention of a 'mask', the details are sketchy, deliberately I guess. Is he human? Is he a cyborg? Or is he something else entirely? It'd be great to see some opinions on this.
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
HEY Faisal,
Making it into the semi-finals in the Chesterfield is quite an accomplishment. Everybody and his DOG sends something in so the field must be enormous! I will be pulling for you from Texas, hoping that you win this time around.
A friend of mine just sent me an email on a new screenwriting competition. He got it from his producer last week. If you'd be interested I could send you the information.
Right now I'm trying to get my tiger whipped into shape in time to make the deadline for the Heart of Texas Screenwriter's competition at the Austin Film Festival.
Cindy
Spiderman's biggest problem, to me, was its inconsistent energy level. It had great energy in many of Spidey's scenes, but then slowed down quite a bit often too long. Given the end of the film, Peter's veiled overtures to MJ at the hospital seem a little pointless. By then we KNEW he was in love with her, but it would have been far more fulfilling if she had come around to him without the whining hearts and flowers.
Now, I'm not against hearts and flowers, but it was not the time or place to stop the movie. The Goblin's just laid the smackdown on his Auntie, knows his secret ID and is coming for him at any moment, BUT...he made sure to take the time to goo-goo the redhead. Then Harry comes in and, PFFFT!, it's over.
The whole relationship with Harry Osborne was forced. Harry was deluding himself and MJ was clearly uninterested. Perhaps what Norman said about her at Thanksgiving was correct? In any case, the triangle doesn't work because you know there's no competition. It's a convenient device to keep all the characters revolving around Parker and we're supposed to say "Wow...can you imagine getting bit by a mutated spider on the same day your best friend's dad subjects himself to psychotropic steroids so he can better control the attack glider he happens to be working on for the military?"
I think my biggest beef with the film - a week down the road - is that Spidey could have ended on such a high. Yeah, he's got problems and conflicts, but that whole "it is my gift...my curse..." was so Batman cum Darkman that it stole much of the joy I felt watching him hit his stride. It may sound Hollywood, but I SO MUCH wanted to see him swing off into the skyline more than wandering off a brooding, troubled hero. Spiderman doesn't endure because he's troubled and broke all the time. He's INTERESTING because of it, but it's the JOY and the FUN of his heroics that make him work.
THAT's what's been bugging me since opening day.
Alex,
If you have a copy of The Typewriter Story (I think that was the Two Jakes original title) I would be very interested to know more about it. I know the script has got around but I never succeeded in finding a copy.
With Chinatown though, it is acknowledged by Towne that Polanski did so much development on the script, he could have asked for and got co-writers credit.
Best.
FAQ
Knowing how many baseball fans there are on this board, I'd be remiss if I didn't post this link: http://buytheexpos.poptopix.com/
Wanna co-own a Major League team? I know *I'M* pledging some money ...
Alex Jay: Yep, Pronzini's.
Culinary detectives: SCTV did a bit on this twenty years ago. The show was called "Wok on the Wild Side" and featured John Candy as the crime-solving cook. And then there's "Mohicans Galore."
Jon
FAISAL: Bear in mind that the TWO JAKES which was filmed bears almost no resemblance to the film Towne wrote, despite the screenwriting credit they were forced to give him. Still, Towne's recent output seems a huge artistic dropoff from the stuff he did back in the Seventies like CHINATOWN and THE LAST DETAIL, or even all the uncredited script doctoring he did for decades.
JON: There are a couple Nameless Detectives--do you mean Bill Pronzini's?
Actually, speaking of decades-separated detective stories, I would dearly love to see a series of films for either Max Allan Collins' Nathan Heller or Stuart R. Kaminsky's Toby Peters ...
And if anyone could do a convincing portrayal, I would kill to see a television version of Ron Gou;art's conception of Groucho Marx, Master Detective.
Actually, I'm rather surprised that televison hasn't picked up on the potential of the burgeoning "culinary mystery" subgenre. Imagine every episode bookended by a recipe demonstration--or each one started with a recipe demo that sets the theme for the show.
Or even a show: "Iron Chef--Super Hero"!
ZOË: "Gosh, I haven't seen that show in years!" Gods, but I'm old. A codger am I. Lord save me from days to come, when a wave of Pokemon nostalgia sweeps the nation ...
Re: Spiderman. I enjoyed it. I thought it was faithful (more-or-less) in spirit to the original story. I found it much more rewarding cinematic experience than any of the Superman or Batman films. Before discussions about plot and character motivations get too heated, I do think it is important to remember that we are talking about adaptations of COMIC BOOK CHARACTERS here.
The gentleman who referred to the film as "corporate excrement", ... , using his definition you would have to apply that tag to every movie ever produced by Hollywood, even the so-called "classics".
Cindy, yes, I certainly wanted to see what was going to happen, that's for sure. I guess that's why I was a bit disappointed....as I said, more of the dinner-scene stuff and less of the teen horror stuff and I would have been intrigued throughout.
As for the humor....yes, more lines like your rewrite "God DAMN, Jerome! Couldn't you just shoot her, did you have to burn my fucking house?"...now THAT's fucking funny!
Good Luck! -TODD
P.S.....you got me on Frankenstein and Dracula except for one thing...it's a different world in today's film biz. But hey, ya never know.
Cindy,
Thanks for that. Last year I got through to the semi-finals. This year I feel my application is a lot stronger so we'll see...
FAQ
Noooo Todd, darlin',
You haven't. You had some valid points, some that stung a bit and some that I disagreed with, but NO you haven't offended in any way. I ASKED for your opinion and you gave it. I appreciate that!
I Reeeeeeeeeeeeeally believe that you read it all in one sitting NOT to keep with the pace of the movie, but because it didn't BORE you.
It really WAS my intention to (as you put it) "just present a rip-roaring horror flick, not deep-thoughts-about-life-as-we-know-it."
When Ingena ate the bird at Chalmer's funeral that was a clue. BUT if you didn't feel uncomfortable AND like laughing then I missed my mark.
As for the title-- hmmmm, you mean like Frankenstien or Dracula?
As for the ending.. I am having to rethink that as well. I might be pissed at the clear lack of payoff if I was in the audience.
You DO have a point about the burning of the house. I laughed out loud when I read what you wrote about the gun-- you're RIGHT!!!!!!!!
I WOULD be pissed if I had been Hayden.
Okay REWRITE--
" God DAMN, Jerome! Couldn't you just shoot her, did you have to burn my fucking house?
I LOVE IT.
No Todd, no offense... you're a sweetie for reading it. But didn't you find it the least bit entertaining? Weren't you curious about what was going to happen next?
:)
Cindy
ROGER -- I haven't seen the new Woody Allen yet, so it's entirely possible that the floating boom mikes were integral to the comedy and whatnot ... but I doubt it. The people (or person) (or whatever you wanna call the boobs who tend to work at movie theaters) you have to thank for the boom mikes are the employees of the theater who botched up the projection. The boom mikes are there all the time, but they're supposed to be cut off by the top of the screen. (I'm a little woozy right now, so I hope I'm not oversimplifying or offering up a wrong-minded explanation. If so, sorry.) Next time it happens, go complain. You are entirely within your rights, and it is a problem that very easily can be fixed.
We interrupt this paper-writing frenzy to post!
Alex Jay- Gosh, I haven't seen that show in years! My favorite 'insert' into the beginning song was, "Animany, totally insaney, talk like Jo-ohn Wayney, we're Animaniacs!" I of course adore Yakko and Wakko (Helloooo Nurse!). Dot /was/ the coolest, though... and thus I'm sure I open myself for a beating.
John Stover- I will most definitely have to get a few of those you mentioned. I must agree with Joseph, though, I'm hoping your tongue (for your sake) remains intact.
Having read several books in the past two days (cramming), I've decided my vocabulary needs expanding. Anyone know a good, effective, fun way to do this? I find myself using the same verbage all the time and it's annoying - here I am reading the great weavings of words, but far too often I run into words that I can glean the meaning of, just from surrounding words. However, if I were asked to define the word directly? No dice.
--Ltd
--Zoë Rose
Cindiana....I hope I haven't offended.
-TODD
I received my latest issue of The Rabbit Hole yesterday, terrific job Susan. What a kick to read some of Harlan's earliest stories, thanks for digging them out.
I went to the new Woody Allen film yesterday and enjoyed it greatly. My only question/comment is what was up with the boom mic coming into the picture so often, it had to happen nearly a dozen times? Some of the time it was in the shot so long you could see it moving back and forth between the actors speaking.It got more than a little distracting as I was trying to enjoy the movie. Bye for now, Roger
FAISAL,
I'm working my ass off right now to rewrite.
XANADU THANK YOU!!!!!!!! Without your help I wouldn't have noticed the bumps that need grinding and the amputations that are clearly in order.
But I'm leavin' the bovine surrogacy stuff, I think it's a cool idea and the sooner science sets to work on making it a reality the better for women.
LOL!
FAISAL, I hope you whip 'em in the Chesterfield competition.
Cindy
Faisal: No argument here about Chinatown. The Two Jakes reminds me a lot of another belated sequel, Texasville. Neither of those films is awful, but they're stuck living up to their predecessors. A third film would be interesting, as I imagine they'd have to set it in the 1950s unless they plan to CGI Nicholson's face. Maybe Towne could talk to Walter Mosley about the logistics of writing decade-separated adventures of private detectives. Hell, maybe Jake Gittes and Easy Rawlins could team up and have wacky adventures together.
A friend who teaches a popular culture class was asking me what contemporary movies would work well with _The Maltese Falcon_ on a course list. That part of the course loosely consists of 'hardboiled' and 'British' detective fiction (_The Murder of Roger Ackroyd_, "The Adventure of the Speckled Band" and a VI Warshawski novel have showed up on the list before). The best suggestion I had for really recent films was _Memento._ _Chinatown_, _The Long Goodbye_, _Heaven's Prisoners_ and _LA Confidential_ also came up in discussion. Are there any tv shows about private investigators left (excepting A&E's Nero Wolfe and Spenser series)? It's sort of weird how all tv detection has shifted into the realm of various police experts.
Now a Matt Scudder or a Nameless Detective series...or film.
Jon
Jon Stover: Are you from Nova Scotia? Do I recall you mentioning something about vacationing in Nova Scotia? Because, coincidentally, my friend and I are thinking about going there in August for a vacation...Boston to Bar Harbor to NS to Montreal back to Bingoland. Do you have any hot tips, dos and don'ts, or must-sees? We were thinking about the ferry from Bar Harbor to Nova Scotia, then maybe to Prince Edward Island and/or Cape Breton. Any info from an insider would be greatly appreciated. If you like, you can e-mail me.
Thanks,
Bermanator
HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY to all those who are, have or act like mothers!
Jon - Yup good old Richard Sylbert passed away. I think he was the only Production Designer to become a studio head and he also worked on the classic Chinatown.
Now what a great movie Chinatown is, despite it being molested by screenwriting workshops the world over (i.e. Syd Field), it is truly a wonderful film that has lasted extremely well. With Polanski coming back maybe its time for the third Jake Gittes script (Towne had planned a trilogy and a third script had been written) to go infront of cameras... anything to make up for the extremely flawed The Two Jakes.
FAQ
Jon,
I fucked up on the Batman thing; 'parently that was Washu I was "straightening out".
Who keeps track of who posts what on this site, anyway?
Jon,
"I'd like it if Frank drew a clearer explanation of what consititutes what in his aesthetic universe"
That would be like waiting for a mannequin to express free thought.
Incidentally, the first Batman far exceeds Burton's uneven sequel.
Lurk,
Like Frank you appear to have exceptional ability at missing the main idea. He is entitled to call any film he chooses excrement, stool, Montezuma's revenge or fetid road kill. It was the ludicrous posturing of being a cultural elite that made me put on my boot. Considering some of the putrid stuff he's touted here at some points himself - and is like-wise entitled to - he's in no position to lay a condescending tone on Joseph or anyone else.
Jon,
I hope that no young ladies cut off your tongue in the upcoming year.
Joseph
Zoe Umlaut: Oddly enough, part of tonight's bar conversation involved the always popular 'how old are you?' bit. When I said I was 33 and expected to be dead before I was 34 (jokingly, sort of), someone said 'I hear a lot of that -- it's a Christ thing, right?' My reply was, 'No, I'm expecting to be killed by an Ellen Jamesian any day now.'
Good old Garp. _Cider House Rules_, _A Widow for One Year_, _A Prayer for Owen Meany_ and _Hotel New Hampshire_ are also mucho enjoyable out of the Irvings I've read. "The Imaginary Girlfriend", a memoir, is also very good -- wrestling and anecdotes about writing classes with Kurt Vonnegut. In the _Trying to Save Piggy Sneed_ collection in the States, I believe. (In Canada, "The Imaginary Girlfriend" initially appeared as a standalone novella-length paperback.)
Defending Frank. Sort Of: If Frank had said something about the original Lee/Ditko Spider-man comics being dismissable, I'd say take his ears off. He took a shot at the movie, and I don't see any overarching problem with his take (besides the dismissiveness toward the tastes of people who do indeed have good taste). The movie does spend $120 million producing something with far less wit, pyrotechnics, and angst than the best parts of (in my case) the Ditko/Lee run. Insert 'Stracinski/Romita Jr,/Conway/Andru,Lee/Romita, etc. here, depending on taste. There is something perverse about the idea that the best Batman movies show less writerly competence than an average issue of the title written by David V. Reed or Bob Haney in the 1970s (and that's not a slam on Haney or Reed) or that the Superman movie wasn't half as well-written as a good Pasko or Bates issue of Superman from the same era. I'd like it if Frank drew a clearer explanation of what consititutes what in his aesthetic universe -- as briefly explained, his art universe would seem to exclude comics altogether, but I don't think that's what Frank was trying to say.
Cheers,
Jon
Alex,
Yeah, I would have brought up Peter Parker #33, but wasn't sure how canonical it might be - still, how funny is the mascot scene? Now that's comedy!
Regards,
Joseph
"Peter Parker" is synonymous with "underdog." As such, what team COULD he root for (within the confines of New York, that is) save the Mets?
The Parkers are Metropolitans fans for sure, as shown most recently in the excellent PETER PARKER: SPIDER-MAN #33 by Jenkins and Buckingham.
(May always struck me as an Indians fan, though ...)
Yankees. Feh.
("Murderers Row" and the DiMaggio-through-Mantle years notwithstanding)
DOT, DOT, & DOT, INC.: Whaddaya got against Yakko and Wakko?
Harlan- Dangit, you know, every time I write a message with your name in it, or to you, I wonder if I should be saying Mr. Ellison, or Harlan Ellison, or HE, or Mister HE, or... you get the point. Someone wrote in a posting awhile back that someone, elsewhere, had written something using just your first name, and that they were really immature because of it. Or something. So now I wonder each time I post - then again, I figure you'd rip into me if it bothered you. So, this posting DOES have a point - I wasn't trying to fish for a local appearance (I wouldn't do that to you! it's /still/ cold up here and they still predict snow once in awhile); I more just wanted to know if and when/where you do them. Perhaps I shall have to find out how to get one of these Rabbit Holes you speak of. I would think you do several in California, where I'll be shortly... er, lecture or speak, not rabbit holes. Right. Moving on.
Rick- If you tell me how to access my archives and other such page-saving files, I probably have some of those posts. I never clean out my cache or whatever (why does that sound so dirty? Ah well), so perhaps I can be of some help?
--Dot, Dot, and Dot, Inc
--Zoë Rose
PA Berman,
Thank you for your correction on the geographical division of Yankees/Mets fans. I always thought it was a little tighter than what you have noted, but obviously I was wrong. However, I still believe the Parkers are Mets fans.
Rob,
Despite our occasional differences, you're a mensch.
Regards,
Joseph
DEAR ZOE DOT DOT:
Yes, I still do lecture/speaking/platform appearances. Quite a few of them. Many take place between listings in RABBIT HOLE so you're not aware of them, perhaps. But I continue to be abysmally busy on the lecture circuit. All it takes is money.
Do not ask for specifics unless/until you have a fish on the hook, at which time an e-mail to Mr. Wyatt will net you a contact number. If that's what you had in mind.
Respectfully, Harlan Ellison
I'm gonna defend Frank on the Spider-Man issue. He has every right to call it corporate excrement, without having to forward suggestions for raising it out of the toilet bowl. That kind of take-no-prisoners polemic is what many of you find so endearing in the writings of HE. Numerous are the writings of Mr. Ellison that skewer sacred totems of pop culture, and often in language far more visceral and in tone far more "down from the mountaintop" than Frank's.
Frank,
"I do know the difference between high art and low culture".
I would say that’s easily open for debate.
Joseph has a point: there IS a condescending pungency to your posts. Invariably, you pose simplistic arguments in black and white with the smugness of a would-be savant - incredibly anal tripe - while missing the complexity of an issue entirely. If you’re going to play the role of a learned person you need to be a better actor. Debaters can’t afford to have tunnel vision.
Exempli gratia: if the Spider-Man film - one with plenty of problems to be sure - is such corporate excrement what, by your astute, discerning eye, would raise it out of the toilet bowel? How ‘bout all the other films of its genre? They’re ALL corporate. Most of the movies YOU like are corporate. Here, however, they did something new even if they didn’t take it far enough (and the script gets too loose with coincidences and so on). The main character loses out; those who are close to him either die or lead broken lives, largely due to HIS actions. That's new turf for this genre. Tobey McGuire and Willem Dafoe brought some breadth to the film’s uneven exposition. I don't care about this movie as a "romp"; I care that they brought a deeper component to the material.
The film COULD have done remarkable things with its elements and it didn’t. But it still breaks the one-dimensional mold of superhero movies before it. You don’t have to like it but to attribute your evaluation to your "high aesthetic sense" (about as high as John Ashcroft’s!) is delusional.
Joseph--re: people in Queens being Mets fans, as far as I can tell that's not really true. The boroughs don't divide up that way. My dad, for instance, grew up in Brooklyn during the heyday of the Dodgers/Yankees rivalry. Despite growing up in Bath Beach, he has always been a dyed in the wool Yankees fan. Good taste overcomes geography.
Bermanator
Frank,
Couple of things...
Where did the Vidal statements come from?
And what the hell are you talking about?? Are you doing to us what you're doing to those poor bastards on Nugent's site? That's gotta be it. You're posting to them with some of our comments like you sometimes cut and paste some sappy sonovabitch's comments from that site to this board. That can be the only logical reason you say some of the things you say. You need to read more of Faisal's posts and get a feel for what an intelligent response would be for someone with your political position.
Example: "Our leaders frankly hate actual freedom; unless that freedom is for rich people and other elites".
Hate to disillusion you, but the so-called Founding Fathers didn't want anyone to run the government but the rich people and other elites and this country was not founded with the intent of having the "people's" voice heard.
Another example: "Joseph, noone (sic) defends freedom more than me."
Really? And how do you defend freedom, Frank? Posting to this site? How do you know that a "lurker" out there isn't donning a cape and mask and protecting our freedom. I'm sure you're doing your best, Frank, but I haven't seen anything from CNN or Znet with the great things Frank Church has done to protect freedom more than anyone else.
By the way, Vidal wasn't listed as an essayist for the 9/11 book, but there was only a partial list on the Hawthorne website. Some good names out there and it appears there may actually be some varied viewpoints presented.
Hey all - Busy week last week, busy week this coming week. Finals, finals, essays, independent study follow-ups, and, yes, more finals. Then, to cap it all off, FAMILY! Augh! Family flying into town this week for the graduation/commissioning, so you understand why I'm scarce.
Quick question, that's probably answerable elsewhere but y'all are the knowledgeable ones: does HE do public appearances/readings still? I looked on the schedule but the most recent one is from last year, I think. Just curious...
Oh! and just finished "The World According to Garp" by John Irving - what a riot, what a tearjerker, and what an adventure. Enjoyed it muchly, especially how the book seemed to echo the character's (Jenny Fields, Garp, etc) views and opinions - very parallel, if that's the right word.
Enough! Back to American Lit studying!
--Truly Dotty these days,
--Zoë Rose
Joseph: When I watch Spider-man again, I'll pay better attention to how the 'When you attack...' line is delivered. I think the entirety of the line is delivered while the camera's on a few of the people on the bridge. It just seemed a bit odd.
I did keep waiting for Spider=man to Tick-like punch through a surface when he landed on it...
I believe the production designer behind the 4-colour 'look' of Dick Tracy just died, but I'm probably getting the film designation wrong for him. His efforts actually won an Oscar, I think.
Jon
JON: I'm uncertain about the 'you attack one of us, you attack all of us' line too. But I think it was in the original script before Sep. 11. I've read Peter David's novelization of the movie, and the very same scene is in there as well. Now, I'm making the assumption that the writer doing the novelization receives the 'final draft' in it's relatively raw form so that he/she can get the book to print right before the film is released. Nevertheless, both the scene and the dialogue seem superfluous, leaving room for suspicious. But since it doesn't have hardly any effect on the total film, I don't let it bug me.
I actually prefer BATMAN RETURNS over BATMAN. It seems far more 'Burton' than the first one, for a reason I can't quite put my finger on.
I pray Doctor Octopus is in the second SPIDER-MAN. Otherwise I'd only accept Harry Osborn as the Green Goblin. (James Franco was better than most critics are giving him credit for.)
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
P.S. Just saw WHITE HEAT. Top of the world, ma.
I just got back from a two-day jaunt in South Jersey (and hey, I even stopped at the Wizard World Con today in Philly to catch the Kevin Smith Q&A.....he was fun, but doesn't hold a friggin candle to Mr. Ellison as far as public speaking appearances).
Anyway, like I said, I just got back and I see that Rabbit Hole has arrived. I've just thumbed through it for two minutes and I had to run to the board and say:
that top left picture on page 5 - HOLY FREAKIN' SHIT!! SCARED THE BEJEEZUS OUT OF ME!!!!!!
I DO look forward to reading this issue, though. Thanks Susan! Even the Good Wife (the BEST wife in the world, my beautikin) was aghast at that pic. Having a good laugh like that together on a Saturday evening usually ensures a bit of the in-out before bed! No begging or anything!
And before anyone responds as expected......yes, I've taken some pretty scary pictures too! I say it all in fun!
-TODD
Faisal,
Personally, I liked "Popeye" as well. Something in me cracks up horribly when Shelley Dvuall sings "But He's Large." C'mon - is there really anything else you can say about Bluto?
Jon,
I was kind of two-faced about the whole New Yorkers on the bridge thing in "Spider-Man" as well, but I have to think it must have been done before September 11th, as the movie filmed aup through March 2001. Unless they REALLY spent some extra money (because that does include Goblin effect shots), I'm highly doubtful that was shot after 9-11.
However, this does lead me to a really geeky annoyance with the movie - a picture of Uncle Ben wearing a Yankees cap. I'll admit that I don't know everything about the New York area, but wouldn't someone living in Queens almost certainly be a Mets fan, as the Parker family has been shown to be over the years? Just annoyed the hell out of me. Then again, I'm a White Sox fan, and I live three blocks from Barad-dur.
Regards,
Joseph
I must be a bad film person but I did enjoy Popeye and Dick Tracy though I wasn't familiar with the original source material. Batman Returns I thought was much superior to the original (and they should have stayed close to Sam Hamm's script) and was more visually inventive.
A friend of mine worked on Batman while doing his GCSE's and described the sets as the best playground ever. Unfortunately, Burton always kept very close to the actors (and didn't help the performances).
Cindy - Have you got your entry to Chesterfield ready? Four days away and counting. I'm still proof reading my two scripts, three short stories and a bag of best Peruvian snowflake.
sniffle
FAQ
Little Washu:
I wouldn't exactly call me disappointed. The movie had its moments, the acting was generally good, and some of the special effects were nice. Raimi seemed to obliterate much of his 'style' that was apparent in films that include _Darkman_ and _Army of Darkness._ _Batman_, _Batman Returns_, _Dick Tracy_ and _Popeye_ are comic adaptations that convey something more than an A-Z plot structure with assorted blow-up sequences, as were _Superman_ and _The Crow._ _Spider-man_ seemed oddly bland and cobbled together. I couldn't decide whether the New Yorkers on the bridge yelling 'When you attack one of us, you attack all of us!' was a 9-11 add-in or an homage to a similar sequence in _Superman 2_ (no reason it can't be both). Some sequences were good -- the wrestling sequence was nice, although the sound mixing was a bit curious in that scene, as Bruce Campbell's lines kept getting eaten by the crowd noise. The second movie might be more interesting, and Raimi might be able to 'cut loose' a bit more. Whether that produces an interesting mess like _Batman Returns_ or a superior action-adventure movie like _Superman 2_, I dunno. I'm heartened by the reports that the writing duo who work on _Smallville_ have been hired to do the next Spider-man -- _Smallville_ is pretty close to being a 'Just Imagine...Stan Lee creating Superboy in the 1960s!' project (with the obvious caveat that Lee actually _writes_ the DC Just Imagine stuff).
Cheers,
Jon
JON STOVER: Sorry to hear you were disappointed by SPIDER-MAN. My reaction was quite the opposite. I thought it perfectly captured the operatic mood and feel of the best comic books, right down to the cheesy-yet-somehow-lovable 'WE'LL MEET AGAIN, SPIDER-MAN!!!' scream by the Green Goblin. Even though Dafoe's performance was the biggest letdown for me, I believe he did a superb job of balancing the 'tormented human being' bit with the 'hammy supervillian' bit. Then again, Dafoe was the one thing I was looking forward to the MOST in the movie, so maybe I had too much riding on ol' Willem.
As for flat movies, I don't know if you've seen the new TIME MACHINE yet, but it's so transparent you could be watching a blank screen and have as much an experience.
FRANK: We're-talking-about-Spider-Man, we're-talking-about-Spider-Man, nya-nya-nya-nya-nya...
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
Frank,
Thank you kindly for making my point about a condescending attitude better than I ever could have.
Oh, and a personal request: please lay off the name calling towards Todd, if you would. It makes you look petty.
Joseph
Something Tor editor Patrick Nielsen Hayden said on the Bruce Pelz Memoriam message board really resonates with me:
"I would like everyone in the SF world to please _stop dying_. Thank you."
Would that we had the power ...
Joseph, my point was one of relief. I mean how much can actually be said about some dumb Corporate comic book film? I thought this room had a high Aesthetic threshold? Maybe I was wrong. I have no problem with entertainment--But I do know the difference between high art and low culture. I defend Gilligans Island as entertainment, but it doesn't mean that I would talk about my little buddy in here; I may get a coconut upside the noggin.
Joseph, noone defends freedom more than me. Why do you think I read Harlan?
Regards.
Chomsky made a funny comment about human beings: He said there are two different types of humans: "Neck up" humans and "neck down" ones. But how then do we explain you Todd? Lol.
Frank,
From your post of May 10:
"Well, at least we stopped talking about the insipid Spiderman."
Now if that wasn't condescending toward a person's choice of conversation, I don't know what was.
Joseph
Joseph, what in God's name are you talking about? Someone is seeing something in one of my postings that I didn't say again. Sheesh.
---------------------
Todd, forgot to respond to your blather. The First Amendment was not given to any of us free of charge. It took years of activism, mostly by left wing types, to insure the freedoms we have so far. The bill of rights is a dead document, unless someone in government is there to insure that the law is not infringed upon. Government has tried to censor Americans ever since the beginning of the republic; and only activist groups and individual warriors have kept the spirit of freedom alive. Our leaders frankly hate actual freedom; unless that freedom is for rich people and other elites. Todd, I hope you are doing your part to insure that democracy could actually be a truism in this land. Because as of now, democracy is only on paper.
Lotto update..
Won another free ticket. From one of the two free tickets I won LAST week. What are the odds of that?
Oh, and for some reason I thought it was 2 million. It's for 24 million. That'd buy a lot of hamburger, as a fellow leaving the convenience store said to another.
Or steak, said the other fellow, laughing.
Or lawyerfish, thinks me.
H
MR. CHURCH, SIR:
Message received. All is well. We be cool.
Thank you for your response.
Respectfully, yr. pal, Harlan
I know there have been some horrible deaths in the news lately, but I'd just like to note that somone who tried to bring a little beauty into the world passed: Kevyn Aucoin. If you're not familiar with him, he was a brilliant makeup artist. Stop by a bookstore sometime and look for the book "Making Faces," where he takes various well-known women and illustrates his concept of archetypes in looks. Some fascinating, lovely work. Anyway, here's an obit that says it much better than I can:
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/story.jsp?story=293573
Regards,
Joseph
Comic book writer Robert Kanigher (Metal Men, Sgt. Rock, a lot of other work) has died at the age of 86.
Jon
Frank,
Are you always this condescending? I'll contribute to whatever discussions I like, thank you very much.
Joseph
Lynn, You are learning.
Harlan, I was of coarse making a guess based on your progressive politics, but putting words into your mouth is not altogether smart. Sorry. Boy, can't wait for the essay though.
----------
Chuck, Gore Vidal is a bullshit detecter, that is his main reason for breathing, and in doing so we all breathe a lot easier. When he says that America could welcome a "theocracy" we may laugh and say he is being overly paranoid, but if you see what 9/11 has done to civil liberties as of late, he seems to be vindicated more and more. Some facts are just too scary for the collective herd to except--to their peril.
Rick, re: Shropshire--I remember the leukemia comment vaguely. I think it was Brian who said it. Can you confirm, Brian? I think they actually got into a discussion about it, PS being very offended and Brian explaining it somehow.
re: your ring--If it were me, I'd get rid of it. Get a good price for it. When you fall in love again, buy yourself a new one. You deserve it.
Bermanator
I've been asked to pass along this sad news:
For AZ fans
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bruce Pelz: Aug. 11, 1936 - May 9, 2002
Bruce Pelz, Fanzine Archivist, Fanhistorian, Fellow of NESFA, Worldcon
Chair, "The Elephant," Fandom's Institutional Memory, passed away the
evening of May 9th, 2002.
He fainted at about 6:00 pm. Elayne Pelz, his wife, called 9-1-1, they
rushed him to the hospital. His heart stopped at the hospital. More details
will be posted as they are available.
Bruce is survived by his wife Elayne, his daughter Cecy, and innumerable
friends of all ages.
Elayne has requested that nobody try to contact her. She is secluded, she is
not taking calls, her father and Jordan are taking care of her.
When Larry Niven announced this at the LASFS meeting tonight, there occurred
the first and only instance of a spontaneous minute of silence in the club's
history, as the fans in the room sat, stunned. The meeting was immediately
adjourned. A memorial is being planned, details will be announced later.
Messages, reminiscences, et cetera may be posted to the following web
address:
http://www.lasfs.org/lasfs/bruce/
Rick: At last, a question I can answer with some authority. (seeing as I is a jeweler in real life)
Keep it - or sell it privately (ebay works). You will get squat from a dealer or a pawn shop. Even though the ring is platinum, you do not get back any of the profits made by the miner/refiner of the metal, or the miner/cutter of the diamond, or the manufacturer of the ring, or any of the distributers, or transportation costs, or the jeweler's profit.... As you can see, that's a lot of profit down the drain.
If you keep it, don't give it to your new intended - because, despite having a level, non-superstitous head on her shoulders - most girls don't want a hand-me-down on their finger unless it was grandma's or mom's after a long, happy marriage. (I know - you wouldn't tell her - but she might find out some other way - THEN the shit hits the fan...)
If you keep it and want to use it, at least reset the diamond, so no one in the family will say "Hey, that looks just like PS's* ring!" (See - she finds out some other way - previous paragraph.) And trade the platinum setting in toward the new one.
Or, you can trade the whole ring, diamond and all, toward a new one. (You should get more than the straight cash value as a trade-in) (Depending on the girl, you might bonus points for trashing the old memento...)
In any case, my advice - keep it, or sell it privately.
Xan, Xan, the diamond man.
*Previous Spouse
Tom Cruise Doing War of the Worlds
Scheduled for production in 2003, Paramount Pictures will partner with Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner's Cruise/Wagner Productions on a new film adaptation of The War of the Worlds. The studio is hoping Cruise will star in the movie.
This information is from www.sci-fi.com.
Cheers,
Kerry
This has probably been mentioned before, but there's a TERRIFIC article about the AOL suit in the May 2002 issue of SCIENCE FICTION CHRONICLE: "Stealing Ellison: A Tale of Law and Order on the Electronic Frontier," by Allen M. Steele. It is, simply put, the best explication of the case, its history and its significance for the future of copyright, that I have yet read. The article in PAGES was good; this is ten times better. Read it.
Large gobbets of Shropsy's Locus article are pretty much verbatim of the stuff he posted here in March, right down to the 'I am Harlan Ellison's biggest fan' disclaimer. I mean, shouldn't there be a 'Workshopped at Ellison Webderland' credit on the article? Or at least a '50% new material!' tag on the article?
Jon
RICK,
I have a daughter that found it wildly amusing to chuck hers out the window going 70 MPH on the I-70 between Glenwood Springs and New Castle Colorado. But that was only after a local pawn shop informed her that her "diamond" was a CZ. She said, " I was wondering how much you would give me for my diamond." This after the bastard ran out on her with her two little girls.
The guy looks at it and says, " Sorry, we only buy REAL diamonds."
"'Scuse me?"
" This is a CZ."
She called me later to relate the incident. I said," Oh no.. did you cry?"
She said, " No, it pissed me off."
She said that on the way home she threw it out the car window and said it felt GREAT."
Your situation, Rick is different. You have platinum. Put it on EBAY! Let some other person buy it.. but set a healthy reserve you don't want to give away platnum.
Sorry to hear about your situation, but look at it this way if you end a bad one it will open up the possibility of a GOOD one!
Where would our Harlan be if the wrong ones hadn't moved out of the way so he could find his true mate? All of the bad in a former marriage will help you to treasure the good in the RIGHT one to come.
Cindy
Re:
Gore Vidal. It is really too bad that Vidal can't even get arrested when it comes to getting a mainstream outlet for his opinions. I hope that maybe, possibly he might be in the book of essays on 9/11. I don't always agree with everything he says, but I think we need to hear from someone like him right now. Of the writers alive today, I place him near the top of our most stellar talents. I don't know how many times I've re-read his LINCOLN. We may not like everything he says, but we NEED people like him. Especially now. Jack Warner once called James Cagney a "Proffessional Againster". Every group needs proffessional againsters, people who, from personal conviction say, "Wait a minute! Are we SURE we want to do this? I'M not so sure, and this is why..."
There is no organized campaign to suppress Mr. Vidal, and I think he would agree. It's just that most of what we have lumped together as "the media" is run by a bunch of dickless wonders who care only about the bottom line and maximum sales. Marketing has taken over the world.
As for you-know-who; you know, the one who wrote that Locus article, I agree we should not feed him. As for aspersions cast in his direction, I think I remember someone suggesting he catch some disease or other, but I remember it being a SUGGESTION, and no anthrax was sent in the mail. We are admirers of Harlan Ellison, who has a very colorful and dramatic vocabulary, both in print as well as in speech. We all admire his way with words, and try to craft our own, unique way of expressing ourselves as eloquently. If I were to verbally slay someone, my style would be very different, my voice quiet, my eyes narrowed. That's how I would like to write. Anyone who comes away from the relatively mild reception we gave that Slopdiddle fellow, screaming 'bloody murder', is simply a woosie.
In reference to the cat postings, especially cats and catnip, I remember a cat we had named Sirdar, who was a catnip teetotaler. We exposed him to this feline controlled substance because he was clawing some of our furniture, and my parents got him a scratching post. True to his feline nature, he ignored it. Probably didn't know what that strange, alien object was. My parents then tried to attract him to the post by spraying it with catnip. Apparently, it must have been the catnip equivalent of Alcapulco Gold, as Sirdar got stoned out of his mind.
He hung onto the scratching post, licking it, a glazed look in his eyes, bliss on his little kitty face. "You guyz're GREAT! I jus' love you guyzzzzz."
After that he wouldn't touch catnip, or the scratching post ever again.
Alex Jay,
Evergreen is my old home town from my jr. high and high school years. It's a beautiful place, that once put itself on the map for refusing to host the winter olympics. The town is squeezed into a small valley, my house was in the suburbs. No way could the olympics be squeezed into that narrow valley. Denver wanted it there because they would have gotten the tax revenue. Mayor McNicholls was very upset. Tough.
Rick,
Hang onto the ring. If the divorce goes well, it will be a memento and a possible source of ready cash. If it goes badly, it would make a nice trophy over the mantlepiece.
Faisal and CEP,
The impression I get is that a 2,000 pound laser-guided bomb is a lousy 'surgical' instrument. It's time to stop using them as a substitute for a real national policy; something that both Clinton and Georgie Porgie are guilty of.
Harlan,
After your last two postings, I am REALLY looking forward to the 9/11 essay book. I've just GOTTA know what's in it, not only for your essay, but for all the others. Brain food. Gotta have it.
Chuck
Folks,
Shropshire is an energy creature. He wrote that line because he feeds off the negative energy it generated. Trust me, he's coming here every hour on the hour, chortling to himself over our search for whatever remarks he exagerated in his piece. He's having a wonderful time. Never has one man been so happy to be insulted. Cut him off, folks; starve him.
Harlan, delighted to read of your new essay. I'm looking forward to it.
Night, all.
--Alex
ADDENDUM:
I re-read your post, Mr. Church. You suggested Harlan "may" be on our side. I wanted to get the wording precise. I wouldn't want to provide a side-pocket for your reply to get shot into. The words may have been askew, the meaning was not.
Mr. Ellison
HARLAN TO FRANK CHURCH:
Sir. This may be why you get in such hot water with Lynn and others at this site: You presume. You posit a theory, then begin treating it as if it were Obiter Dicta, fait accompli, received gospel. All from wild surmise. You read my post... that I've completed an essay on 9/11; you have not the smallest, vaguest, most minuscule idea what that essay contains, nor what position I may manifest on the matters attendant on the events of 9/11...because I have purposely NOT made even the least of public statements, not of any kind, not here, not elsewhere. Yet you tell Faisal that apparently I am on "your side." I don't even know what your side is. I am not on it, however. Nor am I on the side against it. I have been studiedly silent. Till this essay.
You may read it when it appears, and discover WHY I have been silent.
But until that time, sir, with politeness, I ask you not to align me as suits your needs. I am out of this. Period.
With annoyance, Harlan Ellison
Sorry, that's SPACEIMAGING.COM
Terraserver.com and spaceimagine.com had orbital shots of Kabul just after 9/11. Shortly thereafter, the pictures of Kabul were removed. Wonder why?
Perhaps they are back. If not, I can provide the larger image of that region from November 2001.
For that I'm truly sorry. I wish there'd been another way. It makes me even madder at the leaders whose decisions put those people in the line of fire. Western and Eastern alike. Maybe they can take their revenge and rebuild at the same time with opium money. The closer I scrutinize the situation, the less solutions I see. And it leaves me feeling very helpless. As you and I had previously discussed, I'd hoped to be able travel safely in that part of the world someday. Now that looks like even less a possibility than before.
L.
Lynn,
Unfortunately, I've never viewed any pictures of Kabul pre-air strikes. I did get in touch with people who were in the city before they evacuated and they told me what the city region was like before the attacks where there had been extensive re-building.
Unfortunately, the craters and rubble could be seen in the built up inner city area looked quite fresh though I wasn't close enough to see whether vegetation had started growing to discriminate how fresh the damage was. I tried to take a few photos on a digital camera but all I was getting was flare.
What I do know is from people who did go back to Kabul and described a city which, trying to rebuild being left shattered.
FAQ
Frank, again you prove what an incredibly well-informed and educated individual you might have been. Bombs have been falling on Kabul for a long time before the Americans got there. For twenty plus years, between the Soviets and the warlords, I was under the impression that the whole country was pretty much smashed to shit before we got there. (And unlike some, I *was* paying attention before September 11th.) I'm honestly curious to know whether or not Faisal flew over Kabul BEFORE his past trip, and if he has an personal eyewitness account to compare it with.
Trust is one thing. Blind acceptance of "fact" because it upholds your side of the issue is just plain ludicrous.
L.
HELLO HARLAN ELLISON FANS: AS MOST OF YOU MAY KNOW, HARLAN HAS GIVEN US AN ORIGINAL ESSAY AS HIS CONTRIBUTION TO OUR ANTHOLOGY OF WEST COAST WRITERS RESPONSES TO SEPTEMBER 11TH. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT HOW TO ORDER THIS BOOK, PLEASE GO TO OUR WEBSITE AT www.hawthornebooks.com. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF SETTING UP CREDIT CARD SALES SO IF YOU SEND US AN EMAIL WE WILL KEEP A RUNNING LIST AND WILL SEND YOU INFO ON HOW TO BUY IT AT A DISCOUNT. IT'S AN EXTRAORDINARY PIECE. KATE HENGERER, PUBLISHER, HAWTHORNE BOOKS.
Lynn, trust is a good thing. Faisal knows from where he speaks. Expand your mind.
Faisal, I would hold some hope; at least I think Harlan may be on our side on this battle.
RICH -
I amend my previous statement. Brian did NOT say there were no heroes on the battlefield. I took his statement and ran a few yards further...and stepped on a landmine.
Sorry, Brian.
Faisal~ Do you have a pre-American airstrikes image of Kabul to compare the damage to? Just curious.
L.
P.A. - are you familiar with "The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail?"
Well, I just saw Spider-man. I'm feeling disoriented right now, mainly due to the discombobulating effects of seeing a movie at 1:30 in the afternoon. It was OK. Sort of...flat. But I am pretty sure that the message of the movie was "With great power comes great responsibility." A scene in which Peter eats everything in the fridge after a bout of web-slinging would have been nice, though -- webs are pretty much pure protein, after all. I'm a little unsure as to why Uncle Ben would tell him the power thing when Ben thinks Peter's experiencing hormonal surges. Maybe it's an Iron John thing. Either that, or Ben thinks Peter going to the library is a sign of power because Uncle Ben can't read...
Ebert's review of Star Wars: Attack of the Action Figures is up already. He gives it two stars. Then again, he gave The Phantom Menace 3 1/2 stars, so two stars might be a good sign.
Jon
Lynn,
Don't worry this will not turn into a flame war. Heck, I need someone to appreciate my MSN Sean Connery impressions ;-)
The other reason is that I don't want to expand too much energy on a discussion on this board which really will lead to diddlysquat. Whatever I say on this issue, people will generally not agree with and probably true vice versa.
As for not making Afghanistan's trains run on time... well, see after the bombins things haven't improved that much. Yeah, the Lion at the zoo might be getting fresh meat and that half of Afghanistan, theoretically, can go out without some bizzare limitation coming from the Quran but otherwise Aid agencies resources are over stretched with little of the humanitarian aid that was promised by the Allies.
BTW - I flew over Kabul and the damage I did see was quite bad. The term surgical strike is once again in need of a Orwellian revision in the dictionary of doublespeak.
FAQ
I think you should get bombed more often, Frank. It might loosen you up a little bit.
Looking forward to Friday's pitcher of margaritas,
L.
Also, America has a habit of bombing the wrong people.
Well, at least we stopped talking about the insipid Spiderman.
(1) RE Shropshire: Let's just say that he was not entirely unknown at slash dot (separated so that Internet 'bots don't spot it so readily) prior to his appearance here. Let's also say that he has not, to my knowledge, responded to my rebuttal in Locus.
(2) RE Clute's comments on Our Kind and Wonderful Sponsor's novels: John Clute is a very well-read man. His reviews and comments are always interesting, and at least defensible. However, he does have a few blind spots. One of those blind spots is the "simple novel." As I understand his position, Clute honestly believes that it's not a novel if it's not multithreaded. (To pick a further nit, Mephisto in Onyx is a novella, not a novel, under the ordinary guidelines. An exceptionally fine one--to my mind, perhaps Harlan's best work of the mid-1990s--but a novella nonetheless, not a novel.)
(3) This is going to sound awfully strange coming from a career USAF officer, but here goes...
[soapbox]
Bombing never solved anything by itself.
Although it was obvious to any student of military history long before the 1960s, Vietnam made it blindingly obvious that bombing a nonindustrial culture is not decisive. As important as it is, bombing can't do much unless one is willing to insert those low-tech groundpounders (and I do not mean tanks) to hold and/or police territory. Combined arms, people. Combined arms.
Keep in mind, too, that the definition of "victory" is a remarkably slippery thing.
[/soapbox]
Rick,
A) I delete my cache files, since I do digital video and I need the space. Sorry, but anything older than a week is history.
B) Personally, I'd keep the ring. Maybe I'm too much of a packrat/historian at heart, but I think you should have it, if only as one rememinder of that time in your life (for both good and bad reasons). No reason to toss out the baby with the bathwater, right?
And hey, who knows when you might need the emergency cash you can get by pawning the ring.
Regards,
Joseph
FRANK:
"But as is usual with America, there was no discussion, no debate, we just went in like Rambo and bombed them into submission."
I don't know. I've heard many similar statements, and while all are VERY well founded in their emotion, it seems as if any reaction made by America is almost immediately branded a NEGATIVE reaction. From what I've heard from most people is a lot of conflict. While we can't exactly become 'flower children', we can't really turn ourselves into the very monster we're trying to kill.
"All one has to do is look at the mainstream media, and see if both sides are represented. The anti-war side are made to look like fools at best; Anti-American scum at worse."
Now that's just plain frightening. For that matter, you don't have to go any further than a theatre to see the trailer for WE WERE SOLDIERS with the tagline, "This time, America has the last word." I'm still deeply upset from that trailer.
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
I think you're right, Jim. There was a fracas, and a bigger one than the last two times Philip visited. Dammit, this is why I archive the %&$&%$ board. But when I moved to pair.com, the board perl script was hitting a permission error and not properly checking that the backup file was smaller and less recent than the current board before it overwrote it. Folks, please check your browser cache and temporary internet files, or your own backups - maybe someone has something. I'm going to e-mail pair.com and see if there's something they can do.
On a non-related note - what do you divorced folks do with your old rings? I was going through some stuff getting ready for my move and I found my $900 hunk of platinum in a drawer. Do I pawn it? Save it? Is it considered gauche to use it again?
RICK: If I recall correctly, Shropshire dropped in shortly after the Judge Cooper ruling on liability with a rather obnoxious post ("I told you so," or something like that). I replied with the following:
"P. SHROPSHIRE: Pork suit. Barbeque. I'll bring the hot sauce."
AND THAT WAS IT. Look, if I'd known he was going to whine about it this much, I wouldn't have said it. But his gloating over Harlan's perceived setback really ticked me off. So I can't, in all honesty, say my words were wrong--just injudicious.
(And, for what it's worth, Shropshire later proffered a half-assed apology to Harlan, indicating that even HE knew he'd gone a little too far. Funny how he doesn't mention any of this in the article.)
First, this word from Gore Vidal:
"According to a November 1995 CNN-Time poll, 55 percent of the people believed that “the
federal government has become so powerful that it poses a threat to the rights of ordinary citizens.”
Three days after Dark Tuesday, 74 percent said they thought, “It would be necessary for
Americans to give up some of their personal freedoms.” Eighty-six percent favored guards and
metal detectors at public buildings and events.
Bush himself, in an address to a joint session of Congress, offered up his interpretation of Osama
bin Laden and disciples’ motives: “They hate what they see right here in this Chamber.” I suspect a
million Americans nodded sadly in front of their TV sets. “Their leaders are self-appointed. They
hate our freedoms, our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and
assemble and disagree with each other.” If this is indeed the terrorists’ motivation, they are
succeeding beyond even their dreams, as each day, with each extension of “emergency powers,”
our Bill of Rights is shredded more and more. Once alienated, an “unalienable right” is apt to be
forever lost, in which case we are no longer even remotely the last best hope of earth but merely a
seedy imperial state whose citizens are kept in line by SWAT teams and whose way of death, not
life, is universally imitated."
---------------
I presented the Gore Vidal snippit because it is Mr. Vidal who was denied his rights to "dissent", not mine. He wrote an essay slated to be published by Vanity Fair magazine, but Vanity Fair read the piece and decided that the essay was too "hot", and they in turn refused to publish it. Gore Vidal tried getting his views out into the mainstream, but for the most part noone wants anything to do with the "anti-war" arguements that Vidal so ably constructs. His main point was that the question "why" is never asked when it comes to the terror attack. What motivated the attack was a very valid point to bring up, but in America, that question wasn't even on the table. The Taliban was "evil" and Osama was the next "Hitler". This was the extent to the rationale. Vidal thinks there are valid reasons to be angry at America, and those points should be discussed openly and debated.
All one has to do is look at the mainstream media, and see if both sides are represented. The anti-war side are made to look like fools at best; Anti-American scum at worse. Not even the victims families who protested the war were allowed teevee time. Our freedoms are slowly being destroyed, and the theocratic posibilities are too scary to think about.
Lynn, no, I didn't realize there was a large hole in New york; thanks for enlightening me. Didn't realize my short posting would bring such wrath--especially since I never said any of the things that you "supposed" I said. Not once did I say that America should not go after the Taliban. But in going about it, we should at least debate the best way in doing such a mission. But as is usual with America, there was no discussion, no debate, we just went in like Rambo and bombed them into submission. Why didn't we just get an international police force and get the Taliban like the common criminals that they were? Once again, no debate; just go in there and blow up the babies and maim the woman, but leave Osama alive to make more videos. What a wonderful "compassionate Conservative" at work in Mr. Bush--our unelected leader.
This was my point about "dissent".
Rick:
I don't recall responding to Mr. Shropshire at all, other than a quick nod, something along the lines of "Uh, hi, Mr. Shropshire. How are you?" It may have been misperceived as sarcasm, but I was only reacting to the surprise of seeing Philip Shropshire suddenly appear on the board. I know for a FACT that I never tossed any slander in Mr. Shropshire's direction.
ALEX JAY BERMAN,
Remember I mentioned that Tatsuya's American born grandmother who was sent to Japan as a child to be educated had to declare which country she wanted to call home after the war broke out. Apparently she chose Japan. Tatsuya's father was born and raised in Japan as was his mother, himself and siblings.
Southwest Texas State University has a large group of Japanese students, they all hang around together and speak Japanese. Nick went to a few Japanese parties with Tatsuya and said it was interesting to see the similarities and differences but since his Japanese vocabulary consisted of " Sony" and "Nintendo" he was limited in his ability to converse.
I was wondering if Tatsuya could be approved for permanent residence in the United States because his grandmother was born in California. he didn't think so. I helped him apply for the Immigrant Visa Lottery but I don't think he'll know if he is drawn for a year. He'd like to stay in America to work.
Cindy
BACK, BRIEFLY, TO THE SUBJECT OF PHILIP SHROPSHIRE:
I was a bit concerned with part of Philip's opening comments on his Locus piece: "...the good Webderlanders have, in no particular order, wished upon me leukemia, openly discussed barbecuing me alive, and vividly commented about the dearth of my mental capacity."
I'm trying to find where we so rudely assailed this poor man, and I've pulled together all the posts I could find concerning his two visits here. Was there a visit I missed? I know we lost posts from March 16 to March 30 (I transferred the entire site to the new host, pair.com, March 14th and my backup got messed up). I'm pretty sure there was a fluff during that time. Does anyone have a backup or recollection? I need a little help on this before I respond to his charges.
My archive is at:
http://harlanellison.com/heboard/archive/shropshire.htm
The Locus article is at:
http://www.locusmag.com/2002/Reviews/ShropshireOnEllison.html
Ok, so I'm a fucking liar. I said I wouldn't revisit this, but gotta clear up something real quick.
Jay said, "Brian is right - there are heroes in this war and none of them are on the battlefield."
That's not what Brian said. I don't think you meant to say that, Jay, 'cause there are plenty of "heroes" on the battlefield, though they may not think of themselves as heroes. You may have had in mind what Brian said about heroes not being "anywhere near the corridors of power."
And I would probably agree with that sentiment.
About friends: You may find this hard to believe, but I don't fight with my friends. I have had the same 4 best friends for 10+ years and I think I've fought with them a total of 3 times in a decade. It's not that we're not all contentious people, we just know each other too well to get into it. It's unnecessary to fight when your communication is smooth. And it's not at all boring not to fight, believe me.
I only have one person I consider a true, bosom friend that I met electronically. I met him here (hi Jeff) but we talk a lot about real life. A couple of other folks know me a bit better (and they know my first name). The first name thing, it's not a big thing. I just don't like my name, that's all. Now I wish I had just come here under a pseudonym; no one would ever have known the difference.
Anyway, no, overall I'd say internet people are in a strange category between strangers and friends. I have an enormous respect for all of you. I will just have to be more careful about what I share in the future, if I want the warm fuzzies.
Bermanator
Random Replies -
RICK
"cats in a bathtub" (big grin) ...sprayed with a hose with catnip tied to their tails.
LITTLE WASHU
Yes, the Sumerians were merely victims of the first society to be born over a Hellmouth and thus forced to become the first race in history to develop the crossbow and godsmack before proper shelter. One can only imagine they had so many nasty gods floating about they were forced into extinction by the rest of the world.
"The Great God Pan" is a good read as is "The Yellow Sign" Chaosium Books put out a compilation called "The Hastur Cycle" which is wicked nasty fun in the same vein. Not sure if it is still in print, but all the stories collected within are floating about in other tomes. "HP Lovecraft's Book of Horror" was published by Barnes & Noble books (the direct to bargain rack) sometime in the early 90s and included Lovecraft's essay "Supernatural Horror in Literature" along with the some of the short stories he references. Some of the more relatively obscure books referenced are on the shelf at Borders B&M stores (one aisle down from the Ellison collection).
ALEX JAY, LYNN, and "friends"
I just want to say that while I reserve the word "friend" for people closer than multiple servers and thousands of miles of cables, I do have a great deal of respect and admiration for many of the people here, even those who can turn utter bullshit into highly articulate treatises several pages in length. I expect that respect translates to a willingness to cooperate and interact, share a beer - but I wouldn't help any of you bury a body or ask you to bail me out of jail. It's like the roundtables we had in school in class with folks we didn't necessarily like personally, but who were entertaining to spar with.
THE WAR ON TERRORISM
When we went out for blood in Afghanistan, everybody in power made a point of saying it would be a long, drawn out campaign against "terror" even though they were vague as to what boundaries that placed on the theater of combat. After eight months of planning, spouting off, and slowly changing those boundaries we're still fighting in Afghanistan. Who here is surprised we're still camped out in the most backward, uneducated and illiterate country in the world? When we were angriest, out for blood and hanging tiny flags off our car antennae it was divine justice. Now, we're getting bored with the lack of results. The nightly news has moved on. Terrorist acts continue. It's gone beyond our short attention span and now it's easy to begin complaining about the fairness of our actions against Afghanistan and, in turn, our so called War on Terror.
Yes, we went to Afghanistan after 9/11 and demanded bin Laden and we KNEW the Taliban would refuse to give him up. If not for their misguided faith that other Islamic nations wouldn't stand for a US invasion, then either because he was already hiding or because they didn't have the military power to hand him over.
I submit that the average Afghan doesn't know or care about Osama bin Laden except what the local authorities tell them. I doubt the death of thousands in New York and Washington are tragic only as an echo of the constant pain and suffering they endure and then only a faint pain of conscience in the wake of British, Soviet and American actions against them.
When an al qaeda factory blows up in a small Afghan town, it isn't a victory over terror as much a loss of a community factory, granery or some other institution that helps people and the community survive. Is it necessary? If we're going to help rebuild Afghanistan, yes. But we can't expect them to enjoy the experience. It's what we, as a country, demanded when you couldn't turn on the TV without seeing smoking ruins in New York.
If we leave and turn it over to the fledgling government, it will revert to the same power struggles that dominated the country after the Soviets (and, in turn America) left them to clean up. The President received a mandate from the people to crush the figurehead of "terrorism" and now we're in the unpopular stage. We're stuck and it's time to deal with the consequences of calling for War.
In a nutshell: we asked for it...nay DEMANDED it...now we gotta live with it.
Now - that being said - this War on Terror does not extend with the same ferocity to those who are actively engaging in terrorist activities against allies. If we are to take Bush at his word, then shouldn't the seige of the PLO compound a few weeks back have been the capture of a known terrorist? I don't know.
Brian is right - there are heroes in this war and none of them are on the battlefield. They are the ones who will develop illnesses and syndromes down the road because they spent months at The Site ingesting and inhaling toxic substances and enduring countless hours of backbreaking work.
Washu,
Not to mention "Spider Kiss," which is widely regarded as one of the finest novels about rock'n'roll ever written.
Regards,
Joseph
I have a book here I've had for a while called SCIENCE FICTION: THE ILLUSTRATED ENCYCLOPEDIA by John Clute. While it documents many SF films and books from each decade of the late 19th and 20th centuries, there is also a lavish chapter briefly covering each renowned science-fiction author. (Don't worry, Harlan, you're only mentioned for half a page. Philip K. Dick has an entire centerfold, the poor dope.)
One particular quote from the Harlan Ellison column did repel me slightly:
"So Harlan Ellison stands alone, in this as any other matters, because his novels are bad, few, forgettable, and forgotten."
As far as I know, there was nothing 'forgettable' about MEPHISTO IN ONYX.
RICH: Very nice 'vitamin pill' version of the progress of the Afghanistan struggle thus far. You might want to post that at least once a week to remind us how this mess got started. When you ask two children, "What started the fight?" they say, "We can't remember."
FAISAL: "In fact hostility towards the US has risen amongst the civilan population."
Not only there, I'm afraid. While in Halifax, I witnessed a protest march of Afghanistans. Very big, very upset.
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
Alex Jay Berman: In a war, undeclared or not, there are massive fuckups – I mean we bombed Canadians (who, despite unleashing Shatner upon an unsuspecting world, are really pretty good folks), so I won't argue there.
Regarding the gloating tape: How significant are the mistranslations? I had heard there were mistranslations as well, but nothing further – do the individual corrections change the overall thrust?
The idea that Bush doesn't want to read intelligence briefings – since it is functionally impossible for him not to – I gotta wonder if there was a misunderstanding somewhere...
Saudis and Taliban – since political rhetoric rarely coincides with reality, is it really THAT surprising?
Overall, having problems with specific aspects of the campaign doesn't remove the need to pursue it. Hell – I agree with most of your specific problems – and I'll support efforts to correct them.
Faisal: "...people over there are still starving, rape and murder is on the rise again and the Taliban still haven't been routed out or Osama captured. In fact hostility towards the US has risen amongst the civilian population."
Please tell me that's just overeager rhetoric – because you're way too intelligent to think that the situation could possibly have improved dramatically in the mere months the Alliance has been in control. It will take time, and the time won't be pleasant, but it will happen. A continuing Taliban regime would have been far worse – remember, just because the trains run on time, doesn't mean everything's OK.
Brian: I'm just to the other side of the "this war is necessary" line from you, but I, too, have grown increasingly uncomfortable with the shenanigans of the Bush Administration here at home.
Alex,
Well, I got the "good stuff" indirectly from a grand mal; it was pretty complicated - the circumstances - and maybe I'll tell you about it sometime. I'm glad to say I haven't had a grand mal in years now. In the period I was having so much trouble with that - late 80's, early 90's - I had an impossible time keeping jobs or even attending classes (the reason I'm finishing school late).
...but the THINGS you find out about Jesus and God from an epileptic seizure...it's like the National Enquirer of holy messages.
Let's see if I can do this without multiple postings.
What rich said. What Xanadu said.
Faisal~ I never said that the reasons I listed were the *only* reasons for dissent nor did I state that it was the only dissent *allowed*. I merely contradicted Frank's statement that dissent about the war was not allowed. I know there are a million reasons to dissent. I also know that the attention span of the general public is worse than a ferret on espresso, and so most of them never get the air time they deserve. I wasn't even against dissenting. I just get tired of Frank's oppression paranoia and really wish he would move somewhere where they might come and take him out of his bed in the middle of the night for speaking out against the government. I also think that to expect the US to sit on our hands and do NOTHING after September 11th is a really naive prospect in and of itself.
And Cindy, I'm really glad that your son has a friend that can give him some perspective on the lasting effects of war. My SO often states that he wishes the Internet would do the same, letting us see that our enemy is truly no different from ourselves. But the last time I checked, we hadn't nuked anyone in Afghanistan.
Sincerely hoping this doesn't turn into a flame war,
L.
I'm on the "this war is bullshit" side, myself. I can see the rationale for going after bin Laden, and I could probably even be convinced that that taking out the Taliban was a necessary step in getting him-- after all, the Taliban was a brutal regime built upon religious mania, and such regimes tend to lose my sympathy real fast.
But as I've said before, the people prosecuting this war don't share my values. They were willing to play up the Taliban's horrible track record regarding women for PR value-- but now that the Taliban are effectively gone, the nation-building game doesn't seem to include protecting women's rights in Afghanistan anymore.
The people prosecuting this war are full aware that the financial support for al Qaeda comes not from Afghanistan, but from wealthy families in Saudi Arabia. Yet this country is regarded as an ally, a dutiful friend, a country whose support we _need_. (For "support" read "oil sales.") So there's no real effort towards reducing the support networks of terrorist groups.
And the people in charge of this adventure have been merrily using it to their advantage-- pushing through legislation that even Clinton couldn't get through, virtually eliminating many civil liberties, and throwing even more of our energy policies into the hands of those who gave us the Enron debacle.
There are heroes in all of this. Most of'em live in New York City, work diligently to repair the damage and salvage the lives of others, and don't seem to be anywhere near the corridors of power.
XANADU: I accept much of what you've said, but much of this whole undeclared war smacks of bullshit to me.
Remember, early on, when Bush was praising how "cooperative" our friends in Saudi Arabia were being? This came three or four days after S.A. refused us permission to investigate the Saudi hijackers and refused to disclose anything they may have known about the Saudi hijackers which we had identified.
And this is not an isolated occurence. There's Bush's flip-flop on the Israel-Palestine situation, the insistence upon ridding the Afghani government of any Taliban officials--which was followed, the next week, by the declaration that quite a few high-ranking Taliban officials would be needed in the new coalition government; the fact that (and I am friends with someone who knows this firsthand) the Leader of the Free World no longer wishes to read any of the intelligence given him by the CIA and other agencies, the fact that quite a few Arabic speakers have told me that the infamous tape in which bin Laden gloated about the towers' destruction to a friend was mistranslated (can you confirm this, Faisal?), perhaps purposely, the fact that we really haven't conducted much of the war in an intelligent fashion (wasn't it nice when we dumped bombs on a convoy which included members of the nascent freedom-loving Afghani government?), and a whole lot of other things.
JON: Thanks, but I have two mad cats already.
LW: John Wyndham wrote some good novels. _Kraken_, _The Midwich Cuckoos_ and _The Day of the Triffids_ used to be part of the (then much larger) English curriculum in Ontario high schools in the 60s and 70s. As to Lovecraft and Wyndham's novel -- well, when old gods waken, there's gotta be a kraken.
Yes, I know I forced the rhyme at the end. But Kraken rhymes with Machen, as in Arthur -- if you haven't checked his work out, do so. "The Great God Pan" is pivotal, as is much of his other work.
Cat fights: Well, Alex Jay, we'll send the cat collective after you at some point. Do you want the hinged cat, the cat who sleeps in trees, or the cat who will hunt down and kill red squirrels if someone says the magical words 'Goddam, I hate red squirrels' in his vicinity? Given that a lot of cat fights consist of 15 minutes of swearing, no actual contact, and a subsequent bout of mutual washing, Rick's simile for the board is probably a bit too apt, especially if one adds gin to the bathtub.
Jon
Lynn,
I won't address all your comments as this is hardly the forum for it but your comments about individuals who dissent against the war I think has to be responded too.
"The reality is that dissent is not only allowed, it is, to a degree, expected. Because the people in this country don't want to pay the taxes it'll take to fund this war. They don't want to be inconvenienced in the name of 'security'. And they don't want their boys coming home in body bags."
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with this statement. There are many other reasons for dissent against the bombings and I believe in some of them.
That anyone who is against the Allied campaign in Afghanistan is doing so because they want to pay less taxes is ridiculous. What about people like David Patori and Ryan Amundson who both lost loved ones in the attacks of 9-11? I doubt their dissent to the bombings had anything to do with taxes or soldiers in body bags but more with stopping more deaths from occuring. Also the Aid workers and journalists on the ground who have seen the aftermath of the bombings, I doubt their dissent on the bombing campaign and what is happening now has very little to do with the reasons you've already listed.
I suppose the most interesting essays I read was from Ryan Amundson, who lost his brother in the Pentagon attack, he wrote: "My family and I, among many other victims' families, plead with our leaders to formulate a just response to the terror of 9/11. We ask that the President not exploit our nation's anger, but do his best to direct this energy toward constructive ends. The greatest honor to my brother's life would be that his death would mark the end of this vicious cycle of violence. We hope that the President and the rest of our nation's leaders will find a way to honor all those who died on September 11 by responding to this atrocity in a healthy way. We beg our nation's leaders not to abide by the same ethical standards as the attackers of 9/11, namely, the use of violence against innocent people. We want the bombing in Afghanistan to stop."
Well, its late for that. The bombings happened, people over there are still starving, rape and murder is on the rise again and the Taliban still haven't been routed out or Osama captured. Infact hostility towards the US has risen amongst the civilan population.
A war against Iraq keeps being threatened as well as one on Iran and Sudan but strangely enough, no talk about the central asian republics political repressive measures or the actions of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.
FAQ
Alex Jay Berman: You said, "I disagree that having a big bombed-out hole in the ground in our country is license to make them in another's."
Actually, I think it's pretty much the only legitimate reason. When our citizens are threatened, you remove the threat.
"Better we had simply sent in SEAL Team Six to hunt down bin Laden and his co-conspirators and bring them to the Hague for trial."
I have to say this – While it reads as nice idea, tactically, this statement shows a certain, hollywood-inspired lack of realism. For such a mission to succeed, it's has to be quick, and tactically overwhelming. Would either condition have beeen possible in a Taliban controlled country and an unidentified al-Qaida controlled cave complex, let alone both? Remember, we never knew precisely where bin Laden was at any point – a hunt for the bad guys would've taken time, behind enemy lines, without easy extraction. That is bad news even for the exceptional soldiers of Seal Team Six.
"While it's admittedly nice that the world is rid--for the most part--of the Taliban, it was not a good enough reason to go to (an undeclared) war. Against a nation of subsistence farmers."
The Taliban were inextricably linked with al-Qaida, if we did not remove them as well, nothing else we could have done, anywhere else in the world would have damaged al-Qaida significantly. And remember, there was no legal avenue to pursue through the Taliban. They stalled and protected and would have continued to do so indefinitely. They only considered turning bin Laden over when faced with imminent extinction. The value of this war to the "subsistence farmers" will be measured in the future, when we see the results of being freed of the Taliban's particular form of repression.
"While leaving some of the largest al-Qaida cells (in Germany, Saudi Arabia, et cetera) virtually untouched."
Since I 've been reading of al-Qaida arrests and the breakup of cells in Germany – I'm not certain this is a completely accurate statement. But give us time – we're working on it. We do have legal avenues in most other countries to pursue al-Qaida, there's no need for the stomping we provided to the Taliban.
"Oh, wait--it wasn't a war against the Taliban, or al-Quaida; it's a war against *Terrorism*. Excepting of course, Hamas. The Japanese Red Army. The IRA. The Provos. Shining Path. Aryan Nation. Aum Shin Ryo. One-quarter the population, at any given time, of Cyprus. The Mafiya in Russia. Or anyone else who isn't, y'know, CONVENIENT."
OK, you have made a point here – but I'll let you in on a little secret – we've never done much more than the minimum we've needed to, to protect our interests around the world. The other organizations you've mentioned are not any particular threat to either the US, or those interests. Al-Qaida, by hijacking those planes, showed with perfect clarity that they were world players, a world-class power, in fact. They didn't need to develop weapons of mass destruction, they simply "repurposed" our civilian technology. No country would be safe, and if unresponded to, others would pick up on the tactic very quickly. It was a matter of extraordinary urgency that we reacted universally, as a global community, and overwhelmingly, if only to give other bad guys pause.
Respectfully disagreeing,
Xanadu
Not speaking for Lynn (ok, maybe I am), but I don't think she advocated the idea of "having a big bombed-out hole in the ground in our country is license to make them in another's". Contrary to what some on this board might think, I don't believe anyone in favor of the "war" in Afghanistan is advocating going about this in a tit for tat kind of way.
As Bobby Brown once probably said, let me see if I can break this down. And I apologize up-front for rehashing the same ole same ole from a few months ago, but it appears a refresher course is in order.
We were attacked by fanatics.
Evidence led us to believe that these fanatics were based in Afghanistan and were led by Osama bin Laden.
We contacted the "government" in Afghanistan and asked them to turn over Osama bin Laden.
They said no.
We asked again and they still said no.
We went in, using a strategy of bombing and special forces to try to take Osama bin Laden from a "government" that had a history of sponsoring and aiding in terrorist activities.
We did not deliberately set out to destroy an entire country, or even a city. We set out to get an individual that was hiding behind a rogue "government". We may not get that individual and it is taking hard and long work to establish a true government in Afghanistan, but for those that say we went about this the wrong way or have done a disservice to the Afghanistan peoples, I would have to politely disagree. Afghanistan is in a better position to govern themselves without outside interference than they have been in a long time and any success or failure at this point is up to them.
Ok, I said all I will say on this particular subject because I certainly don't want to start a new flaming thread (yeah, like that'll stop folks), but just wanted to get the "other side" in, so to speak. So I'm done. Spent. I'll wait for the book of essays (I'm assuming there will be varied points of view) and we can all talk about this again in July or August when the thing comes out.
Say that five times fast.
JON: Yes, that and discovering your ancestors are amphibious monstrosities whose bloodline will begin mutating your genetic structure into a frog-like abomination...but I jest!
As for the Sumerians, they seem to be ALWAYS getting the bad rap. THE EVIL DEAD, GHOSTBUSTERS, etc. A beer from these guys would be laden with ghastly spells and evil spirits.
Speaking of Lovecraft, I've been reading John Wyndham's THE KRAKEN WAKES. Although the book has a very different style and method of delivery, it's overall mood and atmosphere is distinctly Lovecraftian. Ever read it, perchance?
With regards, LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
My, how we all do go on ...
ZOË: Well, since you ask so sweetly: "That was no lady; that was my WIFE!"--Groucho Marx (in response to the straight line, "Who was that lady I saw you with last night?"
P.A.B.: "You say we're not strangers here but friends. Cindy said it too. Do the rest of you feel that way?"
Yes.
"Do you really think of the regulars here as friends?"
Yes, but not as much as, say, the regulars on the Branch Riddellian Forum, or my buddies in the misc.writing newsgroup.
"Would knock-down drag-out brawls happen like this if people were truly friends?"
Oh, sure. We just don't carry it over to the next day, the next week, is all.
"Do you fight like this with your real world friends?"
Same answer as the previous question.
"Can you be friends with someone you only know on the Internet?"
Yes, but it helps when that friendship leads to a meatspace meetspace. My second-best and third-best friends are people I met on the aforementioned newsgroup. From there, it progressed to internet chats, phone calls, and, eventually, meetings in the too, too solid stuff. For one, that took three years, even before which we knew each other as not very many "real-world" friends do.
ANDREW: Some interesting comments on Saturns (good and bad) are to be found in Dan Simmons' DARWIN'S BLADE, a very good thriller with an accident reconstructionist as its protagonist.
Even were it not Simmons' usual well-crafted work, the book would be worth it for "Darwin's Blade" of the title, a corollary to Occam's Razor which the protag is to have dreamed up: "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is usually stupidity." The protagonist's first name is Darwin, you see.
CHUCK: Good to hear that the home fires are NOT burning. Otto--you're in Colorado, too, right? How are YOU with regard to flames of a non-internet nature?
ROB: You got hallucinations with your epilepsy? Damn; I feel robbed. I NEVER get the good shit. I've had 'most every kind of seizure, but was only conscious and aware during one of them (a grand mal-type distinguished only by the fact that I was awake during it. Scared shitless, too.).
KERRY: I would have thought that you would call a car a Saturn because it swallows.
HARLAN: I'll look for the book, then.
FRANK: You may want to check up on the last year or so of Ted Rall's cartoons for the Washington Post and other publications. And everyone would do well to go to http://www.markfiore.com and check out some blistering animated political cartoons (yes, that elusive and possibly mythological beast--Flash animations done well!).
And Frank? Bear in mind that while I see this country as having freedom of the press and of speech FOR NOW; that it is something that must always be watched out for, being ignored or shunned is not the same as being censored. The word has a very specific meaning, and too often, it is used as a catchall, for, "People don't like what I say!" I fear that such kneejerking will make for a Boy Who Cried Wolf scenario.
LYNN: I disagree that having a big bombed-out hole in the ground in our country is license to make them in another's. Better we had simply sent in SEAL Team Six to hunt down bin Laden and his co-conspirators and bring them to the Hague for trial. While it's admittedly nice that the world is rid--for the most part--of the Taliban, it was not a good enough reason to go to (an undeclared) war. Against a nation of subsistence farmers. While leaving some of the largest al-Qaida cells (in Germany, Saudi Arabia, et cetera) virtually untouched.
Oh, wait--it wasn't a war against the Taliban, or al-Quaida; it's a war against *Terrorism*. Excepting of course, Hamas. The Japanese Red Army. The IRA. The Provos. Shining Path. Aryan Nation. Aum Shin Ryo. One-quarter the population, at any given time, of Cyprus. The Mafiya in Russia. Or anyone else who isn't, y'know, CONVENIENT.
Just my take.
JIM: You know, this would seem very out of character to people who know me--besides my own meds and the occasional aspirin, I eschew pills and things (also, almost no anaesthetics have any effect on me)--but this epileptic would WELCOME a hallucinatory episode, as long as it was effected within a strictly controlled environment. Not because I'm foolish enough to believe it would improve my writing, but for the simplest of reasons; one which all but guides my life: I want to SEE. I want to KNOW. As any who've seen my book-lined living room can attest, I live in a search for information; whatever I can pick up. I live to KNOW things.
HEATHER: I don't have the libretto here, but the female lead of the musical HAIR notes that Eartha Kitt waved to her from a White House or Governor's Mansion or some similar place of high government in high dudgeon as said female lead was marching in a protest. I think that's a pointer to the fact that Kitt, though accepted by the Establishment, was outspoken in her opposition to the war.
CINDY: Though it may seem churlish in light of your story--and be well aware that I did not overlook your point--one thing stood out for me: Just why did Tatsuya, a second-generation from-birth American, have limited English? I ask this as a man who himself is--if you consider more than half of my family--a third-generation American. One of my best friends, who has lived in no less than eight or nine countries did not learn English until the age of twelve, when she went to a Nigerian convent school. Twenty-odd years later, she has written several successful books of both fiction and non- in English, and speaks the language beautifully, with a light accent, an appealing mix with touches ofSerbian, South African, and England. America--and now, with world homogenization and monoculturism, makes for easy assimilation, or at least acculturation.
JON: I have a horrible image: "We are Purrg. Your wallet will be assimilated. Miao."
Mmm...cats in a bathtub. For some reason, I'm thinking cats being held above a water-filled bathtub by a vengeful and golf-addicted god, but the claw-squealing action of cats in a bathtub is a lot truer. Not as true as our scary cat with the body-wide line of hinge-like stitches across his shaved back, but...augh, shouldn't have thought about the hinged cat. Oh, the poor hinged, abcess-bedevilled, super-expensive cat.
Jon
"I'm standing in a room filled with people of a particular mind."
I'll hold off on ranting on how dismissively insulting this statement is to ask this: Are we reading the same board? Because when I look around lately, I'm not seeing an army of minds marching in lockstep.
It's more like cats in a bathtub.
Jim,
Just remember it was your flaming chariot visit that started it all.
So: Not even "fuck off!" with the cutsie-pie icon winking at you? How tight must you make these shackles? Yer pinchin' th' noives in mu wrists, man. Crampin' m'style.
...and that "fucked, fucking, fuck": it's getting legendary in these hea pa'ts. Sounds like something you do a tap dance to. Yet, you won't let me compete with it. YOUUU are depriving an artist of latitude here, St. Jim.
Just for that: fuck o--, I mean, damn thee! Damn thee to the depths of Jesse Helms' bowels!
Old ways do die hard. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) )
;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;);) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;);) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;);) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;);) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;);) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;);) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;);) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
Yes. I, too, was wondering when HE was going to chime in on the most important event of our generation. (waits for the debate on that assertion).
Jay
I am really looking forward to Harlan's essay on 911. I want to show it to Beau.
Cindy
Harlan, in his last post, wrote, "...my stringy goat-cheese ego began to announce redolence."
THAT, folks, is why the man gets the big bucks.
I used to think that what we did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was correct. The only response for what was visited upon us by the Japanese. That was before my son moved in with his first roommate, Tatsuya Kawamoto. Nick was so pissed! He said, " He barely speaks English and WORSE he has a bike that he stores in our dorm room which is roughly the size of a bathroom. Ten days later Tatsuya and Nick were inseparable friends. My daughther Savannah visited and commented on the brilliance of this Japanese kid. There was an extremely beautiful girl that was a friend of a friend of Nick's. She happened to come to Nick and Tatsuya's dorm room one afternoon with some girl friends. Nick was so delighted. So the beautiful girl looked at Nick who is beautiful as well and the girl that was with her said, " Don't even LOOK at HIM! He's HORRIBLE!!!!!! A player!! He's been with sooooooo many girls and even older women. Nick dimpled and said, " Where'd you hear that? That is not true."
And Tatsuya says, " Neek- why you lie????????"
Later Savannah was at the dorm and Nick was telling her that he was going to EVERY class and seldom partied with his buddies.
Tatsuya says, " Neek! Why you lieeeeeeee? YOU mahst be honest with yaw seestuh."
Savannah said it was hilarious that Tatsuya knew exactly what he was doing. She said he was brilliant and had wit that sparkled even in his limited ENGLISH. She said she couldn't imagine how funny he must be in his native language.
Tatsuya adopted me. He writes me at least once every couple of weeks, letting me know what is going on at school and how his quest to find the perfect girl is coming. I found out later that Tatsuya's great grandfather came to America by himself when he was 13 years old. He made a vast fortune and helped everyone who immigrated from Japan to Los Angeles in the early 1900s. His father's mom was born in Los Angeles but when she was 7 her father sent her back to Japan to be educated. When the war broke out she had to declare which country she belonged to. She was in Nagasaki when the bomb fell. Tatsuya told me that Japanese people still living in California managed to send her food and money so she didn't die after the bomb. They did it because they honored her father who had helped them when they were starving in Los Angeles.
Nothing like a face to go with the war to change one's perception.
So, when my 14 year old son Beau ( then 13 years old) learned that some people from Afghanistan had committed the 911 atrocity, he suggested that the USA send bombs to Afghanistan. He said( and I quote) " We should change their landscape. We should go over there and turn Afghanistan into LAKE WUZAFGHANISTAN".
His wit impressed me but the sentiment did not. I explained to him that there were mothers and fathers and children who had NOTHING to do with the insane few that assaulted our country. I told him about Tatsuya and his grandmother. How Tatsuya's father recently painted their home red white and blue out of support for the United States no matter the discord between our countries in the past. I said it could just as easily have been OUR family in Hiroshima or Afghanistan .
I think we are afraid of that which is foreign but when it all boils down we are all the same. We love our children with the same intensity, we would die to protect them and other than that we all want to be left in peace to do what we please and what is best for our families.
There is no place in the world for the hating of people who are different... we are all the same, culture and language and skin tone aside.
Cindy
*sigh* Rob, Rob, Rob, Rob...
I didn't take it too seriously, until the last sentence--that comment was SO out of left field, I wondered if the whole post was on the level. In the future, when you write a long, mock-righteous screed, don't cap it with "fuck off," okay? That, as the song goes, is one toke over the line. (Hey, at least you didn't use the phrase, "You fucking fuck.")
Yes, we're cool again. I'll even hold off on the flaming chariot visit--for now.
What is it with you people?
A fellow said this of Shropshire:
>As I understand Philip Shropshire's article in Locus online, his basic argument is that there's no point in fighting internet piracy because there will always be other pirates waiting in the wings.
No he didn't. *sigh* At least, that's not what I heard. Maybe it's just me. *sigh*
I'm wasting my breath. I know this. I'm standing in a room filled with people of a particular mind. This will fall on deaf eyes. This is what worries me.
Phil wrote an article. Don't ask me why--no ask why and I'll tell you--I have a different view, that's all--but I gleaned other ideas from what he said.
Perhaps he didn't say them. Perhaps it simply made me recall certain elements, from my own thinking.
*sigh*
Harlan Ellison is parading around telling us how he's gonna wup the dragon. Phil came along and quietly pointed out, it ain't that easy--that's all, that's all. And he gave an example or two. Ones I've seen, with my own bare little eyes. And if _I_ saw them, so do Harlan's NOT supporters. That what worries me. All this other debate-able type stuff is just stuff. I hear Harlan. I hear him bouncing around. Some of what Phil said, rang true, in my little gemlike ears.
Phil has his agendas. One of them is micropayments. I'm well aware of this. It's an idea he slaps on at the end of any conversation. Is it right? Is it wrong? Time will tell.
So will this lawsuit.
Night all. No. I won't say another word on this. But I'll keep watch. For Phil and Harlan's sake. I will keep watch, like I said earlier. Oy...
Hmmmmm....and I always thought that I was Frank Church's arch-nemesis (defined as the one who brings rationality, facts and references to a discussion).
Regards,
Joseph
Jim,
Sorry if my mock frenzy really came 'cross THAT seriously. I'd have used the winking, fetching little icon 'ceptin I thought it was obvious.
Lynn, please accept this very brief response as a big "Huzzah!" and agreement for your posting. I would love to jump in with my usual wit and wisdom on this topic.....I make it a goal to try to irk Frank at least as often as his absurdist speak irks me....but I am quite busy this week and preparing to go away for two days.
So....Huzzah, Lynn. And Frank, here's hoping that you get a chance to move to some part of this great country that allows you your right to speak....since, apparently, you must be in the old Soviet Union square mile of the U.S. and you haven't received any of the news that some people in this country are not only speaking out on these middle east battles, but are actually doing so without being tossed into the same gulag that you appear to be typing from.
Love ya both!
-TODD
Okay, third times a charm.
Zoë~ Hehehe. New girl, huh? Stick around long enough and you'll discover that everyone here has someone who is diametrically opposed to just about everything they say. Not so much a hero/villain relationship as a foil relationship. That being said, just about everything Frank says torques me. (Do an archive search on "Fuck you, you fucking fuck" to get the back story.) Today he succeeded in torquing me enough to get me to respond.
Frank lives in the one country in the world where his First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion are guaranteed (albeit not always profitable and/or interesting, which is why the media is never saying what Frank wants it to). And yet he feels that 'Dissent against this war is just not allowed.' The reality is that dissent is not only allowed, it is, to a degree, expected. Because the people in this country don't want to pay the taxes it'll take to fund this war. They don't want to be inconvenienced in the name of 'security'. And they don't want their boys coming home in body bags. The reality is that this war isn't about baggin' some ragheads. (What's the line from Three Kings? "Camel jockey and raghead is okay. Sand nigger is NOT okay.") This war is about making the people in this world who want to hurt us on our own soil, or anywhere else for that matter, think long and hard before ever try it again. And dissenting against that is stupid. It'd be like not only not having a lock on your front door, but not having a front door at all.
I have serious doubts about waging war on an idea. Witness the Dubya Waffle over the Palestian/Israeli conflict. Wage a war on terrorism and then try to figure out who's a terrorist and who's a freedom fighter. Wage a war on drugs and then try to figure out who's the criminal and who's the addict. Wage a war on pornography and then try to figure out who's being exploited and who's an artist. I'd much rather have a quantifiable military target. But things don't always work that cleanly, and ultimately, I'm not the one with the intelligence in front of me making the decision.
Hope that answers your questions.
L.
Having net problems. Sorry about that.
L.
Okay, third times a charm.
Zoë~ Hehehe. New girl, huh? Stick around long enough and you'll discover that everyone here has someone who is diametrically opposed to just about everything they say. Not so much a hero/villain relationship as a foil relationship. That being said, just about everything Frank says torques me. (Do an archive search on "Fuck you, you fucking fuck" to get the back story.) Today he succeeded in torquing me enough to get me to respond.
Frank lives in the one country in the world where his First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion are guaranteed (albeit not always profitable and/or interesting, which is why the media is never saying what Frank wants it to). And yet he feels that 'Dissent against this war is just not allowed.' The reality is that dissent is not only allowed, it is, to a degree, expected. Because the people in this country don't want to pay the taxes it'll take to fund this war. They don't want to be inconvenienced in the name of 'security'. And they don't want their boys coming home in body bags. The reality is that this war isn't about baggin' some ragheads. (What's the line from Three Kings? "Camel jockey and raghead is okay. Sand nigger is NOT okay.") This war is about making the people in this world who want to hurt us on our own soil, or anywhere else for that matter, think long and hard before ever try it again. And dissenting against that is stupid. It'd be like not only not having a lock on your front door, but not having a front door at all.
I have serious doubts about waging war on an idea. Witness the Dubya Waffle over the Palestian/Israeli conflict. Wage a war on terrorism and then try to figure out who's a terrorist and who's a freedom fighter. Wage a war on drugs and then try to figure out who's the criminal and who's the addict. Wage a war on pornography and then try to figure out who's being exploited and who's an artist. I'd much rather have a quantifiable military target. But things don't always work that cleanly, and ultimately, I'm not the one with the intelligence in front of me making the decision.
Hope that answers your questions.
L.
Okay, third times a charm.
Zoë~ Hehehe. New girl, huh? Stick around long enough and you'll discover that everyone here has someone who is diametrically opposed to just about everything they say. Not so much a hero/villain relationship as a foil relationship. That being said, just about everything Frank says torques me. (Do an archive search on "Fuck you, you fucking fuck" to get the back story.) Today he succeeded in torquing me enough to get me to respond.
Frank lives in the one country in the world where his First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion are guaranteed (albeit not always profitable and/or interesting, which is why the media is never saying what Frank wants it to). And yet he feels that 'Dissent against this war is just not allowed.' The reality is that dissent is not only allowed, it is, to a degree, expected. Because the people in this country don't want to pay the taxes it'll take to fund this war. They don't want to be inconvenienced in the name of 'security'. And they don't want their boys coming home in body bags. The reality is that this war isn't about baggin' some ragheads. (What's the line from Three Kings? "Camel jockey and raghead is okay. Sand nigger is NOT okay.") This war is about making the people in this world who want to hurt us on our own soil, or anywhere else for that matter, think long and hard before ever try it again. And dissenting against that is stupid. It'd be like not only not having a lock on your front door, but not having a front door at all.
I have serious doubts about waging war on an idea. Witness the Dubya Waffle over the Palestian/Israeli conflict. Wage a war on terrorism and then try to figure out who's a terrorist and who's a freedom fighter. Wage a war on drugs and then try to figure out who's the criminal and who's the addict. Wage a war on pornography and then try to figure out who's being exploited and who's an artist. I'd much rather have a quantifiable military target. But things don't always work that cleanly, and ultimately, I'm not the one with the intelligence in front of me making the decision.
Hope that answers your questions.
L.
Alex said this:
>Amazing what people bring to a perception, isn't it?
That bottomlines it, don't you agree?
H
Jim, my epilepsy story aside (along with the issue of "atheist objectivity")...I was kidding with you.
Lynn-
I realize that what I typed earlier might have been a bit, uh, unthought out. It's just that yet another argument with some other ROTC kids has gotten me into a mood. Another 'Afghan-parking-lot solution' guy. They just torque my insides, y'know? So I kind of just assumed that's what you were referring to. If I can ask, though - what part of Frank's post was it that made you respond the way you did? I didn't see anything in that commentary that said we shouldn't retaliate. Which, by and by, I agree with insofar as the Taliban and the Al Quada.
--Curiouser,
--Zoë Rose
Zoe~ I know you don't know me, but let me set this straight. I'm probably the most sympathetic individual on this board towards the Arab causes and the Arab (and Persian) people. I have been raised with a greater than usual amount of Middle Eastern culture, for a little white girl from Texas. My folks raised Afghan Hounds and Salukis (Persian Gazelle Hounds) and as a result, I have had friends from that part of the world my entire life. I spent a year dancing and playing with the UCSB Middle East Ensemble, the largest Middle Eastern orchestra outside the region. I had friends from Iraq, from Iran, from Egypt, from Morocco, Tazjiks, Uzbeks, Kurds, from Pakistan, from all over the Near East. I love their food, I love their music, and I love their sense of tribe.
My mother just recently commented to me in conversation how'd passionately I'd been against the Taliban since before they became a sound byte. And how much I knew about the conservative Islamic movement and the machinations of the group we now call Al Qaeda. It honestly hadn't occured to me, but it seems I'm better educated on the politics of the region than most Americans. Faisal may back me up on that, as he seems to agree with my stance on most issues.
The issue is not "turning Afghanistan into a parking lot." The issue is routing out highly trained and well-funded terrorist organizations from a part of the world that has had no "government" since the Russians left in the early 80's. The issue is cracking the infrastructure that has supported the bombing of the embassies in Africa, the bombing of the USS Cole, and the attack on the World Trade Center. The war isn't against the common people of Afghanistan, it is against the members of Al Qaeda and the members of the Taliban who have housed these terrorists and made it possible for them to carry out their mission. The Afghani (that's ahf-GHOHN-ee, not AFF-GAN-EE, just like it's pronounced ih-ROHN, not I-RAN) people are the poorest and most hospitable people in the world, just listen to the journalists. And they were being oppressed by the Taliban, who in some cases actually tore down what little government services and infrastructure existed to secure their power. So we get to kill two birds with one stone -- punish Al Qaeda to the fullest extent of our military might for their transgressions on American soil -- and liberate the Afghani people from a tyranical religious regime. I'm not saying it's the perfect solution, but it's the best one the people who are in charge have come up with and one I tend to agree with.
Sincerely,
L.
Susan said:
>What do a frozen aardvark, two Valkyries, and an elephant named Rubin have in common?
>They are all part of this extra special RABBIT HOLE.
Fooood! You're sending me FOOOD! Oh, Christ, at last!
Heather, not on standard Rabbit Hole time so I have to wait a day.
Man, wonder what the GST on THAT stuff is gonna be. Did you autograph my napkin?
See ya, Justin. Have a lot of hun, okay?
Ooops. I MEANT fun!
H
Little Washu: I've always assumed that Mid-Atlantic referred to the weird is-it-British-upper-class-or-what-? accent adopted by members of the hoi polloi, Americans and Canadians trying to sound British, and British trying to hide their actual cultural background. The term came up when the Edith Wharton Scorsese film, The Age of Innocence, came out, and always seems to be used when discussing Merchant Ivory productions. That's simply my speculation, though -- I assume it's called 'Mid-Atlantic' because the accent isn't from anywhere, so the reference related to you was a joke, not a serious assignation of probable accentry.
Jon
P.S. Does Cthulhu mythos stuff count as post-Sumerian religious stuff? Given the current level of creationist rumpy-bumpy attempting to make its way into schools around here, I'm all for equal time for Cthulhu, Yog-Sothoth and the equal validity of the 'we're all escaped lab animals from the South Pole' argument of human development.
When the Mormons come to your door (as they did to mine), telling them 'My God is Crom' really gets them to go away too. They go confusedly, but they go.
Jim said (I THINK it was Jim. You ALL seem to be yelling. Heh.)
>rebuttal, but fuck it
ow ow ow. The only thing WORST than a buttfuck, IMHO, is a rebuttalfuck.
Ha.
Heather..sorry.. it MUST be the drugs..
Or perhaps the lovely 'spring snow' outside.
I read about Eartha Kitt. She spoke out against the Vietnam war at the White House. (White House; in this instance, HOW APT.)
Prey, tell me more, all you histrionic historians, you. (Again, just playing with words. I'm IN the MOOD, okay? Heh.)
And don't give me crap. I just spent a lugubriously long time staring at science fiction and fantasy books last night. (Boy books and girl books. Is it just ME?) Don't give me grief. My eyes are fuzzy.
H
SUSAN/HARLAN: I got my latest issue of Rabbit Hole today. Funny thing, the EXACT same events described in "The Annals Of Aardvark" happened to me. Only the hatcheck girl was named Madge, and Cassius would NEVER wear lavender earmuffs. You'll hear from my lawyers in the morning.
(Seriously, very nice work. I have a feeling this will become an infamous issue. And congrats on the article, Harlan.)
OKAY, ROB (Thought I forgot about you, didn't you?):
It's clear I touched a nerve with my last post. I could go into a point-by-point, sentence-by-sentence rebuttal, but fuck it. The sun is shining, Monk is playing on the stereo, and I don't have it in me to duel with you. Rick's living room is already a mess as it is, what with the shattered glasses, the ripped sofas, and the smell of piss from P.A.Berman's last visit. I honestly don't see the point of smashing the framed picture of his mother, as well. I WILL note a few things, however:
1) You wrote, "How do you know how they would really react, since no such things ever happened?", which suggested to me that you thought no one had ever really witnessed these events. I made the simple point that, in the minds of certain individuals, these fantastic events WERE ACTUALLY OBSERVED, and DID have a subjective reality. If you didn't like my interpretation of a comment YOU INSERTED into my post, then you should've have been clearer to begin with. As it is, I don't see what you got so upset about, since you basically agreed with every point I raised. So, you're what, mad because I stated what TO YOU was obvious? Rob, all I have to go on is your language--if isn't accurate, or it allows ample room for interpretation, don't yell at me.
2) I didn't know your medical history, so don't lash out at me because, again, I described a situation that you're already familiar with. If I had known you were epileptic, maybe I wouldn't have been so pedantic in my post. But give me a break. Most of the population doesn't have your condition, so assuming that you've never had a hallucinatory attack is hardly a crime on my part.
3) I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY don't appreciate being told to "fuck off." If it was said in jest, well, I ain't laughin'. And if it wasn't, then go read the Jewish Curse I posted earlier. There's no need to get abusive with me, no matter how hot under the collar you get. I've never done it with you.
4) You DO see the absurdity of your accusing me of "quibbling too much," right? Talmudic scholars don't nit-pick as much as you. (See almost anything you've written on Kubrick.)
Enough, already. If you've got anything for me besides an apology for egregious behavior, send it to my e-mail. There's been enough vitriol around here.
Hey Lynn- What's that all about? Do YOU think we should make all of Afghanistan into a parking lot because of what I think everyone saw or heard about on 9/11?
--Zoë Rose
Rick, do you have a whistle around your neck?
Just asking. My, you guys have been busy.
H
P.S. How's the move going? Got Homer packing his room yet?
Y'know, I take that back. Dissent all you want. That's what the First Amendment's about -- having the freedom to make a complete idiot of yourself without anyone interfering.
Go on, Frank. Dissent all you want.
L.
Just curious, Frank. Did you see what happened in New York last September? Have you seen the great big hole in the ground?
I have a feeling you would have "dissented" against WWII, just on principle. I mean, who are we to get involved in other nations' affairs?
Talking to a brick wall,
L.
Brian, don't be naive man about Playboy; under it's First Amendment vanity license plate, it does bow to public opinion as knee-jerkingly as the New York Times, or any thing else.
Dissent against this war is just not allowed--this is the sad fact. Gore Vidal knows that much, I'm afraid.
You said:
>Or does that make you a nutjob?
Yanno what? I dunno which came first. Coming to the Internet or deciding to be a writer. But I've had so many labels THRUST at me about 'who I am,' since I arrived about 1997, '98. This forum's no different. Are you listening (insert applicable name(s))? Sure, you are.
The thing, for me (FOR ME, okay? Maybe not for you.) is I get to hunker down, with a group of people (big group, small group) and put my thoughts to paper. Maybe what I'm thinking doesn't translate. Maybe it translates all TOO well and it gets people pissy. But I know one thing:
The people I've met (let's say, BEFORE I came to this forum) are/were pretty dear to me, once upon a notion; and nothing really changes what happened later on. I know this woman who MARRIED her online beau and I imagine she's still married. She put up with a crappy marriage for years--for the sake of the kids; one of those--and just about drove herself insane. I have a male friend in Taipei who is closer to me, in ways, than my two brothers EVER were. (Hmm.. That JUST OCCURED to me. Fancy that.) I have a friend--who I've met, in person--who is my writer colleague, in a sense. At 20-odd, she and I are on the same path to a place we both want to go--writing. And this has bridged the age and experience gap (and there's a big one, lemme tell ya), between us. In the case of the guy I once loved and worked for, well, it's been a while now. He's kinda long out of my world--but the burn's still there. It's makes me..cautious. Not sure if I like that. YOU guys just put a cap on it, recently, by leading me to the description of the Asperger's syndrome--which I knew about; it was just one episode of the article that made me pause. Boy. That was a weird time, I tell ya. Okay. I mean, this guy WAS really wacked, and I feared for my sanity, at times but I never feared for my life. And I supposed his prior missives made the difference, despite all that happened--there are some things you can't invent on paper. You either know them or you don't. Life ISN'T cut and paste. Maybe that's why I believe in a certain writer (who will remain nameless in this post as I wouldn't want them to think I'm thinking about them.) Call me fickle. Call me human.
My mom's had a similar bad affect on me, once upon a time. One employer at a print company did the same. For different reasons--_I_ know they are out there.
But Internet or inna bar, or inna job, or inna household, growing up...I don't see the difference.
I've never done bars. (I don't drink, for starters. And I hate cigarette smoke. So it's never been a strong incentive, to start with.) But Richard Gere was in a bar once too. (His Goodbar character, I mean.) I get a little pissed at the people, who, when I told them what I did--moving out here and all--told me it was dumb.
Oh? I recall a few encounters. I didn't even have to leave my neighborhood. It has less to do with locale (bar/Internet) than who you are; and what you're willing to risk to be a friend.
That's pretty much it. Next subject.
H
Who's this Harlan Ellison guy? Didn't he write INVISIBLE MAN or something?
I'm one of those people who met some guy on the Internet and moved to be with him.
I'm not sure what that says for me. It sure as hell didn't work out. It was a nightmare, in fact.
But cha know what? It got me here. So. I ain't complaining.
H
HARLAN: Sorry about that. I guess we made the subconcious assumption that not mentioning you all the time would be polite, at the risk of getting all goopy on you. But don't worry anymore...you're about to be assaulted with more Harlan Ellison than you ever have before. Bwahaha. Looking forward to the essay, too.
JON STOVER: I see you know yer Lovecraft. Cthulhu ftaghn!
Speaking of which, is there even such a thing as a Mid-Atlantic accent? I live in Bermuda, and as far as I know no one here has heard of something even similar. Anyone close to me describes that my British accent slips in and out of it's own accord, fluctuating between my 'American' accent. When I'm in America people think I'm English, and when I'm in England people think I'm American. My life sucks.
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
P.S. It's just occured to me that Randy 'Macho Man' Savage commanded more presence and power in a single scene of SPIDER-MAN than Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson ever did throughout the entire length of THE SCORPION KING. Huh, weird.
Rick said:
>(I'm kind of big on, you know, actually knowing my friend's first names for one thing).
How do you do this? Lemme see here now...
Baahahahahahahahahahhahahahha.
H, dusting off hands and walking away.
We had snow today. Didn't stay in.
H
We love ya too, Susan. Ellison? Beh.
Congrats on three digit piece. Found you in a library yesterday. (You were well hidden. They haven't stolen you yet.) "Soldier" screenplay and something something.. "California Sorcery".. or summat. What's this about a "Partners in Wonder" COALlab with Bradbury? What's that called, kiddies? And Serling was a macho bastid or summat? Bradbury poohed poohed him? He didn't 'fit' into "The Group"? Beaumont sounds interesting. Seems like there's one in every crowd.
H
My GAWD. Just got this week's issue of Hellnotes.com newsletter and found this:
http://www.braid.com/
Even seen this site? Tis a sight to see. Tee Hee.
Rick Berry and others...
H, kadooling.
Cool! Congrats!
Thanks for the heads up, I look forward to reading it.
Congrats on the essay, Mr. Ellison. I look forward to the book.
Bill
Harlan & Susan~ Congratulations on both the Rabbit Hole & the new essay. Lest you think that we don't think of you every day, I am pleased to say things are progressing on our little project. And I'm expecting my first check from CafePress any day now. It's not going to put a dent in the balance, but hey, every little bit helps.
Webderlanders: Have you been to the store lately?
http://www.cafepress.com/webderland
L.
Great to hear about your upcoming essay, Harlan. Too bad that Playboy took a pass-- the cash would've been nice, and it would fit with your previous essays in that publication (especially the one hailing the Sixties).
If I lived in an alternate universe-- the one where people would be offering me money for my gilt-edged opinions-- I couldn't work up much on 9-11. It'd be a mishmash of contradictions, weaving in and out of whatever nutty absolutist theories and explains-it-all ideologies others might throw up. It'd bounce between my desire for swift and terrible retribution, and my mistrust of those who'd be directing it. And not one word of it could bring some new, original, or profound insight into the mix. I couldn't do it. It'd be just out of my reach.
Strange, that I was going to post something myself about 9/11, then Harlan tells us the news about his new essay. I was wondering what Harlan thought about it. Now I am not going to be able to get any decent sleep untill I see that book. Hehe.
-------------
Here's a piece Henry Rollins did about 9/11. Henry is the guy with tattoo's, who used to sing for Black Flag, and is now a renown spoken work artist and musician/writer. I thought it was interesting.
"Of course, this newsletter comes in the wake of the events of September 11. It would be trite and
evasive not to address this topic. I have been putting off writing this to you because of exactly that
reason. I knew I would have to deal with it in some way and I was not looking forward to it. It is no fun
to dwell on such catastrophic news. I would be out of line to think that I could add anything of worth to
what has already been said, but like you, I have been thinking about it on many levels.
Yesterday I was on one of the local radio stations here and of course the interviewer wanted my take
on the current events. It was the first time I had been live-on-air addressing the topic. I felt very on the
spot and knew I had to use caution as I proceeded. There’s no way I was going to able to talk about
this for half an hour and not piss someone off if I didn’t choose my words carefully. Some of my
statements surprised me.
I don’t think that America deserved what it got in any way. I can’t say I was surprised though. There
are people in other countries who plainly see our way of life as repellent. My manager said to me the
other day, "A lot of people in other countries hate Americans." He and I both travel extensively and
often and have found this to be true. To anyone who travels often, this is nothing new. I have
encountered rudeness, indifference and outright hostility when visiting other countries. These instances
are very rare and you can have the same experience in America on any given day, of course, but the
fact is that there’s a perception of Americans in other countries that one almost has to go out of one’s
way to disprove.
Many cultures all over the world see America as crass and destructive, exploitative and manipulative.
America does a lot of good and a lot of not-so-good. No country is perfect, of course, but no country
on earth does things in such a grand fashion as America. The Hollywood industry could have never
come out of Europe. I am not talking about making movies; I am talking about Hollywood as an
attitude, a power and a presence. Whenever I see an actor getting into the political arena it makes me
sick. I can’t imagine what other countries must think. When Florida couldn’t get their votes tallied in the
last presidential election I winced thinking about how hard the rest of the world must have been
laughing. It also occurred to me that forces that dislike America could take in that information and
reckon that we don’t have it together and that it’s a good time to attack.
When you live as well as America does (and America lives very, very well), you have to protect it and
you have to deal with the fact that there’s millions of people all over the world who don’t have a
fraction of what the average American has. From material possessions to basic freedoms--America is
the rockstar nation.
I think the American media should stop the "Boy are we surprised!" type of reportage. Wake the fuck
up. America, you’re hated. Terrorism happens all over the world all the time. I heard someone say on
CNN the other day, "America used to be the world. Now America is part of the world."
It’s an all time low and we gotta deal. The flag waving "U-S-A" chanting is a too little too late. The
knee jerk patriotism is corny to me. If you want to be a patriot, then be one all the time, not just when
you feel your homeland attacked. It’s not just about being vigilant against attack, it’s about knowing
that until racism is gone, illiteracy and semi-literacy is gone and myriad other social ills wiped out, then
no one is totally free. That’s my kind of patriotism. No more ghettos, no more idiots, no more of the
blind, brutal ignorance that keeps progress at a crawl. I have at least said way too much."
Congratulations to you, Harlan! I'll have to check out the bookstores in Calif in July-August. What's the title of the book itself, if you can say?
Admittedly, I haven't picked up many books claiming to be discussions on 9/11, because most of them seem focused on the ideologies of
A) Kill anyone who doesn't adore America, and Kill Them NOW
B) Americans are good and innocent, how could anyone want to harm us?
or
C) Ooh, a national accident, let's make money by pretending to write a serious book about it!
So it's good to know some serious essays or thoughts will be coming out. Anyone know of some current literature to read about 9/11 that don't fall into the above categories?
--Zoë Rose
Harlan,
Congratulations on the new publication, and I look forward to reading it. As Hawthorne Press does not appear to have a web page, I'm just curious if you can tell us who some of the other authors are who are involved in the project?
Regards,
Joseph
P.S. I'll admit - I had to look up what the hell a Bangalore Torpeco is.
HARLAN
ELLISON.
I actually had nothing to add to the endlessly pedantic rehash of post-Sumerian theology that has bedizened this shore for what seems an eternity. But it had been so long since I'd seen my own name here, that my stringy goat-cheese ego began to announce redolence. So I have sneaked in for a second, to post a notice that I just completed a new 5500-6000 word essay for a book to be published by Hawthorne Press in July or August, a book containing essays on the 9/11 attacks, as written by a stellar lineup of famous writers . . . and also, me. The piece is called "Terrorists," and the editor and publishers have decided that my meager effort is the bangalore torpedo they wish to use as the opener. PLAYBOY looked at it, thought it was C-4, and would have published it first, but Hawthorne is going to press next Friday, and the book is scheduled for July release, so they gave it a pass. Susan says it's a strong piece. Gee, I love her.
Yr. pal, Harlan.
HARLAN
ELLISON.
Speaking of Buffy -
This morning's second episode was the well-crafted "Hush" featuring the creepy Gentlemen and their strait-jacketed minions in a silent Sunnydale carving out hearts for their collection.
Some of the creepiest TV out there, baby,and some of the funniest...
Spike: Sometimes I like to crumble the Weetabix in the blood. Gives it a little texture.
Giles: Since the picture you just painted means that I will never touch food of any kind again, you'll just have to pick it up yourself.
Spike: Sissy.
Anya: You don't need me. All you care about is lots of orgasms.
(Giles and Spike stare at them.)
Xander: OK, remember how we talked about private conversations? How they're less private when they're in front of my friends?
Spike: Oh, we're not your friends; go on.
Giles: I have a friend who's coming to town, and I'd like us to be alone.
Anya: Oh, you mean an orgasm friend?
Giles: Yes, that's exactly the most appalling thing you could've said.
Spike (about Xander and Anya): I'm not having these two shag while I'm tied to a chair three feet away.
(from buffyguide.com)
The mail guy just dropped a tome in my inbox that almost brought the whole pile down. My Spring 2002 Rabbit Hole is here! I know what I'm reading over lunch today.
L.
PS. Hefeweizen with a slice of lemon please. Can't wait for the weather to get warm.
Oh and a shout-out to Loftus the Golden Throat, too, on that count. :)
Three beers and no extra water, please...get away, kiddo, ya bother me.
Rob -
Something we both agree on! Next rounds on me.
- Jay
"...I believe I will have another beer."
Once, indeed, a shrine o'mine.
Forrester~ It's a Lexus commercial and I despise it. Every time I hear that damned commercial I holler from whatever room I'm in, "IT'S A FUCKING CAR!"
As if by merely placing your ass on corinthian leather seats, you could be uplifted from your life of third world poverty and degradation, transported to nirvana in a chariot with anti-lock brakes and traction control. Puh-LEASE.
Sorry, pet peeve.
L.
Xanadu – “ I've defined this place in my mind as our version of ‘Cheers’, or ‘Callahan's’.." ..that was you at the other end of the bar? Seriously, right on the money. We’ve got season tickets at a local minor league stadium, and there are a bunch of regulars we talk to at every game. Some of them have known each other for years, others couldn’t tell you the name of the “familiar face” they just spent thirty minutes shooting the breeze with (like the ones who, for some reason, inquire to my wife on my whereabouts by asking “When’s Moonlight Graham gonna show up?”). But the shared experience, the love of the game, whatever you want to call it, brings them together.
Joseph – cool reference on the Roman/Greek mythology. As Eddie Izzard said, “Then the Romans took the Greek gods and gave them Roman names. Because the Roman gods before that were kinda crap. Like ‘Geoff, the god of biscuits’ or ‘Simon the god of hairdos’.”
Lynn – as always, darlin, thank you for your support.
On the subjects of cars and Star Wars - Does anyone think the Jedi influence was apparent in the car commercials (the manufacturer’s name escapes me) where there’s this kid walking around the car and saying, in a Yoda-like voice-over, “They say this car has powers magical” and “In this car I wish to drive”?
Regarding the tiresomely familiar hashing about atheism and agnosticism and spirituality, my mood today inspires me only so far as to quote W.C. Fields:
"Every man needs something to believe in. I believe I will have another beer."
Well, at least I now know how long it takes to catch up with the board when I've been away for five days...
Buffy reference: I could do without the 'Buffy's been shot! Will she die?' thing. There's a limit to the number of times 'killing' or seriously maiming the heroine gets me interested. Maybe Buffy and Andy Sipowicz should team up -- Buffy's penchant for getting injured and/or killed and Sipowicz's penchant for getting partners, offspring, and spouses diseased and/or dead might cancel one another out. Plus I'm thinking Sipowicz beats some sense into Spike, Xander and others pretty quickly. Or gets Spike into AA.
Little Washu: Does this mean you've got a Mid-Atlantic accent? That'd be cool.
Chill,
Jon
Just a quick note to second Lurk's recommendation of Julian Jaynes's book, whose entire title is _The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_ -- one of the odder tomes I read aloud for the Massachusetts Association for the Blind's recording studio.
Jaynes not only uses literary evidence from the Bible, the Iliad, and the Odyssey to support his thesis that pre-conscious humans basically heard voices from their right brain telling them what to do in times of physical stress, but also brings in 20th century split brain research. For a while, schizophrenics were calmed by cutting the bridge between the right and left brain (called the corpus collosum), with very odd results.
I don't know that I believe any of it. Rather like Schopenhauer's theories of Will (or, in my opinion, any faith in a particular deity), it seems to be unprovable, unverifiable ... but it makes for interesting reading in any case.
Jaynes, who was a professor of psychology at Princeton, projected a follow-up book, for which I eagerly kept an eye open, but I believe it never appeared before he died.
Xanadu,
Ditto.
I find it harder and harder to make true friends as I get older. The desire and the effort to establish new friendships takes time and trust and both are in short supply with "adult" responsibilities. I've got my 2-3 good friends and, quite frankly, find they satisfy any emotional need I may have. That doesn't preclude me from making new friends, but, as I said, it seems to be increasingly difficult as one gets older and settles in, so to speak.
I don't know that I consider anyone else here friends, maybe friendly acquaintances, but there are some I wouldn't mind if given the opportunity to meet in person if only to get to know them better. Just as we would with anyone we would consider for friendship. And in lieu of those opportunities, I post to this board to hear the conversation, to hear a new angle on an old argument, and, hopefully, to learn something new.
Not to belittle lonegungirl's "cocktail party" analogy (trust me, lonegungirl, you're not missing anything by not going to one), I think Xanadu's is more on the mark: It's a bar you go to after work or maybe to watch the game and you see the regulars there. You may not be barbecuing with them every weekend, but you know their names, you know a little about them, and you shoot the shit and when the game's over or it's getting late, you go home to your life, maybe knowing a bit more than you did before. No pressure. No hassles. Just shooting the shit with some more-knowledgeable-than-average folks and enjoying the company.
And that's why I keep coming back, despite the sometimes pettiness and hurt feelings and plain childishness that is on the board, because I do learn a lot and I do think that you guys are good people.
I promised myself I wouldn't cry...
Bermanator: I've defined this place in my mind as our version of "Cheers", or "Callahan's" - a place to go where everybody knows your name - we are at least somewhat familiar with your background and have a passing knowledge of what makes you tick. But that analogy can only carry one so far. As I've said in a previous conversation - despite posting with either names or handles, we are all basically anonymous here - we only know what the poster chooses to put here.
To your question - are we friends? I'm not sure I could say that - we are familiar with each other, for certain, and that familiarity breeds within us a feeling that is comparable to friendship, but I think it lacks several basic requirements for true friendship. Not the least of which is a certain level of physical compatibility... Could we become friends? No doubt many of us could. Even in combinations that would seem improbable based solely on the exchanges of this board. This is because most of us are far more than what we post here - and there are so many intangibles and non-verbal cues to compatibility. I respect many of the positions you take here, but in reality, if your speaking voice sounds like it belongs to the actress who played The Nanny or your laugh sounds like the braying of a donkey - I'm not gonna spend a lot of time getting to know you...
As far as arguments on this board go - I suspect we are bothered personally by disagreements on this board in direct proportion to our respect for "the other guy" (though some could argue subject matter is also critical). There are several posters here who could get extraordinarily creative in the crafting of insults of me, and it would wash off my back in the time it took to read it. There are others who could, with a seemingly innocuous comment, cut me to the quick and leave me feeling as abandoned as a three week old puppy in the middle of a six lane expressway. (I suspect this is why so many people react harshly to Harlan's comments to them - by definition, our respect for the man and his work is very high on this board.) In "real life", those hurt feelings would be blunted by a sense of real friendship - you know they care for you, so you interpret their "attack" more constructively. Here, familiarity doesn't quite do the same job - since you can't know if "the other guy" is really trying to hurt you, or just feels strongly about the subject and is arguing passionately.
What's appropriate to post? Anything and everything that doesn't violate professional or personal ethics. But - you should always remember that we are a very diverse group of people, and we are fully capable of misreading your original intent. None of us share exactly the same training, outlook or perspective on life - we are all going to offer something from our own experience, relevant or not. It rests with the original poster to draw from that response what they need - or if we all misread too badly - redefine the query.
Is it appropriate to get angry at something posted on the internet? Of course - you would be a poor person if you didn't. But, if you find yourself getting angry often, or it creates a rage in you that hurts those around you - then perhaps you should step away for awhile. Too much of even a good thing, isn't.
That's my two ducats. Take from it what you will.
Lynn,
I'm still trying to figure out why such a cult has grown up around the Saturn brand. It's a nice car (I like mine so far). but, I swear, most owners (and the sales people) seem way too happy.
On an unrelated note...
I realize it's a little early yet, but do you plan on attending Comicon this year? If so let me know and maybe we can plan on getting into some trouble when you come down.
-Andrew
Who was wearing flannel that day, not plaid (well maybe a plaid flannel...)
On the relationship of message board occupants:
My feeling (for whatever its worth) about message boards has always been similar to what I would imagine a cocktail party would be like, had I ever been to one. I usually arrive somewhate late, don't know anyone, and spend most of the time wandering around, listening to conversations and sticking in my oar when I hear something interesting. If no one cares to talk back, I'm perfectly ok with moving on to the next group. People tend to leave the party at different intervals, sometimes in a huff, but may be back again if they can't find another gathering as interesting to them.
I think it may be overstating things to say that there is absolutely nothing between posters, as every message board is hung together on some small thread of commonality--in this case, HE. That, and the small shreds of humanity and courtesy that govern the tolerable forms of interpersonal communication, are all I really expect from such a forum. Others, of course, expect and achieve much more.
On the fate of Warren on Buffy:
Judging from the reds of Willow's eyes, I'd say Warren is pretty much slag next episode. I think we can also say good bye to Willow's magic hiatus, but maybe hello to Giles again...
Awww, c’mon, it’s obvious!
You call a car Saturn because it runs rings around the opposition.
Kerry (Who now goes to perform self flagellation)
Jim,
You're quibbling too much and fuckin' driving me up Mt. Ararat. You KNOW what I mean! We haven't had flying chariots or burning bushes as defined by an actual event; yet, people have indeed "seen" such things. I'm well-informed on this subject and way ahead of you on the argument of organic or chemical brain disorders: I HAD a situation in the past with epilepsy so I knows all about it. And you know what? I DID discover Jesus and God (or was that just you in the Jesus threads freaking me out?)...but I better not tell you what I discovered ABOUT them. It seemed incredibly real at the time I had the seizure but ba' Jeezus when the haze past...I understood what had happened. No one like myself or a typical atheist is going to ever accept some dopey religious or preternatural explanation for anything just because it seems unexplainable. That's why I covered my ass earlier in a hypothetical scenario: I'd never hastily conclude about what I'd seen unless others were seeing it AND the scientific community got to ascertain it. And any facts that emerged would have nothing to do with religion.
And I still say that many agnostics, by nature (screw the dictionary, Rick!), are in a quandary - coping with a dilemma. Those I recall talking to would say, "I'm not sure if there's a god". That's a condition of uncertainty. A dilemma.
Atheists are bound by evidence. Evidence has nothing to do with religion or notions about the supernatural. It is constituted by facts.
So THERE. Now in the name of St. Bartholomew, fuck off.
Lynn,
Er...Saturn is the Romanized form of Cronos, father of Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto, and god of Time. In the Roman vernacular, the God & Goddess of the Underworld (as much as they believed in such things) were Pluto & Proserpine.
Of course, you might ask why a car company decided to name a car after a god who tried to prevent his overthrow by eating his children at birth, until his wife disguised a stone in swaddling clothes and Jupiter fled until he grew up and returned to overthrow Saturn. Wacky, eh?
Anyhoo, here's a good overview of the Roman religious system, which I find fascinating in it's combination of superstition and practicality. A lot of it was freely ripped off from the Greeks to make the Romans seem more civilized, but there's a whole level of spirits and gods that were the real Roman religion:
http://www.crystalinks.com/romegods.html
Regards,
Joseph
Andrew~ Oh yes, you the most memorable. Bagel eater, Vegas husband, wearer of the plaid. San Diegan. There, did that have enough contempt in it? ::grin::
Yes, Webderlanders, I have seen the Andrew. Be afraid, be very afraid. He is everything he says and more. The perfect member for the cult of Saturn. (Can I just interject - who the fuck names a car after the Roman god of the underworld?)
::sigh:: I'm going to bed now.
L.
Jim Davis,
Yes, I wrote the sermon. Everything I put into HOMELESS JOE'S ALMANAC is something I wrote. Little snippets here and there. Thanks for the kudos.
Stan Nicholls,
Thanks!
Bermanator,
I don't know you all that well, but everything I've read of yours indicates to me that you are an excellent teacher. I'd put you in the same league as my favorite teachers, including three english instructors at Evergreen High School, the Three High Verbals of their day. I have tremendous respect for you, and I am glad you're staying around.
As for your question concering friends fighting, I was witness to a major blow-up between friends at a new year's 2000/2001 party. One stalked off, walking and taking the bus home. I tried to find him, but he was nowhere in sight. I drove by his house later, and he was okay. Two strong personalities, if they clash, can really make quite a thunderstorm, freinds or not. Friendships don't always survive such sturm und drang, but there are those that thrive on conflict.
Scott & Mellissa,
Glad to see that at least you, Mel, are sticking around. I hope Scott is doing okay. I have high regard for you two, and hope you stick around. Tell Scott I said hello. You both add to the gestalt that makes up this bulletin board, and I'd like to keep the part that makes up the Scott n' Mel show!
In other news,
Here in Colorado, wildfires came close to burning my home town of Evergreen. Looks like the town will be spared. One more fire breathing its last.
Cindiana Jones,
I'll start reading your screenplay tomorrow. I look forward to it.
Chuck
"He breathed fire on me! He boined me already!"
Lynn~ " I've met several Webderlanders face to face and am privileged to call them friend (Rob, Peg, hell, even our esteemed patron)."
::sniff::...
Guess I'm on the short list (the bad, short list).
Zoë~ (Whoohoo, got the dots right!) I meant to get to this sooner...
You mentioned the rough time you're having with car dealerships. As a recent, first time, car buyer I sympathize with your plight. I'd recommend checking out your local Saturn dealership. I have no idea what you'll be able to afford, but the sales people aren't pushy, the product is pretty good (for the price), and (so far) their customer service is excellent. Although, if you can wait until you arrive in California, you'll be in even better shape. I understand that, while gas prices may be slightly higher, vehicles tend to cost less here.
Caveat Emptor
-Andrew
A recent addition to the Saturn Owners Collective (you too, will be assimilated).
I think this sums up our dilemma neatly:
Reasons Why Usenet (and other bulletin boards) Is Like A Penis:
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&selm=S1227.539c%40netfunny.com
Caution: You need a sense of humor to read this.
BERMANATOR,
I said FRIEND and that is what I mean. If somebody wants to bust your chops, I got your back.
:)
Cindy
RICK -
Yeah, I think its semantics. I understand what you're saying.
Spiritual Faith, to me, comes as a process which flies in the face of the conventional definition. A contradiction in the literal sense, I know...
More later when I take my brains out of the washer.
Jay
Rob - I dunno what to call you, I get a little tired of pigeonholing people. How about we just classify you as a "Robist"?
Jay - I see where you're going, and I understand your perspective that all people have some form of faith. What you have to realize is that a person having faith in something (be it gravity, butterflies, or peanut butter) is a separate deal from agnosticism. Saying agnosticism is a Faith because an agnostic has faith does not follow - it's the same thing as calling Republicanism a Faith. There's a logical disconnect there. I don't know if that made any sense, but it's all I'm capable of at the moment...
It's still putting words in my mouth, P.A. - I did not say "we are not strangers, but friends."
I said in one post that we were not strangers here. This makes a statement that given the amount of give and take, the sum of conversation, and the degree of personal revelation, you can't really claim many people here are strangers to you, least of all Scott and Melissa.
In another, I described you as someone who "came to some friends" with a dilemma. This was a portrayal of your viewpoint, that you had to think you were amongst friends to bring such a touchy and controversial topic before them. I was concluding that you were exasperated and need to vent, and do so to people you felt would be sympathetic and possibly offer a helping hand.
These were two separate statements, and they don't fuse to make the combined statement "We are not strangers, but friends." That would imply I stated that we are ALL friends here since it contains no qualification.
HAVING SAID THAT, I recognize this is a small distinction, and you're right to call me on making a big deal out of it. Rather than get pissy I should have just qualified myself and said that while there are people on here I consider friends, I do not consider most people here a true friend (I'm kind of big on, you know, actually knowing my friend's first names for one thing). I think it's a mistake to think you know someone you've only conversed with via e-mails or boards - you've never met them, you've just met their agent.
I feel you should approach forums like this with an open mind and heart - but also with a wary eye. Be open to the possibility of friendship, but don't leave yourself vulnerable to someone who can spear you from a position of anonymity. That's a hard thing to say, but it also comes from learning some hard lessons.
Here's a link for the Jaynes stuff
http://julianjaynessociety.tripod.com/
I'm not advocating Jyanes' work as the ah-ha answer, but it does provide an interesting slant on the origins of organized religion and spiritual experiences, which the board has been discussing lately.
>If a voice spoke to you, and no one else could hear it, would you believe it was God? <
See if you can find a copy of Julian Jaynes book "The Bicameral Mind." An interesting, probably implausible, but nonetheless provactive theory that humans in ancient cultures (up to middle Kingdom Egypt, I think) had separate right brain/left brain activity, which accounted for voices, visions, etc. The later breakdown of this division, Jaynes claims, is reflected in the art and literature of the breakdown period, and he gives examples to support his thesis.
Just when I think I'm out...
ROB: You wrote, " "This is an absolute position. No matter what he/she might witness--whether it's a voice in the sky, a flaming chariot..."
How do you know how they would really react, since no such things ever happened?"
But, Rob, people HAVE witnessed things like that. There are innumerable accounts of strange phenomena dating all the way back to the dawn of recorded history. Certainly, non-religious explanations can be found for all of them, whether they involve schizophrenia, epilepsy, meterological patterns, astrological events, or whathaveyou. But in many of these incidents, people actually SAW OR HEARD these fantastic things. How an Atheist differs from most of these folks is his/her insistence that the metaphysical or supernatural is NEVER an explanation for unusual phenomena, no matter what.
Think about it. If a voice spoke to you, and no one else could hear it, would you believe it was God? Or would you think that you're having some sort of auditory hallucination created by an organic brain disorder? Ah, there's the rub (Rob). You may very well see a flaming chariot tomorrow, for all you know. (If there's a guy with glasses and brown, curly hair driving it, you'll know it's me fucking with you.)
Little Washu: let that be a life lesson for you. Only go to ancient Egypt movies that feature Rachel Weisz. She sure was the only reason to see Mummy II (electric boogaloo).
CHUCK: Yes, those bassets like to occupy themselves, don't they? I could dislocate my arms but Elvis still won't budge until he's finished with a scent he's interested in.
Just went to see THE SCORPION KING, expecting a little giggle, nothing more.
30% of my IQ has just been lopped off because of this movie. I got exactly what I deserved. Stay away from THE SCORPION KING. This is a warning from one who has already been damned.
After this flick, I think I've firmly become an atheist myself.
Desperately, LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
Rick: You said, and I quote, "I have a lot more to say on this subject, including discussing how good a job we did with someone who came to some friends with a teacher's dilemma."
You did say friends. I'm not putting words in your mouth.
Bermanator
Jay,
I'll say this: whether or not one stamps a conditon of faith on the "believing" there is no God, atheism and agnosticism both hold the virtue - the advantage - of unobstructed "learning valves" in the scientific pursuit of knowledge. Whatever premise you are presented with by the data you'll not resist where that data will lead you, as you'd have no beliefs it would "endanger" (a proven hinderance so many times in the past). Holding on to the right degree of skepticism in any discovery, you examine the data and test it and retest it and re-retest it until empirically conclusive answers emerge to prove or disprove the findings. Many renowned atheists express sentiment over this virtue. I QUOTED one. Das all I's gettin' at.
PA~ I consider you a friend. As with all friendships, there are close friends and more distant friends. If you were coming to LA, I'd love to get together and have dinner with you. I have several dear close friends whom I've only met once face to face or not at all, but whose opinions and advice I know I can rely on. I've met several Webderlanders face to face and am privileged to call them friend (Rob, Peg, hell, even our esteemed patron). There are others here I'd just as soon not ever meet, and they know who they are.
Do I fight like this with my friends? Yes, and family too. And Forrester is absolutely right. Things get out of hand quickly on the Net because we don't have the rest of the story. We can't see the lines in your forehead, the way you hold your shoulders or your hands, the hint of wetness in your eyes. We can't see any of this. And I know that you can't see the same of me. Perhaps that's why I'm a little more able to cut people some slack, or at least not take their words as personally as they may feel. And when someone flies off the handle, I have learned (notice *learned*, meaning I made an ass out of myself before I learned) to take a step back and take a deep breath, trying to take into account everything that I know about a person and considering their point of view before stepping into the path of that speeding bullet. Sometimes you still have to take the hit, and yes, it smarts. It helps to know you're among people who genuinely don't wish you any harm.
The Internet seems easy because of the anonymity factor, but I think that is a lie we tell ourselves. People may not know anything about who you are in real life, but I believe that instead of insulating ourselves, I believe this anonymity makes us all the more exposed. Because they don't see us as wife, or father, or sister, or teacher, or any of the other roles we are assigned, they are left with nothing more than the impression we give them with our words.
I hope this helps, and yes, I think you are among friends. I hope you count me as one of them.
Warmest regards,
L.
A lurker to this board once told me that it didn't pay for her to get too involved with the phosphor dots that flicker across her screen. I replied that it had been my policy for a long, long time to never get too involved with the phosphor dots. Hell, I have enough problems with relationships in real life to want to compound it with problems in virtual life.
As for being friends: I may not be real friends with anybody on this board, and I've been here for at least four years now, but I have gotten a good enough sense of some of the people on this board to know that I would be honored if I could ever consider them friends (even some of the more recent additions to our motley crew of phosphor dots... or dot-dots.)
We've all had our spats and our feuds, and sometimes one of us takes his or her tinker toys back home, but considering the spite and venom and utter vitriol that is to be found in the rest of the vast ocean of the Sibersilica, this place is one big happy family.
Yeah, there is a great distance between us all -- greater than the geographic. It's the distance created by the CRT monitor and the keyboard. The almost impersonal nature of the Internet is that people become handles and email addys and maybe a jpeg on a website somewhere. What sets this place apart from others, though, is our awareness that there are people somewhere on the other side of the screen -- real people with real feelings.
I think I'm beginning to babble.
We keep our distances, but not at the expense of our humanity, which is why I keep coming back here.
---Peter
P.A.: Borrowing from Terry Jones, if I could put my head on the chopping block, so you could run it up the flag pole and kick it around a bit…
I’d like to say that I’ve been following all of this with the intense scrutiny of the kid who works summers for the Toledo Mudhens and has to chart every ball, strike, foul, dinger and duck-snort, but I don’t. It's become a place to visit. Occasionally, I write on the virtual wall if I feel I have something to say. If no one responds favorably, or at all, it doesn’t become an issue. There are a few who make the time to email, and when they do take the time to share something, it’s appreciated. It’s always a pleasant surprise when someone, whether a peer or someone my son’s age, thinks I have something useful to say. But I don’t set any expectations.
Why? Because of exchanges like these. Among the biggest drawbacks to this form of communication : the lack of verbal inflection, words taken out of context, the missing immediacy of response to clarify and expand. The posters who spend way too much time trying to impress everyone. People who take things way too seriously, and those who take nothing seriously. There’s always someone who can’t tell if you’re kidding. On the other hand, there can be some excellent exchanges between people who make the time to look at what someone has written in its entirety, whether it’s the first post or one of many.
How well can we know each other in this context? Some posters have had, and continue to have, face-to-face interaction. That makes a world of difference in how you perceive someone, when you know them not only from their writings, but also how they dress, what restaurants they go to, if they leave their shoes on when they walk around the house, if they’re organized to the level of OCD or eccentrically bohemian and disheveled or whatever lies between the two.
HimsElf once said something about his friends being the people he’s close to who will also let him know when he’s been bone-stick stupid. There’s a world of difference between knowing people (acquaintances?) and having a friendship. My best friend is the person I’m married to. She has friendships that have lasted decades, and I enjoy getting to know those people (yes, especially when they tell me I'm good for her). With the notable exception of her…well, that’s just not me. Not sure why; maybe she's the only one who can stand me for prolonged periods of time?
Knowing someone, whatever the venue, it’s all about how much you want to share and how much you want to risk. There are different levels of expectations, but everyone, at one time or another, will do or say something that makes you stop in your tracks and say “Wow, I’ve never looked at it that way.” Or make you say “What the…?” and want to write that person off. It’s all in how you respond to it, or don’t respond to it, how that changes, or doesn’t change, the interactions going forward. That’s what defines your relationship to that person, how you deal with it when s/he angers, confuses and/or disappoints you.
And I think I’ll stop rambling now.
Rick,
...ok, while I'm being cute in all my excesses: I simply don't believe in God or any religious argument for those things we can or cannot explain. Nature's a bitch: She blinded me with SCIENCE!
S'where does that leave me?
(I saws yer post only now).
RICK -
Yeah, I see the contradiction. I maintain that if you consider yourself as undecided on God or Nature, you've still got Faith - if you believe that your jar of Jif is the center of the universe, that's fine. Or, more to the point you made: "I believe my Skippy Crunch is God, but I'm willing to entertain the notion that Bill Bixby may really be the Almighty." or "I maintain there IS NO God." That's Faith in the non-being of God.
I guess it's Faith as comfort in one's understanding of matters spiritual.
Steer me back to the highway if this sounds looped.
Jay
P.A.: "You say we're not strangers here *but friends*."
As someone who just recently got pretty riled about having words put in their mouth, you may wish to reconsider placing these in mine.
Look at this primordial ooze that I found on the Ted Nugent message board, I sometimes post at:
"Evolution is a 180 degree polar opposite of creation as laid out in Genesis. This mush we tell kids is
why there is no appreciation for life and abortion, euthenasia and shooting your classmates is okay
because we came from primordial soup or a rock as the scientist would have you to believe. Life is
insignificant because it just kinda happened. And they laugh at our belief in a creator???"
--------------------
Talk about idiotic.
re: Internet Relationships
P.A. Berman, I've asked these very questions myself. It totally creeps me out when people say they've gone to another state (or in some cases, another country!) just to meet someone they met on the internet. I'm a skeptic in that arena - the prime reason being, because I know I'm much braver on the www than I am in "real life", if that makes sense. And after all the horror stories of people setting up "dates" and finding that there are perverts or murderers or other types of nutcases on the other end, well.. it's understandable to be wary of such a thing.
That said, though, I've recently made a very good friend via the internet. We've never met in person, and though we talk of it now and again it's nothing that "must" happen or anything. He's someone I can e-mail back and forth with, complain or explain or just blather to, and he does the same back. He's smart, and can tell me where I'm erring in my actions/words, or can talk about a work of literature or a movie, or talk about family.
And I "met" him here.
So do I consider the others on this board friends? Maybe not in the same category as "real life" friends, but also yes, in a sense. In the same sense, though, if for some reason life threw me a curveball that said I couldn't ever visit Webderland again, I think I'd live. I'd miss it, though, and I'm not even yet a real resident, really.
As for the 'would brawls happen' question, yes! Or at least, they SHOULD be able to happen between friends. That's one thing very irritating here in the midwest - people take "debate" to mean "fight." I don't see it that way - an exchange of ideas, no matter how heated, is still just that: an exchange of ideas. I think it's important to know if everyone's mature enough to handle it (and, as it turns out, that is not very likely the case), but between good friends, sure! Brawls can and should happen.
Not friends, but not strangers? I'd say virtual neighbors. People you can look over the fence and smile and nod at - not friends, not strangers - but neighbors. If nothing else suffices.
--Zoë Rose
Rick: No, I'm not done yet. I guess, since I broke your lamp and set fire to the curtains, fuck it, might as well piss on your carpet too.
You say we're not strangers here but friends. Cindy said it too. Do the rest of you feel that way? Do you really think of the regulars here as friends? Would knock-down drag-out brawls happen like this if people were truly friends? Do you fight like this with your real world friends? Can you be friends with someone you only know on the Internet? On a BB? And if we're not friends but we're not strangers, what are we? What is appropriate to post here and what isn't? Is it ever appropriate to get angry about something someone says to you on the Internet? Or does that make you a nutjob?
This whole experience for me on here has been a crazy sociological experiment. A weird trip. I'm still figuring things out, how they work, what's OK to say, how what isn't, and why. I know this is meta-board conversation, but if anyone wants to take a stab at any of the above questions, I crave your kind enlightenment.
Thanks.
Bermanator
A couple of grammatical fuck-ups slipped by in my last post. IGNORE 'em, see?
Jim,
One quick word about your 'Jewish Curse' joke: zis iz vy I almust b'came Juwish a buncha timz!
DAT VUZ K-LAZZIK!
Jim,
"This is an absolute position. No matter what he/she might witness--whether it's a voice in the sky, a flaming chariot..."
How do you know how they would really react, since no such things ever happened?
"--an atheist will not accept a religious explanation."
Right. And neither will I. I only accept quantifiable, scientifically proven facts. As atheists do. I reject outright every and all religious presumptions or arguments. But if Galactus or Klaatu landed here and we witnessed it and the scientific community confirmed what they are (I wouldn't want to witness it alone; I COULD be going nuts, something I often wonder about enough as it is) we would be unable to deny it. But neither Galactus, nor Klaatu, nor God exist so that ain't gonna happen. I'm trying to delineate a principle. The reverse of the above happens too: when Percival Lowell convinced us those were artificial canals on Mars it was nearly treated with the conviction of solid fact. Talk about faith! But we've been there since and now we HAVE to deny their existence.
I don't question the existence of a supreme super-being...I deny it. But I do ask questions about everything around me in scientific terms. And that's what scientists do. There's so much to learn about the universe and laws still to discover; I have no time for presumptions inherited from primitive societies of thousands of years ago. I prefer to learn. Look at the quote I first posted. Fer chrissake, you can deny ANY religious argument and still have an inquisitive mind.
I'm simply saying I'm only interested in the process of science. That and art shape the basis of my world view.
So, my fellow Buffy fans. How many pieces do you think Warren will end up in next week?
Ok, last time for today.
I read this in an anthology of Jewish humor: "A Jewish Curse: May you fall into the outhouse just as a regiment of Ukrainians is finishing a prune stew and twelve barrels of beer."
Just stopped by for a moment.
Ms. Berman: Please accept my apology for my horrible conduct last night. I acted shamefully in the comment I left at the end of my prior post. And to all, the same. I am truly embarassed at my own conduct.
In this case I've let emotion and childishness get in the way, and see Ms. Berman's point. I try to tell my children to have more respect for another's difference; a lesson I will use this unfortunate episode to glean from.
With that, thank you for your patience and tolerance. Good luck and success to all.
Melissa
Oops, I accidentally snipped this from the definition of "Agnostic": An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven, but rather holds that one cannot know for certain if they exist or not. (That hews a little closer to Rob's words.)
CHUCK: LOVED your new, improved Sermon on the Mount. Did you write that? (Yes, I know you TYPED it, smartass.)
JAY: Around the time of THE PHANTOM MENACE (was it REALLY three years ago?), I wondered how the marketing blitzkrieg employed by Lucas would work with other films. Since EYES WIDE SHUT was also playing around the same time, and I was really deep into all things Kubrick (still am), I imagined a Burger King tie-in for it. There would be a Kubrick doll, armed with a mini-Arriflex, and if you pulled a string on its back, it would say, "Let's do another take, all right?" And when you ordered an EYES value meal from the drive-through, you'd hear "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that," from the intercom.
I really need to get out more.
LYNN: I don't know what place spirituality holds in my life. I don't deny that there may be a non-tangible component to existence, but how doggedly-material, flesh-and-blood entities can hope to claim any knowledge about it is beyond me. We'll ALL find out the answer one day, so there's little point sweating it in the meantime, right? (This non-concern doesn't mean I'm some staid rationalist--feelings of transendence and wonder are a daily occurrence for me. They're just not tied to any speculations about the afterlife, is all.)
I'm a spiritual believer, but Atheism has been so censored in this country that I kind of see their points on most things. In the spiritual realm, I feel that most answers are a mystery and that there are more questions than any rational answers. It is better to keep ones beliefs to ones self and keep it at that. People who impose their beliefs are no better than Communist police agents.
Rick, man, you got me. I'm sorry about all the people who were disturbed by witnessing my assholery, but I guess I'm *not* sorry for telling Scott off. Why pretend? I know it's the PC thing to do to be sorry for all conflicts that ever happen, but I think I had sucked up enough crap for the day. *My* wounds were not "finally, blissfully healing." I felt like shit and it's not too cool to say "Let's drop it" in the midst of a final condescending commentary and expect it to be all better.
Maybe if I were the bigger man I would just have let Scott and Melissa have their last word, but I felt I was being pilloried. It galls the fucking hell out of me to be told I am a bigot, corrupting children and trying to force them to think like me based on NO evidence but the poster's own prejudices. This is my JOB, to deal with kids and fairly and meaningfully, to understand them. I am a good teacher, damn it. It upsets me to be so misconstrued.
I did feel despair. No pride, though, that's for sure. And I did feel stupid for even posting it. I'm sorry, I didn't feel like I was among friends. As Lynn says, one shouldn't come in here and expect to feel good. Well, when I'm among friends and I'm agonizing over how to handle a tough situation, I don't expect total agreement but I do expect to get the shit kicked out of me for *having* the problem. I think some of you are my friends, but Lynn is right. I shouldn't expect anything other than what I got. I don't mean that sarcastically at all.
I didn't post my post to get sympathy, to be affirmed in my perfection, or even to open up that recurring debate about atheism. My post was NOT about faith. I guess I was not clear about that.
And I AM left feeling sorry. That's the truth. I do blame myself for this whole mess. The only thing I can say in my own defense was that I was freaking out when I read it and I wanted some guidance. That's all. And I probably made things worse by writing this, but oh well. If I'm truly among friends, it'll be OK in the end.
Bermanator
Jim~ What about 'spiritual'? Where does that fall in the spectrum? Where does it fit for you?
L.
ROB: Funny, your description of Atheism sounds remarkably close to Agnosticism. I hate to be the pain-in-the-ass who pulls out the dictionary to make a point, but hey, that IS what it's there for, right?
From the American Heritage Dictionary, Third edition:
Agnostic-One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists. (Yep, that's me.)
Atheist-One that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. (This is an absolute position. No matter what he/she might witness--whether it's a voice in the sky, a flaming chariot, or whatever--an atheist will not accept a religious explanation. I doubt most self-proclaimed atheists truly fit this definition.)
Faith-1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or turstworthiness of a person, an idea, or a thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. (I think Jay is referring to #1, while Rob is talking about #2.)
I prefer the term "Areligious," myself. It's a more accurate description for how I live my life. Religious issues simply aren't a part of my everyday concerns, and inhabit the same corner of my brain as alien abductions, telepathy, and the films of Henry Jaglom--i.e., almost no space at all.
In my haste, I sent the message with some significant grammatical errors. The opening sentence should have read: "I have to interrupt this ongoing debate on religion and faith to bring you some late breaking story out of Spain".
My apologies.
I hate this ongoing debate on religion abd faith to bring you some late breaking story out of Spain:
Arthur Miller just received the Principe Asturias Award, the third foreign writer in the history of this Spanish award to receive the same (the other two were Doris lessing and Gunther Grass). The award is handed out every year by the Spanish Royal Academy to writers who have made a significant contribution to world literature. Miller will receive the award next fall; the same will be handed to him by Spain's Prince Felipe de Borbon.
Rejoice.
HEATHER, MS. LOVATT:
I read the snippet you posted. Be advised: people do not "seethe" words. They speak them. Pots overboiling, they seethe. To write, "You prick," she seethed, is as bad as "Look," she pointed. As one cannot point words, nor pole vault words nor siphon words nor ejaculate words, so neither can one "seethe" words. That is what is called "bad writing."
Cheerily, Harlan
"An agnostic, one who questions the existence of God, is more or less caught in a quandary, still willing to consider that one or more of the superstitions of the world may be valid - in spite of what contradictions that person may consider."
Rob, you're so cute when you get didactic while you're in the wrong. Agnostics are not in a quandary. They are not willing to consider superstitions or the existence of god. An agnostic believes that God and the supernatural are beyond human knowledge. He's not on the fence. The only reason an agnostic "questions the existence of God" is that he thinks it's as ridiculous to believe blindly that God DOESN'T exist as it is to believe blindly that he DOES.
"Fer Chrissake, Atheists do not presume to know. That's the point: We - the human race - know NOTHING."
Ummm, no, that's an agnostic again. An atheist DOES presume to know that god doesn't exist. I don't know why people have so much trouble with this.
But JAY - "I still regard [agnosticism] as a Faith as it does not entirely reject anything, yet is not closed to new evidence."
What the heck does that have to do with faith? My dictionary has faith as "an unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence." Isn't that the antithesis of what you say?
Am I the only one this seems off-base to? Will it pass without challenge if I regard peanut butter as a Faith because it can be smooth or chunky yet still blends well with grape jelly?
Rob,
I think that was my point. Your beliefs are your Faith. I'm not trying to tell you what all Atheists think. By giving yourself the Atheist label, you've considered matters spiritual and cosmic and come to a conclusion. I consider that Faith. That's not to be confused with Dogma, where you absolutely believe in something and are unable to process other contrary ideas. You don't believe in God or Angels. Okay, that doesn't mean you are without Faith.
In case I've given you the wrong impression, you're not talking to an advocate of organized religion. I think my previous post covered that. God, to me, is either a personification of nature or an advanced life form with a personal interest in Earth. Either idea is valid compared to the weird shit passing for Church these days.
You have an opinion of the cosmic world, Rob. Even if it doesn't have the face of God or gods overseeing it, you have Faith.
Zoe,
Yeah, and they keep trying to sell you that undercarriage rust-proofing in between visits from kindly police officer.
Regards,
Joseph
Dammit, Alex Jay - ya got me. You put that in quotes though... who (and I'm asking ever-so-sweetly) said it? Not that a lady would try to bloody anyone's nose, of course... *grin*
Meanwhile - anyone else despise car-shopping as much as I do? Managed to stay (mostly) debt-free throughout college, and not looking forward to getting INTO debt. Yet, my '83 VW Jetta that leaks and, lately, has the nasty habit of shocking me (literally) whenever I unlock the door, isn't /quite/ trustworthy enough to last me 'til Cali.
For the first time, I've been intimidated by a Minnesotan - car dealers. *shiver* Who prey on my car-ignorance. *grumble*
--Zoë Rose
PA: "If I was an asshole at any point, I apologize for that too, but there's only so much lambasting I can take from strangers."
I make a practice of not accepting apologies when they come sandwiched between a condition and a rationalization. That's too much bread for me.
Yeah, you were an asshole. Your last post to Scott was sarcastic and insulting. It re-opened wounds that were threatening to finally, blissfully close. I can't condone getting needled as provocation for coming into my living room, knocking over the lamp, and setting fire to the curtains. Also, we aren't strangers - that's why you came to us with your dilemma.
And you don't need to apologize for bringing it here. It was the right thing to do. We should apologize for not doing more to help you. Even doctors and lawyers can discuss cases including specifics as long as they don't violate anonymity.
BUT, you SHOULD be shot without trial for typing the sentence "I throw my hands up in despair." What's next for you? Hanging your head in pride?
Jay,
Interesting how you can tell an atheist what an atheist thinks.
I even gave you a quote from a famous philosopher/atheist. An agnostic, one who questions the existence of God, is more or less caught in a quandary, still willing to consider that one or more of the superstitions of the world may be valid - in spite of what contradictions that person may consider.
Speaking for myself, and others I know personally, I don't believe in Gods and angels. They are all the stuff of myths buried in antiquity, derived from man's fears and ennui; metaphors lost in literalism. But YOU have a divine being - or even a ghost or an alien from the heart of Andromeda - come down here and visit me - and I don't mean the one I did see the time I was knocked unconscious - and it is verifiable data, further illumination about our universe.
Fer Chrissake, Atheists do not presume to know. That's the point: We - the human race - know NOTHING. But we have the ability to learn and reason and those are the tools the Atheist puts confidence in. Free of the quagmires an agnostic may have, scientific data defines for them what religious conviction will not.
In closing, I will point out, of course, just because some one is an atheist doesn't mean that person necessarily thinks about anything; whether it's the new things science discovers or the reason things happen the way they do. He can be as mindless, uninquisitive and satisfied (or even take ADVANTAGE of a freed conscience Nazi-style), encased in his world view, as a religionist can claim how moral he is while molesting kids, ripping off people or murdering in the name of God.
There are no absolutes, man.
"That was no lady; that was our Zoë."
FAISAL: You may want to go to your comic shop and plunk down some quiddage for the TPB of THE ESSENTIAL HOWARD THE DUCK. Whatever you may have taken away from the movie (ugh), the comic book was a pointedly acerbic satire of comics and Seventies America--and it really wasn't for children. Steve Gerber even, when totally blocked, did an entire issue as a monologue on what it is to be a writer. Well worth your hardearned, FAQ.
"Padme as an objectified action heroine. No longer "elected queen" of Naboo, she drops the formless gowns for skintight Reebok running wear and proto-Leia hairstyles. (anyone notice her action figure comes complete with bondage accessory?)"
Bondage accessory... Natalie Portman figure... bondage accessory.... no, get that filth out of my mind. AGGGGHHH!
Lucas can get away with anything. I mean we are talking about the man who put beastiality in a children's movie (Howard the Duck).
>shudder<
FAQ
It just seems to me that George is trying to give the fans something they want to see. A lot of what we're seeing in the trailer are things fans talk about online and in polls:
Samuel L. Jackson as Jules the Jedi with the purple "Bad Muther Fucker" lightsaber acting like a Zen Shaft.
Lots of POW-zip-WHOOOOSH-ZAP spacefights and merchandise-inspired spaceships.
Boba Fett...more Boba Fett...except it's Jango, but it doesn't matter because its the exact same character, uniform (with a different paint job) and even SHIP. I guess because Boba was such a flat character it was easy to replace him.
http://starwars.com/episode-ii/news/2002/05/news20020501c_8.html
Christopher Lee as Saruman in Black, aka Count Duckbill, aka Darth Tyrannus, aka Dracula
http://starwars.hasbro.com/toyshowcase/item.cfm?sku=84879
Padme as an objectified action heroine. No longer "elected queen" of Naboo, she drops the formless gowns for skintight Reebok running wear and proto-Leia hairstyles. (anyone notice her action figure comes complete with bondage accessory?)
http://starwars.com/episode-ii/news/2002/05/news20020501c_4.html
http://starwars.hasbro.com/toyshowcase/item.cfm?sku=84855
Eventually, Lucas will have a method of embedding the DVDs with hyperlinks directly connected to shots in the film. At any time, you'll be able to pause the movie on your DVD and click on characters, vehicles, props...anything, really...to purchase toys, towels, candy, napkins, auto parts and whatever.
It was the press screening of Star Wars II in London today. A few people I know went to see it. They had low expectations, the memory of The Purple Terror (aka The Phantom Fart) was still fresh. I got this email from one:
"After almost twenty years, Lucas has remembered how to make a Star Wars film."
FAQ
"Wamprat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I wouldn't know. I won't eat the filthy muthafuggers."
Sorry, couldn't resist.
---Peter
Mr. Lucas lost me when I saw the trailer with Samuel L. Jackson uttering the oh-so-Jedi-like words, "This party is *over.*" If I do go see this film, it will be under extreme duress (read: I have way too many geek friends not to get dragged to seeing this film), and I will eagerly watch for Yoda and company sitting around eating a "Royale" with cheese and bitching about dead jawa storage.
L.
So, who's looking forward to Star Wars next week, and more generally, the summer movie season? For those of us who have an affinity for low Art - this looks like a kicker of a Summer...
Can we go back to ample buttocks now?
Alex Jay- Now is that any kind of question to ask a lady?!
--Zoë Rose
"Off to go pick splinters out of my ass."
There's a song there somewhere.
Bill
I apologize to you all for posting the Kid's response. I thought it would be of interest to Mr. Ellison and that I could get some clarity from my consternation. I realize it was a mistake, Alex and Cindy's kind protestations notwithstanding. I have learned a valuable lesson from all this. Thanks, Rick and Zoe, for defending my position in a way that I apparently could not. If I was an asshole at any point, I apologize for that too, but there's only so much lambasting I can take from strangers.
Oh, and I'm not leaving. I don't threaten to leave when I get mad. Sorry, you're all stuck with me. I'm just walking away from this conversation gone horribly awry, which I have acknowledged many times that I brought on myself.
Off to go pick splinters out of my ass,
Bermanator
Alex,
Your comments about Elder ones remind me of the time I was roused very early on a Sunday morning by a pair of Jehovah witnesses. Now, I have nothing against Jehovah's witnesses but I like my rest and damm, if I'm going to get woken up to discuss theology in my pyjama's.
Anyway, old woman, young woman. They start talking, I make the mistake of politely nodding my head. After they finish about the lamb lying down next to the lion (presumably because Lions have developed an extra opposable digit thus allowing them to use a tin opener and the glory that is Kitty Kat), they asked about my faith.
"Oh... our people believe that once we die, we become one with our God."
"Really?"
"Yeah, he ritually consumes us and so, to honor that, we consume our dead to celebrate this union."
Cue shocked faces.
"Isn't that cannibalism-"
"For you - Maybe? For them, its custom. For me, I never believed a word of it. I prefer my meat cooked. Maybe with breadcrumbs."
And with that, they politely made their excuses and left.
FAQ
Rob -
Agnosticism I'll give you. Atheism is the examination of things cosmic and the faith that nature is working fine on its own, thankyouverymuch.
Agnosticism, to is the inconclusive examination of cosmic spiritual matters. I still regard it as a Faith as it does not entirely reject anything, yet is not closed to new evidence.
I see your point, Rob. I still don't believe that those who choose not to put a figurehead atop their psychic pantheon lack Faith. Faith, to me, is different from Religion.
Me? My favorite Faith is Eliza Dushku in red leather pants. But that's just me.
ZOË: *Three* dots? Uh ... where do you keep your third?
ON THE ANTONIONI MOMENT WE SEEM TO BE HAVING: I agree with Lynn here. If you find your forehead crinkling to corduroy in anger at something you read here, get up. Take a walk. The physical sort; not the type where you drive out of here in a late-model Huff. There is notrhing that says that the impulse to scream has to be acknowledged.
At the same time, if you state a point someone else feels violates some ideal near and dear to their spleen, be advised that a castigationary post may come barrelling your way. No reason to step head on into the grille of the oncoming car, of course; just as there's no reason to swerve and drive your own headlong into the approaching vehicle.
Still, I don't have to worry about descending into the fray, because personally, I worship Nayarlathotep as ny divine murderer, which gives me great comfort not b/c it takes the responsibility from me, but that's just something I believe--that I am destined to end up on the dinner menu of an Elder God with halitosis.
Additionally, I believe it makes me a better, more altruistic person b/c if I weren't thinking about how my mortal body and soul might taste to the Dark One, I could just think "oh, I'll just bathe myself." The aspect of having someone else eat sins by crunching on your bones is a humbling experience whereas if you didn't have to enter into the maw of the Crawling Chaos, then others wouldn't know the impurities of the seasoning you have committed upon your person. Agreed that God can forgive all sins, but one has to have courage and humility to forgo confession, step into the jaws of a ravening Elder and be ashamed/humbled/masticated.
LYNN: St. Genesius was better when Gabriel led him.
KERRY: The "Murder Mysteries" adaptation is coming out as a 7"x10" hardcover book illustrated (and possibly adapted) by P. Craig Russell, to be available June 12th. It'll set you back fourteen bucks.
FAISAL: You beat me to it. I growl in the general direction of your automobile.
Lynn said:
"It won't kill you to give someone here the benefit of the doubt. This is just a website, folks. No one is going to come to your door and drag you into the street to brand your forehead with the words WEBDERLAND because they disagree with you."
They won't! Damm! Wheres the fun in that? I was waiting for Rob to fly down to Manchester with his crowbar and meet my chainsaw for the ultimate Hitchcock death match. I even managed to get ITV Digital to pay for broadcast rights. Still haven't cashed that cheque yet...
FAQ
Once again, it falls to me to point out Exactly Where Things Went Wrong:
And as much as I enjoy Melissa's sojourn's here, I have to lay the start of the fracture line at her feet - with these statements:
"As my husband stated, this is not your job to save this child from what you perceive as some tremedous mistake he's made, in the fact of adhering to a religious faith."
-and-
"As to his mental state, you seemed to like it fine when he would discuss literature and music with you, but suddenly he's entirely insane for displaying interest in religion."
The end result is to accuse P.A. of a strong anti-Christian bias and to use this as a springboard for questioning P.A.'s mental state in acting in the fashion these statements describe. Unfortunately, P.A. never specifically claimed adhering to a religious faith was a mistake or accepted the job of saving the kid from it. P.A. also never stated the kid could be insane or that whatever mental issue (of whatever degree) he might have was due to religious interests. There is nothing in P.A.'s posts previous to these statements that support this extreme an interpretation of P.A.'s position. They are guesswork and exaggeration presented as fact.
These two statements are therefore misrepresentations of what P.A. said. They are clear cases of inductive hyperbole. They set up a very unattractive straw man. In short, they present P.A. as an kneejerk religious bigot busybody without any sound basis, then use the image as a target for judgement. Furthermore, they do this (I mean, just read them) in a needling fashion that cannot hope for anything but justified outrage as a response.
This is, technically, a low blow. And it falls to me to point out that once you deliver one of these you have to accept some responsiblity for what ensues. Not all the responsibility, but some of it. You don't get to throw up your hands and accuse someone of martyrdom when you're the one who pounded in the first nail.
I'm not going to analyze the succeeding interchanges except to note that all three of you acted like assholes at one point or another and that the proper way to make up for such behavior is to get apologetic rather than huffy. It's been difficult enough to run back through the whole conversation without having to catalogue specific atoms of assholium.
But if you're shaking your head and wondering, "How the hell did it come to this?" - well, that's where it started.
I have a lot more to say on this subject, including discussing how good a job we did with someone who came to some friends with a teacher's dilemma, but I'm going to leave it at that for now. I've already run long, and besides which given P.A.'s preference to remain gender-nonspecific my brain is practically throbbing with the effort of avoiding pronouns.
Until the next ELE I remain,
your buddy,
Bag-of-Rickamator
P.S. Please note I'm not saying the misrepresentation was deliberate or vengeful or anything more than an honest mistake - and also note I'm not saying it wasn't. It's important when you discuss such things to leave personal intent out of it. It's irrelevant to the boxer who's testicle was just flattened against a thigh muscle whether the glove slipped or was aimed.
Chuck: Of course you're very welcome to copy my message - as is anybody else who's interested. I won't even ask for a fee! (Joke.) Thank you; I'm flattered.
Jim Davis: Nice of you to mention my website. But it is in need of an update. I'm focused on a book at the moment, so all else tends to be neglected. (Except posting on this board, it seems ... )
LW: I have a whole wodge of Canadian relatives, mostly in the Ontario area, as a result of an aunt who married a Canadian pilot after WWII and moved there. Consequently I have great affection for Canada folk.
If you stayed in England, maybe that makes you half English rather than half British. This isn't splitting hairs - since the beginning of devolution here, with Scotland and Wales getting their own parliaments, the question of national identity is moving up the political agenda. At least it makes life a bit more colourful. Or should that be colorful?!
Best
Stan
Jay,
"Scott and Mel are Agnostic and Atheistic, but that is a choice of FAITH"
No, no. Atheism is the very antithesis of FAITH. It is a liberation from the bondage of blind conviction - a willingness to keep the learning valves open, as it were, to be receptive to anything new we might learn about ourselves and the universe. A "faith" holds true to that which does not need affirmation: TELL Scott a supreme conscious entity with narly divine powers exists and he has no REASON to believe it, lest he chooses to. But have this being reveal itself to Scott and he wouldn't HAVE to "believe" it, he would KNOW it. This is the essence of Atheism. We accept the ascertainable. We can speculate; we can imagine; we can theorize; we can hope. But in the end it's what we can gauge that counts. It allows you to learn what the boundaries of blind faith will impede: if you hold something to be true, without the need of proof, you won't look at or consider alternatives. Just look at what Copernicus had to put up with for about a thousand years.
A quote from Gora:
"Hallucinations and illusions are not facts useful for scientific investigation...Because morality is a social necessity, the moment faith in god is banished, man's gaze turns from god to man and he becomes socially conscious. Religious belief prevented the growth of a sense of realism. But atheism at once makes man realistic and alive to the needs of morality."
Lynn,
I agree. Passionate discussions are fine, but why does passion have to lead directly to nuclear war? Let's not turn this place into downtown Beruit. A little calm, maybe?
Zoe,
Hava Shoshana, Hava Shoshana, Hava Shoshana, she's pretty cool! You got steel, young lady. It will get you far. And, I hope, you leave the anti-semitic trogs far behind.
Little Washu,
When my sister had two dogs, they were Max, the basset hound, and Lilly, a white boxer. Sometimes, I'd dog-sit when she went out of town. That included taking them both walkies. Lilly wanted to RUNRUNRUNRUNRUNRUNRUNRUN! Max wanted to amble along, stopping at every interesting scent on the trail. Nearly got pulled apart.
So, Peter Parker was looking for a twisted father figure, eh? If the father had a daughter Peter would have ended up with a Twisted Sister.
Okay, that was bad. All the stuff about anti-semitism and religious strife here and the "real" world was really getting me down.
To get an idea, here's a bit from a collection I'm putting together called HOMELESS JOE'S ALMANAC:
THE NEW,IMPROVED SERMON ON THE MOUNT
Cursed are the seekers of knowlege, for knowlege is scary and we take comfort in fairy tales.
Blessed are the ignorant, for they are our bread and butter.
Blessed are the meek, for they are such easy prey.
Blessed are the predatory, for we shall fall down and worship them.
Blessed are the scapegoats, for without them we'd have no one to blame but ourselves.
Cursed are the generous in spirit, for they are such pussies.
Cursed are the poor, for they are such a pain in the ass.
Cursed are the peacemakers, for they spoileth all the fun.
Cursed are the strong in spirit, for they make us look bad.
Blessed are the mediocre, for they make us feel good about ourselves.
Cursed are the different, for the difference is scary and we must make the bad, scary thing go away.
Cursed are the thinkers, for they make us uncomfortable.
Blessed are the liars, for they got it goin' on.
Cursed are the seekers of truth, for we wrote the official version and we're sticking by it.
Blessed are the killers, for they shall inherit the earth.
On a lighter note,
More kudos to Stan Nichols and his fine argument for KICK. May I copy it for my own records? Only with your kind permission, of course.
Susan,
Finished the two RABBIT HOLES you sent me, and now another is coming my way. Goody-goody. Can't wait.
Chuck
Who has more lame jokes than the late Henny Youngman.
Nothing proves my point better than a Fight-to-the-Hurt about religion.
We have some rational, intelligent people rapping about their faith and it turns into a pissing contest about whose God is best and how it translates into how we should treat each other here on the planet. Speaking as someone who respects Melissa, Scott AND Berman, I say: THIS IS WHAT ORGANIZED RELIGION DOES TO NORMALLY RATIONAL, INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEINGS!!!
Sorry, Lynn...gotta use this one as a case study. Look at what all three of you have said in the name of something good and holy and look where it ended up. Bitch Bitch Bitch. My God is better than your god. My God has a bigger dick than your god. JESUS, ALLAH AND BUDDHA! God belongs here...no HERE..no THERE...no up THERE..no there IS no god!!
Scott and Mel are Agnostic and Atheistic, but that is a choice of FAITH. A lack of personality in control of the universe is still cosmic-minded thought.
No more pissing contests about who is more holy or righteous! None of us have the slightest idea of what it means to be either and when we come to this type of conflict it shows that both sides are just spouting opinions covered in celestial vestments.
FAITH!! FAITH!! Moses, Mary and Thor! Religion does not exist without faith and faith is the armor of religion! If you can't be comfortable and casual in faith, then there is doubt. If you're going apeshit about what someone thinks or says about your religious beliefs, then there is a bigger problem for all parties than you realize.
If I believe that Ted Danson lives in my cellar, that's my belief. Even if it's obvious he doesn't live there...or even that I have a cellar... I have faith that Ted is down there. If I demand that you deny your own belief that May Day Malone is hanging out near my perceived furnace and berate you for not buying into my perception, I've lost my faith and have reduced myself to pleading and begging for validation of my faith and a sign that I doubt.
Crazy? Shit yeah, but if we can't prove it, we're relying on faith - the cornerstone of religion. Ask for it by name.
For those of us who like Neil Gaiman's writing, here is a link to some pages of a graphic adaptation of Murder Mysteries. If your using a modem they will take a while to load.
http://pub43.ezboard.com/fluridfrm3.showMessage?topicID=34.topic
Neil posted this to his Journal ealier today.
Kerry
Can I just say how sick I am of the whole "I'm gonna take my tinker toys and go home" spiel? Are we not adults here? Is it impossible to have a disagreement with someone and keep it on a purely intellectual level, and not take it down to cage match frenzy? For pity's sake, people. If you ask someone's opinion here, don't expect this to be the warm fuzzy feelgood room! Expect honest, passionate answers and don't flinch when you get them. Suck it up, already. And if you want to rant, please! Do us the courtesy of stating "I'm not soliciting anyone's opinion, I just need to get this off my chest!" If you respond to someone's request for an opinion or a rant, try a little fucking diplomacy. It won't kill you to give someone here the benefit of the doubt. This is just a website, folks. No one is going to come to your door and drag you into the street to brand your forehead with the words WEBDERLAND because they disagree with you. No one is coming to your house and impressing your children into corporate slavery because you don't see eye to eye on an issue. Can we just agree to disagree and get on with our lives without whipping out the chainsaws on each other? Or if we're gonna resort to heavy artillery, can we at least agree to keep in the spirit of the room?
You people will be the death of me, I swear to St. Genesius. I'm going to tactfully request that this thread DIES right here, right now. Nobody has to apologize for starting a discussion, nobody has to belittle themselves for having an opinion, and nobody has to freakin' LEAVE!
Respectfully if wearily yours,
L.
Got up at the sound of a wife's slam of a cabinent. A quick perusal got me the answer.
Much obliged, Ms. Berman. Look, if you want to fight your own little "I'm sooo persecuted" intifada, go right ahead. Sorry, but I'm going to be leaving now; you'll have to bother the others here.
Any involved with the league, please know it will continue. You may contact me at the message board at the Webdderland Park site.
All others, it's been a slice, and the same goes for the missus.
Scott
On the Melissa dukes it out with P.A. Berman issue:
Look, I think you're both being a little schizo about this, though I happen to lean towards Berman's side a bit. It'd be like me writing an essay on "Paladin of the Lost Hour" (which I've just read, whoo-ee!), with the prompt question of "Do you think that Gaspar was playing God by turning back time in the end? Discuss." - and then me writing about how I don't believe in christ as god's son, and that I'm a better person because I don't let some other guy take the blame for all my sins, and how I'm glad I don't have to tell all my sins to a church that houses people who molest small children. I think I'm a better person because I'm not part of such a sickening thing.
I don't think any of that about Christianity, but imagine... think my teacher'd be offended? I think so. No matter how open-minded he was.
I'd just be using my own views to help myself get through this mess called life, but.. it would be inappropriate. Very. That, and it didn't answer the question.
My vote (not that it's really all that important, but) is to drop this - you're both getting more and more mad at something that has been discussed, debated, dissected, and drawn and quartered (for the more modern: injected, hanged, shot, and electrocuted).
Just my three dots worth.
--Zoë Rose
Ummmm...how 'bout that Scooby-Doo trailer? Painful, huh?
Berman:
I don't believe this. We agree to drop this, but you seem to want its continuance. Fine. Here we go.
Now, you are a teacher who has given a test one a piece of literature; well crafted, but fiction. A student gives an answer that leaves you feeling personally offended, causing you to come to the site and complain. Myself and my husband disagree with both your vent and your expression of what you saw wrong with the child, feeling that while it is a wrong answer and should've been dealt with, the kid's religious faith hasn't really done any real harm. We both feel you were excessive in your defense of your personal opinion, and express concern as parents that your excessiveness is detrimental to both the kid's education.
YOU were the one who commented on the anger you felt at his response to your question. YOU were the one who took exaggerated umbrage at our failure to see you as the perfect intellect, infallible in your attempt to bring to these poor religious souls your perfect vision of the truth of the universe perfectly esconched in "Deathbird Story". You since sit here, and in three subsequent posts, begin a process of denial and backtracking within attacks and obfuscation aimed at those who do not see you in the same perfect light you obviously see yourself bathed within. Now, you turn on my husband, someone who has to me spoken very well of your intellect and maturity, and repay that kindness with a petulance and arrogance that is completely reprehensible. I'll be sure he reads this tomorrow.
Do walk away, Berman. Please never bother us again. If you want a maryrdom, I'll pick up the lumber for your cross at Home Hardware tomorrow. Build the cross, then jam it up your fucking ass.
Melissa
>a sensuous view of her full, firm buttocks<
Umm...whenever I see "full and firm" and "buttocks" (or breasts) in the same sentence, I know that "heaving" and "ample" can't be too far away. Followed by, inevitably, "straddled."
I saw her as I came round to the front yard. Dressed in sweats and leggings, she was bent at the waist, touching her palms to the roadway in front of her. Out for a jog, obviously. And unselfconsciously allowing me a sensuous view of her full, firm buttocks. I suppressed a grin.
"Hut...hut...HIKE!!" I yelled. Startled by my presence, she quickly brought her head up to look at me. Her lush, deeply auburn hair fanned out around her head, like a peacock spreading and unspreading its feathers. God, what a color. Couldn't possibly have come from a bottle. Yes. I could see a salting of grey.
"You prick, " she seethed.
"Yes, me prick. You vagina?" I regretted saying it the moment the words left my mouth. Shit, she was striking. Not beautiful in a standard sense. And incredibly athletic, in a detached sort of way; like she'd been so all her life. I felt my bicep and grinned weakly to myself. Gotta do some lifting.
She started to move off.
"Wait...sorry. That was a stoopid thing to say. My brain's on reflex jerk, this morning."
"Oh, take your cock for a walk, asshole."
"Yes. You've got me pegged. I have a DEGREE in asshole. Asshole cum laude," I grinned.
"That's better, " she stared. "You know your place in the world of pricks." She stifled a grin. But she still turned again to jog slowly down the road.
I don't know why but I began to quick-step walk up the sidewalk beside her. She was moving quite languidly at this point so I had little trouble keeping up with her. Despite my somewhat underdeveloped upper torso, my runners legs made the task of watching her fluid movements quite enjoyable.
"Do you tend to maintain this pace or do you sometimes speed up then slow down?" I asked, conversationally, hoping she would respond.
"I used to jog at a fuller pace, but I was forever picking up little twinges, here and there. In my feet or in my knees. It kinda put me off," she replied calmly, probably hoping I'd just go away soon and humoring me. "I haven't been jogging long THIS time out. I decided to not make such a race out of it. I tend to run for longer periods of time so I'm thinking it'll all even out."
"Mind if I jog with you?" I asked, thinking oh, what the hell, get it over with.
"Actually, yes, I do." she said, with no trace of annoyance in her voice, to my surprise. "I've always run by myself and I tend to sorta 'concentrate' on what I'm doing while I run. It would be too distracting."
"Oh," I said, starting to slow down, the game over.
"Tell ya what," she said, slowing with me. "Where you headed? I'll meet you there when I'm finished. She stopped and turned to look at me, her brown eyes giving me the once over. I perked up and smiled like an idiot.
"The convenience store on the corner of Kipling and Stoneview. You know it?"
"Sure. I live about five minutes from that intersection. I'll meet you there..in about... twenty minutes?"
"Yer on."
I watched her nod her goodbyes and set off down the street. My, I thought. Bread and milk and maybe, some company, for a change. I headed for the convenience store, my gait and mood quickening.
Faisal~ Your quote from FOUCAULT'S PENDULUM brings to mind a strange intersection, perhaps another escapade of the gent in Harlan's GO TOWARD THE LIGHT. Visions of a man, racing the dawn, face chalky white with dust and exhaustion, inching back the monolith with a crude lever system. Fingers reaching out of the dark and cold tomb to touch the hand of a more practical kind of savior.
Closing with something suitably yid pithy, "Alright, so maybe I am a bad Jew."
L.
You know, I think I've been pretty patient about being taken to task on here for posting about what was my honest confusion about how to deal with a rather odd student response to our patron author. But this is just too much.
Scott said:
"Mel's pretty much dismissed this in toto, having stated her opinion."
She's entitled to her opinion. I do not appreciate being inaccurately characterized as intolerant nor having words put in my mouth, none of which fall under the purview of "her opinion."
"She's one to defend her turf,"
I threatened her turf? What is this, West Side Story?
"and I must say I agree with her. "
Well, that's a shock. Shall I get my significant other to post on here and agree with me, to even this thing up?
"Prosletizing is a classroom is wrong, but having faith as a means to assist getting through the madness called living isn't a crime either."
WHOEVER SAID IT WAS?!? Did you read anything I posted or what? I can't imagine you have if you can say this.
"If he's wrong about anthromorphisation, give him a big fat zero, and be done with it."
ANTHROPOMORPHISM. You tell me how to teach, I'll tell you how to drive the Zamboni, what do you say? Sound fair? I didn't come on here asking for your grading advice. The grading was the easy part. I came here to discuss the response, share my consternation, get some insight--not to get spanked.
"Letting it get to the point where you feel some form of umbrage at his statements about your lack of faith doesn't help."
Somehow, you still think this in spite of reams of explanations I've given to rebut this spurious charge. I give up. I throw my hands up in despair. I walk away.
Bermanator
On the subject of Christ killers...
Theres a great quote in Umberto Eco 'Foucaults Pendulum' thats attributed to Caligistro when, just before his execution, a priest visits wearing a crucifix.
"I told the Jew to be careful that night but would he listen."
I presume neither Orson Welles or Christophen Walken come out with that gem.
FAQ
Cindy, honey, lamby, sweetie..stop baking bread for a sec, will ya hon, and go read this please, huh, please?
http://home.talkcity.com/BookmarkBlvd/lamp_shadey/indexshadow.html
Open it in a separate window if you have to, so you can minimize it when your hubby walks by, k?
Heh heh heh..
Did I ever tell you my ex-boyfriend rode a cyle? Hmm? *laugh*
Heather
P.S. Did you get my quinn email? Email me, if you did.
Washu,
"my accent's seriously messed up right now."
My former girlfriend - whom I'm still close to - came from Soviet Georgia. She grew up tutored in English by a lady with a British accent; this was from the age of 3 on. As a result she had, for a long time, a heavy British accent, in spite of leaping between Russian and Georgian with her friends. She lost the accent after 10 years of living in the U.S. When I met her 5 years ago you couldn't quite figure out just where she was from...her English is perfect with what sounds at first like the lightest touch of an odd Gaelic accent (not Russian, interestingly), or some damn thing like that. I tell her all the time I wish I'd been around to hear her when she had the original accent.
Then, naturally, we break into our light-hearted take-off on stereotype British pomposity: "Why down't yaou wautch the TELE WHILST oei taeek me sheowa".
Quite a cross-pollination. It'd be interesting to hear what ya sound like.
I think she holds a certain childhood affection for British women; she seemed rather intrigued when I mentioned Susan to her.
Xan:
My nominee is much more recent, being one Scott Oake, a on-air personality for CBC Sports. At the end of Game two of the Leafs/Senators series, resolved after two overtime periods, he asked Gary Roberts, the Leaf player who scored the winner:
"What did you feel was the significance of the overtime game winning goal?"
Bag-O-Scott still searches for the truth behind the rumour that a CBC announcer was once heard to have said on air; "This is the Canadian Broadcorping Castration..."
ottomaniac: You reminded me a quote I got from a fellow freshman, a lifelong New Yawker, waaaaaaay back in '84, when he found out I come from farm country.
He sidles up to me, "So, you live on a farm?" "Not exactly," I reply, "but I am from a county that has more cows than people in it." He nods and leans in conspiratorially, "So, what does cow meat taste like?" It takes me a moment to process the question... "Cow meat?" He nods.
With a straight face, I break it to him, "It's a lot like beef."
I'm still not sure he got the joke...
'til now, that was my favorite "Stupid Freshman Quote" – but your's just might take the honors.
But in any case, the next time someone asks you what a gay person eats – you can tell 'em, "Unless they're vegetarian, I hear there's a lot of cow meat involved..."
"There are GAY people here? REALLY? What do they look like? I mean, what do they EAT?"
I wouldn't touch that with a six-inch pole.
Back in 1997 or thereabouts, I participated in a television interview with a local television station (in Santa Barbara) with several of my fellow community members. The interview was inspired by a local trial that had been deemed the 'Witch Murder Trial' and the impending holiday of Hallowe'en. For those of you that do not know me, I'm pagan. I used to wear a pentagram openly, but for personal reasons, I wear an ankh now. I never got tired of answering questions, and never stopped laughing at the miscommunications caused by people who couldn't count. (The joke at home is, "Is she wearin' a star 'round her neck?" "Yep. She must be a sheriff or sumptin.")
I think back on that interview now, and the fallout from it. You see, I was temping at the School District and had to put on the chutzpah for a few days, quietly staring down a few more vocal types, daring them to question either my work ethic or my morals because I spoke out about my religion. Now I wasn't naive going into the interview, but I've been lucky. I've never been physically assaulted or harassed by law enforcement (Currently in Lancaster, a town a few miles north of Los Angeles, there is a case of a pagan shop being harassed by the local mouth breathers.) I've never been afraid for my safety because of my beliefs, but I can honestly relate to people that have. I have friends who have lost their jobs, their houses, their kids in custody battles.
Ultimately, I learned there are three kinds of people. People who already *know* what you are and have made up their minds about how to deal with you, people who have questions and will respond positively to you if you don't treat them like an idiot, and people who could give a rat's ass what religion you are. Luckily, in California, the latter are a lot more prevalent than the former, although I have faced down some interesting people in some interesting places (like the woman who took it upon herself to insult me while I was getting my nails done, because I was wearing a pentagram ring).
The same message applies to people of any faith or no faith. Don't walk around with a chip on your shoulder, don't feel like you have to educate the world, and don't attack strangers because they're uninformed. Be the best person you can be, know that the uneducated will carry the impression of you with him, and that he will treat the next person of your spiritual persuasion according to how he was treated.
L.
PEG: We cool.
Stan Nicholls is too humble to point it out, but he has a nifty website at http://www.herebedragons.co.uk/nicholls/index.htm
Little Washu wrote: "I think the correct anatomical location of Spider-Man's webspinning powers wouldn't have exactly boosted the film's dramatic elements...Lots of nasty alternatives come to mind..."
Trust me, some porn studio is working out the details RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK.
Mel's pretty much dismissed this in toto, having stated her opinion. She's one to defend her turf, and I must say I agree with her. Prosletizing is a classroom is wrong, but having faith as a means to assist getting through the madness called living isn't a crime either. If he's wrong about anthromorphisation, give him a big fat zero, and be done with it.
Letting it get to the point where you feel some form of umbrage at his statements about your lack of faith doesn't help. I put up with folks who believe I'm going to hell for not believing. I simply respond to their suggestions that I'm purgatory bound with this:
"S'ok, but since I'm headed that way, would you do me a favor, and meet me at the gates when I arrive? See, whenever I get to a new place, I always like having someone I know there to help me get things set up."
I get the queerest looks, but they always seem to walk away.
Bag-O-Scott, who upon his death, will run as candidate for the rulership of Hell upon his demise. His Progressive Perdition ticket is sure to be a winner; increased health care, more public housing, and a locked box Social Security programme, all the while ensuring adequate defense spending and environmental protection.
It worked for Dubulyah, didn't it?
I go to a small religious college. I ended up here because they offered me the most scholarship money and I is poor. Very conservative place - the KKK almost bought the University back in the 1920s, and the joke around campus is, "They didn't? How can you tell?" It's been difficult having the wrong religion (atheism) here. I had a Jewish friend who was trying to start a Jewish support group thingy on campus, but gave up when he couldn't find any other Jews. (I think they're hiding.) It's a place that deals in subtle prejudices, though, which I find creepier than people shouting blatantly offensive messages over the phone. Clerks who make sure they don't touch skin when they hand change back to Black customers, that sort of thing.
My favorite ever quote from a freshman here: "There are GAY people here? REALLY? What do they look like? I mean, what do they EAT?"
STAN: Not that it matters much, but I'm half-British myself. A weird hybrid, anyway. I grew up in Bermuda (a British colony), visited my grandparents in England, and spent my high school and college years in America and Canada. Suffice to say, my accent's seriously messed up right now. Even I can't tell when I may say 'color' instead of 'colour'...
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
Cindy: You're a sweetheart, ya know that?
Do you honestly want to know what I think of The Kid's answer? I don't want to be accused of taking this too personally, because honestly, I see the response as part of his growing pains but I have to be careful to evaluate him objectively. I've worked it through and it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
I think he really wants to think I am on the road to perdition. I think he wants to think Mr. Ellison is too, and that the two of us are lost souls whose godless lives would be improved by embracing Jesus as our personal savior. Wouldn't it be nice if it were that easy? He sees my unmarried 30 year old self, and Mr. Ellison's multiply married self, our agonized examinations of the meaning of life. With his limited experiences, he faces the self-doubt and curiosity within him -- and defensively, he judges us, recoils from the fear of moral uncertainty, the apparent loneliness of a true spiritual journey. This is a kid who deeply identified with Siddhartha... know what I mean?
But I've done all I can. I think his response, no matter how didactic or self-confidently preachy it seemed, is actually the consequence of great internal struggle. I wish him the best of luck. Life is the best teacher.
Bermanator
Best of Luck, Travel Safely, and (paraphrasing) May Good Thoughts And Wishes Be Between You and All The Empty Places...
Xanadu
Finals almost done, and I'm packed and ready to go. Off to travel for the next year or more. I'll drop in from time to time if I can. Take care!
J
Jim - point taken (thanks for being nice about it). Reading all three posts in series, some negative connotations rubbed off - round the doing him good vs him thinking we were devil spawn part.
Personally I'd just as soon be a deviled egg. Or maybe that would be deviled Peg. (sorry, couldn't resist.)
HARLAN ELLISON: As we English are wont to exclaim - blimey! Thank you so much for your kind and encouraging response - coming from you I take it as praise indeed.
I dashed off that posting in about the time it probably took you to read it, seething with indignation, having just boggled at Shropshire's Locus piece. As soon as I pressed Send, of course, I thought "Oh God, that was a load of fetted dingo's kidneys. I bet everybody on this board's expressed it much better." Another example of passion almost always being better than pedantry.
All very best of luck in your efforts to protect our interests.
My favourite Jewish expression: We have a friend who runs a local shop. If you ask him how business is, he invariably pulls a sour face and replies, "If you were selling hats, they'd be born without heads."
Stan
Bermanator,
I don't think it was a mistake for you to discuss it here, among friends. We love you!
Did you wonder if perhaps The Kid wrote that solely to hoist the flag of Christianity? Annoying as it is, Christians are raised to look for reasons to declare their faith. Maybe he felt that once God was part of an issue to keep quiet about his belief it would be tantamount to denying Christ.
Could that be the case?
Cindy
SUSAN: Did I mention that the last arrival of Rabbit Hole in the Davis Manse corresponded with the end of a particularly nasty bout of psoriasis, suffered by yours truly?
Coincidence? I don't think so...
(lol)
Harlan's leapfrogging of names in the last group of posts left the web of me neurons a confused knot. Kinda read like one of those old ventriloquist acts. (One of you Bermans...go get your name legally changed, willya?)
Ah, well. I was dazed. I survived. Now I'm gonna eat.
God (or Allah, or The Unmoved Mover, or Ahura Mazda, or Fabrication of the Opressive Patriarchal System...take your pick), do you people love to yak. *sigh* Once more into the breach...
PEG: In response to P.A.Berman's initial post about The Kid, I wrote: "(I still think The Kid should drop by here. It might do him some good. Of course, he may decide that this board is populated by spawns of the Devil. Hell, it seems that way to me sometimes, and I don't even BELIEVE in the Devil...)"
Later, you wrote: "Some of my comments were in response to Jim’s and Brian’s posts, also. They made statements specifically, and more directly and negatively, on the spiritual aspects (which they also seemingly thought was the chief concern)."
I'm not sure how you got that from my post--that certainly wasn't my intention (I can't speak for Brian, of course). I told Bermanator that The Kid might benefit from visiting the board, and that he might, as a result, decide we're too much for his tastes. That's all--nothing more, nothing less. I wasn't implying that religious belief is akin to stupidity, or brain damage, or mental illness or anything similar. (If you've read my posts on religion, you know I'm fairly tolerant of it, though I DO have opinions which tip to the atheistic end of the scale.)
Trust me, if I ever go off on an Anti-Christianity rant, you'll know it. The earth will shake, flowers will sprout human faces, and blood will stream in the firmament. (Or something like that. I'm still working on the details ;-) )
LOL SUSAN!
Thank you!
I'll be looking forward to that.
:)
Cindy
>a la the giant codpieces in "Batman and Robin"<
I wish these would come back in style. I could really use one at work.
Aw, c'mon, Melissa, don't say SPIDER-MAN and BATMAN & ROBIN in the same breath. That's just not nice.
Oh, and I think the correct anatomical location of Spider-Man's webspinning powers wouldn't have exactly boosted the film's dramatic elements...or any elements, for that matter. We ARE dealing with a genetically-spliced spider, remember, so there's no telling how Peter's body would have mutated. Lots of nasty alternatives come to mind...
Just took Elvis for a walk. One thing about basset hounds, when they start off they can overtake cheetahs with rockets strapped to their backs but when they slow down you'll be back home by tomorrow afternoon. I also managed to see Billy Wilder's ONE, TWO, THREE. I haven't seen WHITE HEAT yet but James Cagney's acting ferocity scares the hell out of me.
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
Mr. Ellison: Of course The Kid is getting an "A" in my class. He's brilliant. I wouldn't give a toss what he said if he weren't. That's why I thought he was worthy of reading you. I see him recoiling and it makes me sad, that's all.
Melissa: There is no place for proselytizing in public school. Period. This is not a street corner. This is my classroom. You must understand that I am not in any position, lacking tenure as I am, to be discussing the ins and outs of Jesus with a student. Ken my meaning? Put yourself in MY shoes.
I am not offended by The Kid's beliefs. If Christianity offended me, I'd be in the wrong country, neh? I will say that I am disappointed by flagrant judgementalism and his unwillingness to offer an accurate literary analysis. I am a teacher, not a parent. My issues are academic, not personal, though I think he meant them to be personal.
To be clear: it IS my job to be concerned about his mental state as he displays it in his writing; I never "challenged" his mental state though. I plan to say very little to him about this whole incident. I was just blowing off steam in a semi-anonymous BB, not planning an intervention.
Also, I never questioned his "ability of choice" and I cannot understand why I'm being so badly misconstrued over and over on this subject. I think I've explained my position enough though.
As for discussing this issue in a public forum:
MEA CULPA. MEA MAXIMA CULPA.
OK? I've come to regret it very much. So your point, on this aspect of the issue, has been made.
Bermanator
Brian (many posts back):
George I = George Washington, the first president with that forename. You can figure out the rest (such as that George II reigned from 1989 to 1993). And the implicit comparison to George III was intentional.
To all members of The Harlan Ellison Recording Collection:
I'm in the final stages of mailing RABBIT HOLE #30.
What do a frozen aardvark, two Valkyries, and an elephant named Rubin have in common?
They are all part of this extra special RABBIT HOLE.
Enjoy--Susan
The comment by your child on the exact location of Spiderman's web spinning ability has had me, my coworkers, and my spouse in stitches today!!! After 10 repeats I still can't even think about it without having to exert myself to avoid outright gaffaws.
Warning: This is a long post in response to P.A.'s comments concerning the kid. If you are disinterested in this thread, or want to talk about whether or not they stuffed enough padding into the groinal region of the Spiderman costume a la the giant codpieces in "Batman and Robin" (I am a woman and will notice), kindly skip past.
Well, I can't speak to the tales being told of repression of one's religion of choice, and the problem is there is no real way to deal with how people are socialized to show such callous disregard for another's faith. I just hope that those who choose religion find in it the means to treat others with decency and tolerance.
For me, religion is a tool of man, only doing the harm or good intended by the user. I agree totally with the husband's assertion that our gods are created by us in our image, either good or bad, and will be a means to rationalize or justify our actions towards one another. It pains me to read these stories of abuse which grow from a hate filled person's feelings of self-righteousness, but the fault is the person, not the supposed deity.
Now, P.A., you're right in that I'm the one to prepare my child for their life, and allow me to say it's a task I and Scotty take very seriously. But that responsiblility includes insuring that my child is placed in environments that promote their growth as people, school being one of those. You say you're not trying to raise the child in question, yet you challenge his mental state, his ability of choice (granted, the kid is an adolescent, but that shouldn't preclude them making choice or mistakes) and his mistakes concerning how to interpret a work of literature at a public website beyond the forum of the classroom. If his interpretation was wrong, fine, give him an F. I as a parent don't have a problem with that. But put yourself in my shoes, P.A.. If I as a parent, who chose to raise my child in any form of religious faith (and, now having reread the story in question, note that Ellison didn't denote which faith created the god who was insane) came to discover that you had taken offense at his response of belief, and that was found to be part of the root cause for the academic difficulty, I'd be up in arms.
So he prosletized? Big deal. I get people handing me tracts on the street corner, advertisements on television insidiously inferring that the way to true family harmony is through a church; jeezus, Scotty's got so many bodies of Jehovah's Witnesses in our crawlspace, we're going to have to build an addition just to ensure we can maintain gravesites for the next ten years (the neighbors are complaining about the smell; we tell them it's an abattoir to deal with our municipal leprechaun overpopulation problem; so far, they've bought it). The point is, it's his choice. If he wants to let his faith interfere with his education to the point where he's failing as a result, then let him. You teach a classroom full of children; you can only aid those who wish the help. A heartless thing to say, perhaps, but remember I'm the parent.
That brings me to this. As a parent P.A., I think I do do a good job of preparing my kids for the education system. All the teachers that have have Danny or Joel in their classrooms comment positively on their behaviour, their effort to learn, their good nature towards their classmates and their teachers. This isn't an indictment of you, P.A., but one of parents who send their children with attitudes that interfere with the capacity to teach, whether it be not teaching them self-discipline or responsibility, or implanting religious notions that give the child a seeming excuse to behave in a disruptive fashion in the classroom. That makes it more difficult for my child to learn, and frustrates me as a parent knowing that my child suffers for the misdeeds of the fanatic or the irresponsible. I am angry at all those who cry that their child isn't learning to read or think, knowing full well that their choice of pursuit of the brass ring or their quest for religious fulfilment over the needs of their children is undermining the efforts I've taken to ensure that my children could read, write, add, subtract, multiply and divide before they got to kindergarden. Perhaps that's a subject you might take up with the boy's parents, although I'm willing to bet that they wouldn't show up for any parent/teacher conference; even if they did, they wouldn't display any interest in any remedy except casting total blame on you.
Phew, that's enough. Sorry if I go on a bit, but this is one I'm a bit passionate over.
Love to all, Melissa
I noticed some trading of Hebrew names a number of postings ago (I'm so far behind on this board that I won't even attempt to find out the context), so I thought I would share mine.
Tuviah Mayer
Means...please, don't gag, Good Angel.
Now, besides the fact that I am named after my Great Grandfather Tuviah and my Grandfather Chaim Mayer, I have been told that the name is perfect for me: by Mommy and The Lovely Spouse.
To anyone else, it illicits gags.
-Good Angel Cassel
HARLAN TO THE VARIOUS BERMANS:
I try! S'help me peaches, I really and truly DO TRY! But I will never never never (apparently) get you two sorted out. I must have pre-Altsbermanheimer Dryheave or somesuch. Forgive me, Bermans, for I have sinned. But I'm a better person than either of you, because I can forgive myself.
Solipsistically, yr. li'l christ-killer, Harlan.
(You want stories of anti-Semitism? I'll GIVE you stories of anti-Semitism. But as the Zoe Dotterator has so eloquently put it, "We were persecuted. We survived. Let's eat." I've always loved that one.)
Faisal,
You're right.
Sadly,
Cindy
ALEX JAY BERMAN TO THE HARLANATOR:
Um; you've got the wrong one. P.A. is the Bermanator; Alex Jay is the title-less one.
(Yeah, yeah; I know--alla them Jews look alike ...)
Little Washu,
Head down to your local comic store (or, if they don't have it, call Chicago Comics at 800-509-0333), and pick up the "Revenge of the Green Goblin" mini-series from fall of 2000, where Norman plots to turn Peter into his new heir. Culminates in Amazing Spider-Man #25. Good stuff that ties directly into your speculations.
Regards,
Joseph
Telling a raving racist that Joe and Mary were Jewish isn't going to stop them raving about the jewish-freemason-bilderberger-alien lizard conspiracy, same with the Christ killer epitath. Frankly these dipshits are looking for religious excuse for a bit of hatred when they themselves are probably not very religiously inclined in the first place.
(How's this for a real head fuck: "Yah mean, Christ wasn't killed by Jews, he was killed by Muslims? Motherfucking Osama, I'll kick his ass. Theres a Sikh shop round the corner, I'm going to pop a cap in that turban. God damm Christ killers everywhere these days.")
FAQ
HARLAN ELLISON,
THAT was beautiful.
Cindy
HARLAN TO ALEX THE BERMANATOR:
Pursuant to the immediate preceding post from me to The Kid, via You. As Emily Latella used to say: NEEEEEVER MIND.
This is what comes of reading these postings from the bottom up, and at 25 entries a shot, I didn't see your reply to the clever Webderlanders till I'd posted my agreement with them. But now, having read YOUR reply, I find myself at sixes-and-sevens. I agree with a lot they all said; but I simultaneously agree with more than a lot YOU said. So forget I even got involved.
I'm going to lie down with a cool compress on my forehead.
Embarrassed, yr. goat, Harlan
HARLAN TO THE BERMANATOR:
Alex, please download, print out, and give this to The Kid.
Sir:
Good for you. Terrific, passionate, honest answer to an ambiguous question. You and I might disagree on points of religion, but I respect and support and admire your right-thinking. Behaving well is the bottom-line. How you get there is your own business, and no one else's. Kindness trumps all other cards in the Game of Life.
You are a smart kid, and Mr. Berman should have given you an "A" in the class. If he hasn't, let me know, and I'll speak to the Principal.
With a smile, Harlan Ellison, author of THE DEATHBIRD (a story intended to make you think, which is what you already do...very nicely.)
ZOE,
NO! I quite agree! Just because you are Jewish doesn't mean that you couldn't CHOOSE to be something that needs to be scraped off a shoe. Which clearly, you're not. I thought you were cool before I found out about your affiliation.
I'm just saying that those who reportedly believe the Bible and then treat Jews badly should be kicked in the pants and set straight. Mary and Joseph are Jews. I don't understand how any Christian can ignore or overlook that fact.
I think the point is that we are ALL brothers. I saw a documentary not long ago about a Palestinian man who had lost his son, his only child, in the fighting in Israel. He was saying that he did not hate the Jews that he understood that they loved their children the same way he loved his son and that he did not wish them harm. It seems to me that if we all understood what that father knew and were able to BEHAVE the way he did under such horrific circumstances, we'd all be okay in God's book.
But I'm talking religion again and my friend Becky says this is why Heather thought I was dumb. Because I'm Christian and don't keep quiet about it here. It isn't a very popular religion in Webderland, but y'all have been very kind about it in regard to me.
Cindy
CORRECTION:
Strike that. It wasn't David Loftus, it was Alex Berman. Sorry.
Harlan
HARLAN TO ALEX KRISLOV:
Hey, pal, don't sweat the small stuff. You did a Good Thing refering the AP guy to me. You couldn't have known how ill-prepared he would be; and it was my choice (in Geo. Alec's behalf) to go the extra 1500 miles to semi-educate him.
He is a classsic example of contemporary journalism at its lowest ebb. He's the sort of know-nothing that Old School newspapermen&women shudder at having to share credentials with. He is not untypical. He is flanked east&west by his generation.
But that has nothing to do with you, your call to me, your intentions, and your place in my heart. So, yes, as David said...stop beating yourself up about this.
We be cool.
Yr. pal, Harlan
HARLAN TO STAN NICHOLLS:
Your post of 6 May is the best summation of why I'm doing what I'm doing that has seen light yet. Including, INCLUDING, all of mine! You are terrific, kiddo. If I weren't happily married to Susan, I would propose to you. What a GREAT letter.
Thank you thank you thank you!
And for anyone out there who seems even the slightest confused about the legal, moral, and ethical raison d'etre for this lawsuit, I commend Stan Nicholls's short letter to you all. With the exception of Mr. Shropshire, who has demonstrated again and again that he doesn't WANT to understand why this is a Holy Chore. But apart from those whose personal self-serving agendas conflict with the freedom of the creators to be recompensed for their work if they so choose, I think Mr. Nicholls has given you a brief, irrrefutable, sane and simple Notice of Decency.
Again, sir, thank you.
I am in your debt. Harlan Ellison.
Y'know, 'Christ-killer' is such an unbelievably stupid and inaccurate phrase it doesn't even work as an insult. That's all I'm going to say about that.
ALEX: Why are you doing this to me? You've set me off again.
But seriously...I like to believe that Norman represents a twisted father figure that Petey never had (outside of Uncle Ben, who was an authority figure but never really a father figure). Norman was always an inch away from disowning his own son Harry...who else but Peter would become the next rightful Osborn heir in his warped mind?
Now don't get me started again.
LW (Benjamin A.A. WInfield)
Sadly, CEP's story is an example of almost everything I find despicable in the human race and where my pessimism regarding our ability to evolve socially stems. The inability to discern that someone born some TWO THOUSAND FUCKIN' YEARS after the event probably didn't have anything to do with it...
Blind intolerance and unbelievably long grudges – those, my friends, are why we're screwed.
(Lest anyone think I'm specifically bashing religion, I'm not, there are plenty examples of social, political or racial grudges lasting through the years...)
Thanks, Alex Jay - I knew it had something to do with 'rose'. Another story to go along with CEP's:
I went to Field Training (the boot camp of ROTC) two summers ago. Sunday mornings were 'free' insofar as, if you went to church you didn't have to do bay-cleaning or other busywork. Since they claimed they had mass for all types, I decided to see what an on-base synagogue was like. Field training lasted four weeks. I got to go to Temple once. The first week I was late meeting the officer who was to give me a ride because I was stopped on the way to question where I was going in the skirt-uniform on a Friday evening. When I finally met up with the officer, she drove me around for an hour and a half - no one knew where the Temple was on the base (Lackland AFB, TX). With a shrug and a blase apology, I was returned to my bay. Second Friday I made it, and although I was delirious with strep throat fever, I was able to enjoy the familiarity of the service. Third week I was at survival training, where they brought four chaplains for various Christian sects but not a one who could do a Jewish prayer or service (interesting note, they brought one to the second session of survival training, in which there were no Jews). The last week was graduation and I wasn't "encouraged" to go - after all, we graduated Saturday and so the Christians weren't getting a fourth service either.
I'm sure there are stories across the board, so to speak, of things like this.
--Zoë Rose
Zoë, hava means "to be" and Shoshannah means "rose." Pretty name.
CEP, that is one depressing story, but not really surprising. 33 years ago, my father moved to Brunswick, Ohio, to be nearer the airport. In those days, dad was doing a lot of international law. But Brunswick was an isolated town, only technically in Cleveland's orbit. In ethnic diversity, it resembled Painesville, where Harlan spent his boyhood.
Anyway. My sister and I, 17 years old at the time, came to visit dad in his new home. Then we went walking. Eventually, we ran across some other teenagers. We got to talking, and the kids were friendly. One invited us to visit her church. My sister then asked if they knew where the nearest temple might be.
The kids looked at us like we were from Mars. Finally, the girl said, "What's a temple?"
"It's kind of a Jewish church," my sister replied.
"We don't have any _Jews_ here!" the girl replied. She seemed honestly shocked.
Ever after, when I picked up deli and bagels to bring to my dad, I'd say, "I need an order for the only Jew in Brunswick, Ohio."
George II? Wouldn't that make him a predecessor to George III?
The hated King George whose onerous taxes forced the Colonies into revolution?
I didn't know George II had an Air Force.
It's story time, kids.
Once upon a time, early in reign of George II, a young Air Force officer was on temporary duty in Mahhhhhhntgumry, Alabama. He has been there for five weeks, and had two to go. It was around Good Friday (aside: how can one possibly call the date of a political execution "good"?). By a coincidence, it was also the morning before Passover starts.
The young officer actually enjoyed Seder, even though he was essentially an agnostic. However, there were no scheduled events on the base. He thus picked up the telephone book, trying to find a temple. There was no temple listed, so he tried the Chamber of Commerce. After politely asking for directions from the base to the nearest temple, he was told the following by the woman who answered the telephone:
"Go to hell, you fucking Christ-killer [sound of telephone slamming]."
Needless to say, the young officer did not attend Seder. And came to understand why there was no listing for a temple in the local telephone book.
(I wish that the above was fiction.)
Alex Jay Berman- My Hebrew name is Hava Shoshana, and I'm ashamed to say I don't know what it means. I think I used to, but like you I'm a 'heritage' Jew. Well, I guess I'd have to say I believe in Judaism more than any other religion, but I too just go to services for High Holidays, and try to join family on Passover if possible.
My favorite quote I've heard about Jews (by Jews, for Jews) and specifically, Jewish holidays, is:
"We were persecuted. We survived. Let's eat!"
Have to run to class, will respond to others later today.
--Zoë Rose
OOPS! Regarding that N. Cage character quote: Should've been, "Is this a family, or what?"
(Hey, I'm in a hurry to make a kick-boxing class -- cut me some slack -- no, not from the rope -- someone will just use it to string me up).
-- DTS
BRIAN: When some neanderthal type at a college kegger looks at a group of guys sitting around one girl and says, "wanna pull a train?" Guess what? There isn't really a train. Figures of speech, whimsical expressions -- they're part of our language. Broaden your horizons, mate.
LYNN: Who says I'm _not_ a believer?
ZOE: You're so cool.
ALL: I LOVE the reaction I got to my half-serious question (although I should have said,"All in favor say, 'Amen.'" This is turning into a very interesting discussion. As Nicholas Cage's character in "Raising Arizona" said, "Is this America, or what?"
I love you guys,
DTS
Bermanator - Thanks for explaining your issues with the essay, much of that wasn't clear in your original post. In my own defense, I must have read your post a dozen times before replying. I honestly could not find something that conclusively indicated what was the most critical problem to you. I could, and did, conceive there were possibly other aspects that bothered you, but your post didn’t read that way to me. (actually, I spent an hour between reading and creating my reply, then lost the reply, and spent another half hour recreating and second guessing it again. all this trying to ensure I didn't misinterpret, or play up too much or down too little. And still managed to set off a war).
Without knowing the background I wouldn't have guessed some of what you later spelled out. I didn't see his essay as an attempt to proselytize but instead as an inappropriate response to the assignment. You've since made clear that prior interactions have led you to believe that evangelism was, or could have been, his intention. I also wouldn't have viewed the section on forgiveness as negatively – partly I don't know his history. Also, my own experience of christian beliefs (humility before God, personal responsibility for actions, and accountability to other believers) would have led me to read that portion as his intepretation or paraphrasing of those tenets rather than a portent of mental issues with shame and self-abasement.
To clarify one last item - I didn’t accuse you trying to save the Kid. Some of my comments were in response to Jim’s and Brian’s posts, also. They made statements specifically, and more directly and negatively, on the spiritual aspects (which they also seemingly thought was the chief concern). That's why I didn't address my response to you only.
One more thing!
While looking to see who were the creative people behind "Doom 2099," I noticed that Warren Ellis wrote about a year's worth of the later issues. Now that's something I need to checl out. Man can write like a mutherfu....
Regards,
Joseph
Alex,
Sheesh - are you guys peeping into my apartment? I have a Spider-Man 2099 #1 framed on my wall as part of my comic art. Love that cover art (by Rick Leonardi, I think). In terms of the 2099 idea, I also got a kick out of the Doom 2099 run. It wasn't that great, but the opening issue was a real killer.
Regards,
Joseph
Oh, I think Spiderman/Goblin is a Christ metaphor.
Spiderman is the tragic hero Jesus with great power and responsibility tempted by the Dark One to abandon the people for the selfish want of saving one only to triumph by saving both and denying the seductive draw of evil. Eventually Spiderman will be nailed to a steel girder by Wilson Fisk and become a martyr to superheroes everywhere. His symbol will be an arachnid pinned in a bug collector's book.
So I had this talk with God the other day, sitting out in the woods...no symbols, no altar, no offering...just Him and Me hanging out in nature. We talked about the kids and the universe, touched on End-of-Days paranoia with all the nasty stuff going on in the Middle East. He pointed out that men often create self-fulfilling prophecies so that if the End Times are really near and we destroy each other, it's pretty much our paranoia acting up and not some Revelation.
He also mentioned the whole issue with prayer in school. He's all for it. However, he's a bit concerned that most teachers who want to promote one faith over another are usually obsessed with the idea of promoting their own morbid, slanted, bigoted or otherwise fucked up point of view on the impressionable minds of their students under the veil of Godly will. It pisses him off. He's concerned that we're so obsessed with getting Christianity in school like it's making sure Pepsi has soda machines in the cafeteria instead of Coke.
"What the hell makes people think they can start of with a specific discipline when they don't even know the foundations of spirituality? I gave a billion faces to humanity. None of you see me the same way and that's the point. It's not about me being your moral 400-pound gorilla to sway the masses to your will. It's about the question of why I created the universe and how you're going to spend your spark of time living in it. Why did I put it here? Why did I put YOU here, you flawed and troubled soul? I'm not telling you the answer lies in Jesus. The answer could be in the bottom of a Cracker Jack box for all you know. The only difference is that you can't enslave the minds of millions to a cheap plastic toy or market it with the promise of eternal life or the threat of endless torture.
"oh, don't get me wrong...I'm not an "opiate of the masses" diety. I'm just saying that a lot more people would avoid tainted Kool Aid, trips to nearby comets and jihad if they'd just look into the other ways people believe in matters spiritual.
"Now, put a few Comparative Religion classes out there and teach people about the power of FAITH, CITIZENSHIP, COMMUNITY...then you've got an process. THEN let them pick which brand to stick their nickels in!"
Well, it could have been the warm Red Dog...and "God" might have been that old guy who lives in a shack by the lake...the one who smells like fish and schnapps. At the time it was pretty convinvcing.
WASHU: Okay.
Don't you think that the Spidey-Goblin conflict is, at its heart, a well-drawn allegory for the struggle between Holy Mother Church and those who broke off in the wake of Luther's 95 Treatises?
Think about it: Norman Osborn/Green Goblin is an established and successful businessman with a set and stable standing in both the physical and the business communities. Threatened by Spider-Man, whom he first sees as a slight impediment, then realizes that Spider-Man's very existence, and the power he is gaining as a mouthpiece for the opressed, is a threat to his OWN existence. In fact, he later finds that Spider-Man is stealing away from him his own child/ren. Spider-Man is a new and powerful idea; one who fights for the downtrodden for no personal gain, no matter how badly he is viewed by the many voices of the Establishment.
This perceived danger causes Osborn to split; to act as a schizophrenic, bent on the utter destruction of a youth who is his own son's best friend. As in the aftermath of Luther's Protest, wars are bitterly fought with increasing enmity.
Note that after the discovery of Spider-Man's true identity, Osborn/Goblin/Church changes from yet another colorful villain in a fledgling Rogues Gallery to a driven and homicidal madman, intent both upon forcing his son to follow in his footsteps and upon utterly eradicating the threat of Parker/Spider-Man/Reformation.
Don't you see?
(ain't I a stinker?)
P.A.B.: Sadly, an affirmation of one's faith is all too often a denunciation of someone else's.
Because whatever *I* believe, it's the One True Way, see?
BERMANATOR: Sorry about misreading your post. At the time I desperately wanted to contribute to a thread outside of Spider-Mans and Green Goblins.
LW (Benjamin A.A. WInfield)
PAB--you are not an idiot for posting that. It grew into a good discussion. See? Even here, you can't help being a teacher. Besides, you're right--the kid ignored the question entirely.
Alex: Well, if it were a mere commentary on his beliefs, I don't think I would have gotten the whole lecture about how self-centered one would have to be to believe "Thou art God," (notice how quickly he turned that into "I Am God," which is not what the text says); his assessment about how unlikely one would be to find a spouse (relevance?), how lacking in altruism one would be (false!), and how the only way one could think such a thing would be if one were ignorant about religion (???). Don't you think those claims were a little beyond the purview of an "affirmation of faith"? Affirm your faith all you want, just don't attack other people's.
But again, I don't plan on discussing this with him. I just wanted to talk about what he wrote. Teachers have feelings too, they just aren't allowed to express them in school. It was a mistake for me to think I could express them here.
Bermanator
P.A.B.: The Christian view--or, rather, the many interpretations of said view--is an overarching presence in this country. In most of the Western World, in fact. Was the Kid's affirmation of his faith REALLY meant to provoke you, or was it a simple reaction to something which to him, wrong or right, seemed an affront to his faith and the faith shared by ninety-five percent of his countrymen? I have to wonder. Note that I'm not cutting you off at the knees here, because you know the Kid better than I, but I just have to wonder.
(On a somewhat related note: At work, the assholes on dayshift, with whom we nightshifters share cubicles, have been steadily complaining about the signs I have put up. Instead of the normal and bland sign announcing my name and seat number, I put up a farcical FOR SALE flyer; one that was much appreciated by my coworkers. Some of the dayshifters took it down. I put it back up, thinking it had fallen. It was again removed, and they sent a complaining note to my manager. Mind you, they didn't talk to ME about it. They also called for the removal of a sketch I had done of an acoustic guitar, with the words "The Blues ain't nothin' but a good man feelin' bad" written above it. And no; I don't pretend to understand that one.
So I'm striking back. In my cubicle now sits a miniature Buddha. He will be joined by a calligraphed prayer in Hebrew. And an Islamic crescent. And a Celtic knot, or a representation of Pan or the Green Man. And a Confucian amulet. And whatever else I can think of. I fucking DARE them to complain about me celebrating my religious beliefs--especially with all the "Footsteps" posters and "Jesus Loves Me" screen savers and such. After I beat them down with this, I'll start putting up whatever I want.)
Zoë and Alex Jay -- my wife wears a chai on her necklace, and teaches in the inner city. She's had students ask if it's a stylised representation of a gun. Amazing what people bring to a perception, isn't it?
I tend to react to Christian protestations of Jews as The Chosen of God, Hallelujah, pretty much as you do. It rankles, no matter how well-meant. Sometimes it seems like we have a choice between being the minions of Satan or walking symbols of the Covenant, instead of human beings, shlubs like everybody else. But over the years I've come to accept that this is part of their religion. Strikes me as whacky (much of Christianity strikes me as whacky), but, hell, if Christians knew anything about Judaism (most don't), they'd think our religion was whacky, too. They'd even be right.
DTS--hey, that's an easy one to answer: there'll never be a world without religion. Humans are religious animals.
"You really need me!
That's why I love mankind."
--God's Song, Randy Newman
ZOË: So what IS your Hebrew name? Mine is Ezra Tzipor ben Reuven (I chose "Ezra" rather than "Aleksandr" for aesthetic reasons--funny thing? "Ezra" means "scribe"--so it fits better than I could have known). The "Tzipor" is the more important of the names: I was named for my great-grandmother Fanny; her Hebrew name was "Tziporrah"--it means "bird", so my middle name matches the "Jay" quite well. And the "ben Reuven" is also important; it labels me as the son of Rubin. Funnier thing: My dad's name is Ray; he is "Rubin" only on bills and birth certificates. A foster child--albeit one who knew his birth mother--he did not know his real name until he hit eighteen and enlisted in the Air Force.
As noted earlier, I am Jewish more in heritage than in religion; I don't know that I NEED a God watching over all. I go to synagogue rarely, mainly on the High Holidays, but I know all the prayers and rather enjoy the pageantry. My celebration is of a heritage of resistance; of pride in the face of persecution. My love for my ancestors is borne out by the Jewish mindset and drive that brought forth a Disraeli, a Houdini; that built Hollywood and rebuilt Jerusalem. I take pride in being of the same pool that gave birth to a Siegel and Schuster; a Kirby and an Eisner. Berle, Burns, Benny, the Marx Brothers; Asimov, Ellison; much of the Golden Age of SF and of the New Age that followed. The mad ones like Spinoza and Hoffman; Lenny Bruce and Mel Brooks.
Also, I can't help but feel that Judaism has been less used, over the centuries, to justify hatred and genocide (Yes, I know; current events ...). When I am lucky enough to have a child, I will want to raise him or her as Jewish, for many reasons. It will give my child the pageantry I enjoyed, it will--I hope--build in my child a hatred for persecution and an aversity to picking on the little guy ("Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt."--Exodus; a little after the Ten Commandments). There's another plus to doing this, you know: Judaism is perhaps the easiest religion to forsake; it is overshadowed by the hugeness of the Christian holidays and mindset. Should my child choose another faith--or no faith at all--it will not be an overly difficult break.
I shrug. That's just the way I feel.
Alex Jay: Pax.
Melissa: I don't want to raise anyone else's kids. I don't want them all to agree with me. I didn't offer any of my beliefs about God to them. What I do want is for them to respect me in the classroom, though, and not preach to me or denigrate the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, of others.
1. He knows I'm not Christian. Therefore, his diatribe was deliberately provocative. I cannot allow myself to be provoked in such a manner, but I have to blow off steam. Clearly discussing it with you was not the way to go.
2. You misinterpreteed my statement "Anti-Christian liberal bullshit." That's what I felt *I* was being accused of forcing on this kid. I am not Christian, but I'm not anti-Christian. I tend not to discuss such things in school. Reading Ellison and listening to Bob Dylan may be liberal, but it ain't bullshit. And I wasn't forcing anything on anyone no matter how you folks may wish to characterize me. Again, I have no idea where you've gotten this idea.
3. The class discussed anthropomorphism AT LENGTH. The Kid knows what it is, and knows what Ellison meant by "Thou art God" in the context of the story. We also discussed the sardonic nature of the Questions for Discussion. He chose to ignore all that. It was not a religious question. It was a literary question about the nature of anthropomorphism.
4. I am not trying to save this kid. I don't feel possessive of this kid. I don't think he's making a mistake by adhering to his religion. In fact, there are probably many ways a student could answer that question from a Christian perspective without being offensive. Those sentiments you attribute to me are fabrications of your mind.
5. We are trained to read student writing with an eye to "is this kid OK" in light of Columbine and other tragedies. I am concerned by the self-denigration he expresses when he's trying to discuss confession. If you think his sentiments are totally normal, then we agree to disagree. He didn't merely say he wanted to talk about his mistakes. He said he wanted to be ashamed before another person because of his impurities. That's not too healthy nor is it Catholic (I was raised Catholic with a Jewish father, so I know this stuff). I do not plan to discuss this with him, but it is troubling.
6. And you are wrong: it is *not* my job to prepare him for the life ahead of him. You're the parent. That's YOUR job. My sole job is to teach literature and writing. I cannot do so if he sees literary questions as personal attacks on his faith, or opportunities to proselytze.
7. Sorry, Lynn, but I haven't seen too many pieces of student writing like this before. Perhaps you read more student writing than I do, but the kid's response took me aback. That's what you saw.
I am not intolerant of different opinions; I am intolerant of disrespect. You have no right to accuse me of preaching because I gave my class a Harlan Ellison story to read.
What I am taking personally, well, is the personal attacks. Again, I reiterate that I am an idiot for posting this. What more can I say?
Bermanator
ALL- It wasn't pity I was looking for in that post, it was a point being made: religion, while "free", isn't always socially acceptable. That's why The Kid's answer bothered me so much - it seems to be an increasing thing where people answer with some religious blather that has nothing to do with the original question. Thanks for the sentiments, mind, but I wanted to make that clear.
Cindy- What Alex Jay said. Again thanks, but if you'd never known I was Jewish, wouldn't I /still/ have been a decent human being (ok, well, based on whatever else you know about me from here)? I'm awesome 'cuz I'm me, not 'cuz I'm Jewish *preen*. The latter just helps a lot...
DTS- Hmmm, a world without religion? Who could we blame things on then? How could we explain the things we don't understand? Scaaaaaary. *wink*
Jim Davis- Ouch... that's pretty bad. My favorite is when I ask my closer and all-too-Christian (a joke! a joke!) friends if they believe I'm going to hell (this only after ascertaining their belief that those who don't accept Jesus go to hell). It's surprising the looks I get - "Oh, uh.. well not /you/... but, uh..." It's nice to make people THINK about what they believe sometimes. (DISCLAIMER: NOT A SLAM ON RELIGION, SLAM ON MY GENERATION'S IGNORANCE)
Alex Jay- I hear ya. I have my Hebrew name (in Hebrew, no less!) on a necklace, and I remember getting a lot of odd looks and questions about it. Right on about you bein' you. And me bein' me, of course. Keep on, brutha!
Off to bright'n early ROTC crap, later all!
--Zoë Rose
Hey--there's something that's been troubling me. Here we are, a rather erudite bunch--and, if you're like me, a closet grammarian. Probably, the use of the word "Hopefully" as an absolute rather than as an auxiliary adverb styings a bit. Why, then, do "mercifully," "admittedly," "happily," and "curiously," used in the same manner, not have the same effect?
PEG: I think you're a little too hard on P.A.B. To me, it wasn't so much his dismay at the kid's holding to a tight, hard and fast belief, it was rather because, in his zest to show said belief, he showed that he had totally misunderstood the idea of the "Thou art God."
And one thing really stood out at me: "Additionally, I believe it makes me a better, more altruistic person b/c if "I were
God" I could just thing "oh, I'll just forgive myself."" This to me is a betrayal of the kid's own faith. Why work to better onesself if one can rely wholly on the forgiveness and strength from an outside Big Daddy? God, I am told, helps most those who help themselves, and it seems that while you no doubt have this self-betterment strongly held as part and parcel of yourself both with and apart from any deity, the Kid has abdicated his own self-growth. Just my take.
FRANK: Does Harlan's having worked for TV, for Star Trek, for Bab 5, et cetera, make him a sellout? Was leigh Brackett a sellout for scripting THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK? Is J. Michael Straczynski a sellout for writing The Amazing Spider-Man? They are doing what they love, with characters they care about, seeing how they can best rework old tropes in new ways. The world is not quite so black-and-white as you persist in seeing it, I think.
JAY: Lemme geek out a minute here. Remember Peter David's Spider-Man 2099? While the rest of 2099 was mostly crap (aside from Warren Ellis's dystopian run on Doom 2099, and the early cyberpunked-out Ghost Rider 2099), PAD made for as engaging a hero and story as the original Spidey--and Miguel O'Hara DID grow fangs, and organic webshooters (long before Raimi), and retractable talons to better affix his fingers to walls.
(And his costume, as well as how he got it, made more sense, too).
Also, the Cosmic Spidey-punched Hulk (Amazing Spider-Man #328) was only up there for a short while, just realizing that when the sun hit apogee, he would revert to Banner and die (this was when the gray Hulk, as he did in his earliest incarnation, changed at sundown and sunrise). Spidey quickly flew up and snagged him. As Joseph noted, the writer was David Michelinie, by the by, who wrote Spidey from around #297 until the Clone Saga.
ZOË: I agree; it had a sanctimoniousmness that rankled with me. On the flipside, none of Peg of our heart's have ever seemed such.
(By the by--I tend to go nuts when someone throws antisemitic shit my way. Maybe it's a holdover from my dad's getting the shit kicked out of him when he was just out of the orphanage because he killed Christ. What annoys me even more is when fellow Jews caution me against appearing too outwardly Jewish. Fuck that up the ass with a lye-soaked chainsaw. Currently, I wear a necklace. It's a black silk cord, with two black-blood-red beads on it and an acoustic guitar charm flanked by two small cubes of silver; one with a Mogen David and one with a "Chai" symbol. A fellow Jew asked me why I wanted to wear such an overtly--if small-symbol, as I'm not even that religious [hey; for all I know, I may be atheist at this point]. I replied hotly that it was my heritage, and that I was proud of it. I don't know if he understood.
P.A.B.: You're overreacting to a throwaway comment I made. Sorry if I wasn't as clear as I'd like to have been, but I was rushing off to work. Pax, landsman?
CINDY: While I thank you for your sentiment, and I have already said how pissed I am when treated like shit for my ethnicity, I don't know that I want to be treated well because God said so. I want to be taken for who I am, y'know?
DTS: No; I disagree. I think that the best advances come from friction; that bad times bring out the best in people, even as they confront the worst.
And a shiny happy world would have no dark corners for many writers to plumb. Conrad's HEART OF DARKNESS does not work if the reader has no darkness, or capability for same, within himself or herself. Without villains, does the possibility for heroes truly exist?
BRIAN: While I will agree with you that the "evolutionary ladder" is a fiction and a misnomer (I've read too much Steven Jay Gould to think otherwise), it has, unfortunately, become common parlance as a figure of speech. What DO you want to call the many-pathed trip to a higher--or, more correctly, DIFFERENT--state? The Evolutionary Mandelbrot Set?
Personally, I always thought of evolution more as an exercise bike than a ladder. But that's just me.
ZOE: You wanna hear something bad? My Jewish mother married a gentile man who, after a few years together, asked her if Jews believed in God. You wanna hear something worse? That man was my father.
So I kinda dig where you're coming from.
HEATHER:
I'm picking my words v-e-r-y c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y. I'm conscious of the fact that, sometimes, I spout off without considering other people's feelings--or even that there ARE other people--real, actual human beings--at the receiving end of my words. It's a trap that's easy to fall into, as far as message boards are concerned. You read a post, you have a visceral reaction, and you send an equally visceral response spinning into the ether. Riposte for riposte, tit for tat. A computer game, if you like, where, instead of scoring points with digitized laser cannons and sten guns, you score them with syntax and metaphor, and the odd finely-tuned phrase.
I was in debate team in high school, so that feeling of language as a weapon is kind of ingrained in me. And that's not always a good attitude to have.
Why am I going on about this? Because I'm a little confused and even concerned about your earlier post to Philip Shropshire, and I don't want to appear as though I'm attacking you. I also want to maintain a sense of perspective. Look, at the end of the day, Harlan's suit is just one of hundreds, nay, MILLIONS of struggles both large and small that we can choose to involve ourselves in. Is it important? Yeah, I think so. But it's not the only Righteous Fight on the block, so presenting a dissenting opinion doesn't make you a Quisling or even a fool, as far as I'm concerned. Others here may disagree, but that's life.
Still, I have to wonder what you found so praiseworthy in Shropshire's article. I won't go into its flaws again, save to say that they're extensive. (See CEP's letter for details; see also my earlier post, and Xanadu's, and Stan Nicholl's, among others.) The article has gotten a lot of attention here, and for good reason. A piece critical of KICK is hardly cause for alarm, but when one is disingenuous and filled with serious gaps in logic, and is presented as a near-definitive refutation anyway, it almost DEMANDS rebuke.
What's stranger still is that you have, for several months, presented yourself as the #1 supporter of KICK, a perpetual-motion machine who's willing to pick rags on the street, if it could pay for even one more minute of Harlan's legal fight. So when you say that you're wondering about some of the implications of the AOL suit for the first time, I have to ask you, "Why haven't you thought about this stuff BEFORE?" It's not as though Shropshire wrote anything new. He essentially workshopped his article in Webderland months before it appeared on Locus Online.
I guess what I'm saying is this: It seems to me that you've attached yourself to KICK for reasons that have little to do with the merits of the case. There's been an evangelical tenor to your support that I'm not sure was always healthy. If you love Harlan and his work, and you feel a kind of gratitude to him and want him to succeed, that's perfectly understandable. But if you're jumping on the KICK bandwagon strictly to attach yourself to a cause, and infuse a sense of purpose to your life, maybe that's not the best motivation to have. And maybe there are better uses for your talents.
Don't support KICK because you love Harlan. Support KICK because you think it's right. If you aren't certain how you really feel, then put down the timbrel and fife until you are. No one will think lesser of you, and I'm sure Harlan will understand.
Hoping you accept this post in the spirit it was written,
Your friend (you'd better believe) Jim
Oh and just so's you people understand, I was out of town all weekend, suffering through e-withdrawals so I could get some fresh air and exercise.
You should try it sometime. ::wink::
L.
"So he says, 'Heah, hold dis featha and youse can fly!' HAH! We was eatin' elephant f'weeks!"
**First of all, there ain't no "evolutionary ladder." **
Well, hell, let's face it, we either need the monolith from 2001 or a good old fashioned mass extinction to make any real progress.
I doubt Stephen King thought of it this way but The Stand is really a much better example of evolution at work than the traditional understanding of evolution as a series of gradual and orderly changes.
DTS~ Newsflash: People don't need religion to justify treating each other like shit. Saying that the next step in evolution (purely an expression, Siano - don't get your knickers in a bunch) is to leave religion behind is to ignore the very basic evolutionary fact that we're greedy, naked monkeys who will always find new and interesting ways to cheat, steal and kill. If anything, religion is there to mitigate these evolutionary drives so we can all live in our nice little cages and not murder one another for what could easily be called justifiable reasons.
Don't single us "believers" out because we have certain worldview that conflicts with your own. Remember, there is strength in diversity, and diverse opinions make our tapestry all the more colorful.
Respectfully yours,
L.
Bermanator~ Slow down, take a deep breath, and try to regain a bit of perspective. While I appreciate the fact that you do indeed give a shit about this Kid, there are a few things that disturb me.
A) You assign a question that has the phrase "Thou Art God" in it, and you seem dismayed that you get a religious response. Sun Tzu states, "If the soldier does not understand the order, the fault is the officers." So, if the Kid did not understand anthropomorphism and glommed on to the only part of the question he *did* understand, don't act surprised. Don't give him full credit, but don't get bent because he answered what he could handle.
B) You seem to have taken the Kid's response personally. As a teacher, you're not going to last very long if you take every rant or diatribe from the angst-filled minds of hormone ravaged teenagers as if they were directed against your very existence. I think you're a great person, one that I wouldn't mind teaching my kids (mostly because I'm pretty sure my kids would keep up). But you have issues. You have emotional baggage. And as a teacher, you *need* to leave that emotional baggage at the door. For your own good. I say this as someone who cares about you, who cares about seeing you become the best teacher you can be, because you have a gift. Ultimately, I think it is a question of mindfulness.
C) Your rant here on the board came off a lot differently than I think you intended. Perhaps better to go back and read it again, because I myself was a bit stunned by your response. You wrote "horrifying", and forgive me, but I've seen more horrifying things written by younger children. The issue the Kid had with confession sounds less like a need to abase himself and more like a need to verbalize wrongdoings and by doing so, come clean in a sense. Parlor trick says he's either had someone justify a wrong against him, or he's had to do the same thing (more likely the latter, because he sounds like the kind of kid who knew *exactly* what he was doing when he scribbled the offensive symbols on your desk). He sounds to me like a kid who doesn't like that side of himself, the one who has all the answers, who knows everything and can't admit that he might need help.
I confess, I don't know you personally, nor do I know the history of you and this Kid, but I can try to give you an objective opinion. If anything, you seem to have taken this kid's redemption and education as your own personal grail quest. Take heart. Everything you do or say has an effect on him, whether you see the results instantaneously or not. How do I know this? Because the kids know which teachers care and which ones don't. NPR did a piece this morning that actually made me think of you.
"Monday, May 6, 2002
Journalist David Shribman wanted to know what makes a great teacher, so he asked a few hundred people. He found that most people said teachers were those who cared and those who pushed them to do better. Monday on Morning Edition, Shribman talks about his book, I Remember My Teacher: 365 Reminiscences of the Teachers Who Changed Our Lives. "
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/
Be well,
L.
First of all, there ain't no "evolutionary ladder."
Second, humans ain't likely to be evolving into anything else anytime soon. For such changes to occur, we'd have to have a subset of our species living in a radically different environment for several hundred thousand years. That just isn't likely to happen.
It's sort of irritating to see someone present himself as a defender of rationality and reason against the tides of ignorance and religion.... and throwing out this un-scientific bullshit.
Yes, I'm cranky today. Grr.
HEY ALL, while we're on the subject of religion (one of my favorite topics), how many here feel that mankind is in serious need of another evolutionary jump up the ladder? You know, so that the majority of us (that mass of men leading quiet lives of desperation -- and those that like to go postal, from time to time, as well) will stop clinging to superstitious beliefs (Voodoo, Santeria, Wicca, Christianity, Islam, etc., etc) that allow them to justify acts of murder, violence, hatred and cruelty in the name of some god or other. So? How many here think we'd be better off without religions? (After all, the golden rule -- do unto others, etc -- doesn't need any sort of god attached to it to make it go down easier). Let's take a vote. Raise your hands. All in favor say, Aye!
-- DTS
ZOE,
I am also sickened by how you were treated by those who say they are Christians. One of my favorite Jesus quotes is," Not all who have said, Lord, Lord, will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."
How STUPID would a person have to be to not SEE that the star of David around your neck is an emblem that denotes your direct kinship with Jesus. How loathesome must a person be to be unkind to a child, but how stupid must one be to cry " I am CHRISTIAN" then treat the God's most beloved people with ANYTHING but reverence, esteem and love.
MORONS! The Jews are God's favorite people, it's all over the Bible. If we're in it's by adoption. You were BORN belonging to the God we as Christians worship.
I'm sorry Zoe for what they did to you, but they won't get away with it. God looks out for his own.
Cindy
BERMANATOR,
I just read Melissa's statement and I had to say this is exactly what my husband always said about dealing with the public as a cop;
"You want to piss somebody off just mess with their kid or their dog."
LOL!
In this case you didn't need to do either! Your fatal flaw is that you give a shit.
I understood what you were saying. I don't think it's right that this poor kid thinks he needs to abase himself before another person, but there again, tread lightly, parents of any religion can go off half cocked when it comes to this sort of thing.
My kids are Christian but I would love for any of them to have you for a teacher. Our beliefs are different but our hearts are geared the same. If a clone could be made exactly like you and raised the same as you were, then we could mass produce you and put you in classrooms all over the country. This would solve a HUGE part of what is wrong with our educational system.
:)
Cindy
A review, a review and doing the right thing
Dear Phil Shropshire,
Read your article the other day. Congratulations for getting a piece in locusmag.com--I know how serious you are about this writing gig. It's well written. I enjoyed it. Presenting some of the Ellison/AOL issues in the way you did got me thinking about a few things. I'm going to look harder at the effects Harlan's lawsuit may have on all of us--especially we creative types.
It made me want to speak to you privately. (I may still do that.) It also made me not want to speak to you privately as I started to think that, these days, everything I say and do may be held against me. Sobering thought.
It also made me want to speak to Harlan; publicly; privately--same issue; perhaps a different effect. No; speaking publicly, I mean. I spoke to someone privately the other day. He'd read the the article too. He wasn't too sure what to think about some of these issues either. He's a writer, too, you see, a very funny and fluid one, in my view. But not saying anything publicly (I'm wondering about some of these writers I'm contacting about this anthology we're doing. I don't know if they're just busy--which is possible; or not interested--which is their right; or afraid to be seen supporting Harlan in full view of the companies they write for, who are paying their mortgages) might be tantamount to fence sitting.
Now understand this, I sure as hell don't know everything about what this AOL lawsuit could lead to--perhaps you're right, perhaps Harlan will end up sleeping with a Goliath--I don't know; I don't know all the details and I find that frustrating. There might even be some things right now that Harlan is doing, consciously, that I don't agree with. I think, in some ways, he and I have different views of what the Internet could be used for. That's not the point, right not.
I went to see a movie Sunday night. At the IMAX theatre. "The Fast and the Furious." Never seen it before. Thought it might be some kid's movie. In some ways, it was. Mostly guys were there--a few with their chicks.
Anyway, I've been reading about mythic characteristics in storytelling. This movie had a mythic quality. Great film, tightly paced, authentic characters--I highly recommend it.
Thinking back on it, as I write you this letter, I'm reminded of a pivotal scene near the end of the movie.
There's a girl, standing in a field, her brother, (Vince Diesel. Never seen him before. Magnetic actor!) an exposed thief, calling her on, over the roar of the soundtrack (Fantastic!) and the helicopter, waiting to take her brother's wounded teammate and her boyfriend, an exposed undercover cop, and she has to make a decision: who to go with. The brother, with his questionable undertakings or the boyfriend, who she loves. She chooses the brother. She does the right thing. (For now.)
And so do I.
I support you, Harlan. No matter what.
Roll credits...
Thanks for reading, Phil. Keep on digging. I'll watch for you. Luck to you.
Heather
Who's Reading Harlan?
http://www.harlanellison.com/kick
BERMANATOR,
Oooooo, don't GO there!
lol
Nope, bad idea. Bad, BAD idea.
It would probably be safer to demonstrate proper masturbatory technique to young Christian students than to expose them to any new ideas or beliefs that challenge their faith.
Christian parents can be more vicious than wolves.
your Christian buddy,
Cindy
Zoe-umlaut,
Sorry to hear about the crap you received just because you wore a Star of David. I guess I must be a christian, because when I read about stuff like this, I say, "Jesus Christ on a wheat thin!". Or, maybe not. It's the twenty-first century, for the love of gawd. There are so many backward-ass people in the USA. Of course, there seems to be some of that all over, as in France, maybe? I saw a cartoon which showed Germans celebrating, saying "Yay! Ve are no longer ze scariest country in Europe!"
Kinda makes you miss the cold war.
Chuck
Melissa- Except that no, the kid was NOT asked about his personal beliefs in religion. He was asked about a story, and the role religion, or god, or lack of either, played in it. If he had somehow tied in his beliefs in christ to that answer, well, then it might have made sense. But his closing line was something to do with him being a better person because he has a savior. What, so those who don't have one are worse people? That just wasn't an answer to the question. P.A. Berman, from what I understand, wasn't going to attack the kid or correct him. He was merely stating that it disappointed and irritated him to have someone's personal religion thrown in somewhere as an excuse for an answer; as a substitute for a real, thought out answer, even.
--Zoë Rose
P.A. Berman:
You seem not to see this argument as being part of a larger reality, one in which you are a teacher, I AM THE PARENT!!!!
This is my child, one whom I have placed in your charge to educate, not preach to. And before you start in with this notion of defending yourself by saying you're protecting your right to broaden my child's intellect, consider these little jems straight from your own post:
"...Not too sure why you think I'm trying to force some anti-Christian liberal bullshit orthodoxy down this kid's throat, cut off his heels, suppress his First Amendment rights, or otherwise mutilate or harm his capacity for independent thought, such as it is."
Anti-Christian liberal bullshit? A husband's who's an atheist, and I as an agnostic as terrificly offended. We exercise our right to have our children raised in whatever means we choose, with our education system teaching them to think for themselves, not to be placed within a system where the teacher can set the agenda based on whatever viewpoint they consider correct. Yes, one should teach Ellison in the schools, but not consider him to be more gospel than a Bible. To me they are both works of fiction, and should be considered in equality.
This is why my son and daughter is in a Montessori school. We have had it with teachers who believe theirs is the right to set whatever political or social agenda they wish with my money, and my child, whether that agenda be religious or secular and feel no onus to explain themselves to me.
"It's too bad all you pro-tolerance folks can judge *me* in such a cavalier manner, but I don't honestly know what better I expected. Fuck it, clearly I am an idiot for posting it in the heat of my shock at reading it. Please just talk about Spiderman."
Tolerance isn't a one way street, with your view giving you perpetual right of way. As far as I'm concerned, if any form of religion gives one the strength and ability to treat the myriad other souls who habitate this planet with respect and decency, as many christians do, then more power to the person who practices.
"I've always been supportive of this kid, listened to his problems, written him letters of recommendation, talked about literature and music with him. Surely no matter how professional I am when I encounter a diatribe like this from a student, I cannot help but feel that this response is some sort of attempted indictment of me and of Mr. Ellison. Ok, I can cope with that, and I'm sure Ellison don't give a rat's ass what some 18 year old thinks.
4. I am worried about his MENTAL STATE, yes Peg. Reread that whole part about "next thing you know, you might just say, 'I'll just forgive myself.'" Well, god forbid! Didn't you think it was a bit much, to discuss the need to feel ashamed before another person (not God) in order to be forgiven?"
Well, that's wonderful that one should show such concern for a student, but you've lost complete reason in the situation. I get a sense of possessiveness in your missive that I, if I was the parent of this child, would be alarmed over. As my husband stated, this is not your job to save this child from what you perceive as some tremedous mistake he's made, in the fact of adhering to a religious faith. It is your job to prepare his for the life ahead of him. Diatribe? For the love of Pete, it was a test answer; one you'd asked him for.
As to his mental state, you seemed to like it fine when he would discuss literature and music with you, but suddenly he's entirely insane for displaying interest in religion. If this is a concern worthy of investigation into what appears to you to be the onset of some form of psychiatric disorder, then demand investigation by proper authorities. Other than that, leave the poor soul alone. I'm sorry, but as a parent I'm finding your mental state a bit more suspect than his right now. It's good to be compassionate, but there are limits.
Well, this one's got me a bit worked up, but I'm seeing something of value coming from it. It's a frightening thing, having this much influence over the nascent mind of a child, either as parent or teacher. One has to take care not to suffocate it in the passion to want to improve it.
People have a right to think what they want, P.A., even when it disagrees with you.
Love to all, Melissa
According to Bruce Campbell's autobio "If Chins Could Kill" Sam, his brother and childhood friends developed their love of film from years of super-8 flicks and low-budget local horror shows. Sam's love of film and of directing is well documented in the book by Campbell.
It's also a helluva funny read.
He made pictures he wanted to see and, more importantly, could afford. Progressively larger flicks with mixed critical success, but a lot of style and heart. He has fun with his movies and it shows.
>Selling out means he has always promised to do independent, low budget yet full ownership films. <
It should also be noted that 90% of films that fit this description usually suck, sometimes real bad. Selling out does have its merits, not the least being access to a professional, experienced team of coworkers, production standards that make a film a visual pleasure to watch, marketing to reach a wide and international audience...uh, did I mention starlets in hot tubs? Oops...
And before I go off in a total huff, thanks to Zoe for hitting on some other great points that I left out. She's right, ya know. It's not what you think but HOW you think.
B
Little Washu: I think you read my post wrong. You're responding to what someone else said about "Thou art God," not what I said.
Peg/Scott/Alex Jay: Not too sure why you think I'm trying to force some anti-Christian liberal bullshit orthodoxy down this kid's throat, cut off his heels, suppress his First Amendment rights, or otherwise mutilate or harm his capacity for independent thought, such as it is. Don't have any idea where you got that from me giving him Harlan Ellison and Bob Dylan to experience, but OK, you seem to have that idea of me and feel the need to admonish me. I remind myself that you don't know me and I find that comforting.
What is TRULY HORRIFYING about the screed is:
1. He didn't answer the question. No, he didn't "engage with the story." He took a sliver of it and went off on some personal rant (I'm sure you can sympathize with that urge). You can rant all you want about your personal beliefs, but you can't expect to get credit for an assignment you didn't do. Reading that took up five minutes of my life I can never get back, that I could have used to grade someone who DID want to talk about Ellison.
2. Instead of doing his homework, he used the assignment as a launching pad for a pro-Christian diatribe directed straight at a non-Christian. It's inappropriate, disrespectful, condescending, and I don't wish to discuss such issues in school. Not conducive to an open-minded discussion of a controversial work of literature.
3. I've always been supportive of this kid, listened to his problems, written him letters of recommendation, talked about literature and music with him. Surely no matter how professional I am when I encounter a diatribe like this from a student, I cannot help but feel that this response is some sort of attempted indictment of me and of Mr. Ellison. Ok, I can cope with that, and I'm sure Ellison don't give a rat's ass what some 18 year old thinks.
4. I am worried about his MENTAL STATE, yes Peg. Reread that whole part about "next thing you know, you might just say, 'I'll just forgive myself.'" Well, god forbid! Didn't you think it was a bit much, to discuss the need to feel ashamed before another person (not God) in order to be forgiven? I don't know about you, but that does not strike me as a healthy outlook. Also, it doesn't really follow Catholic dogma. Confession is not about the masochistic act of shaming oneself before another human being. The priest is a conduit of God's loving forgiveness; not about humiliation at all, if done correctly.
Also, I have no idea where that whole rant about confession came from, but it was appropos of nothing and seemed a bit weird to me. Clearly this kid has some burgeoning issues about his religion and he's trying to shock me into engaging them with him. I don't know how to react to it; this is only my second year and this is a first for me. I don't want to talk about Jesus with him; even though Jesus is just all right with me, that's not the point. Can you really blame me? So yes, I am horrified. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.
It's too bad all you pro-tolerance folks can judge *me* in such a cavalier manner, but I don't honestly know what better I expected. Fuck it, clearly I am an idiot for posting it in the heat of my shock at reading it. Please just talk about Spiderman.
No, really, thank YOU for showing a bit more tolerance.
Later.
Bermanator
I'm really confused by this business of "selling out." From what I can tell, Raimi's always enjoyed making energetic entertainments, and doing _Spider-Man_ seems like exactly the sort of thing the guy who made _The Evil Dead_ would want to do. Frankly, if one's going to accuse Raimi of "selling out," then why not point to the film of his that really seemed like a naked ploy to be taken seriously-- that Kevin Costner baseball movie?
(Anyway, how does one "sell out," exactly? Do guys come to your door with a suitcase full of cash? I, for one, would like to be _asked_ to sell out. It'd be flattering.)
re: The Kid and his responses
I think that the hardest part to deal with about this kid's response is that it reeks of the usual, "I'm Good because I'm Christian" epidemic. Now, I don't mean that as a way to bash the religion itself, honestly. I understand (basically) the Christian doctrines and beliefs. I guess, from the point of view of someone who has been told everything from "you worship the Devil" to "you're going to hell because you killed Jesus" to "Santa Claus isn't Christian, he's /American/" to "you can't play with my kid, you have that Star of David around your neck" to having had swastikas drawn on my notebooks and painted on my Temple to a miriad of other outlandish accusations and prohibitions, it's really hard to deal with when in an essay trying to approach a literary work, someone breaks out the "I have a savior, I Am Good" rule. This guy sounds intelligent, he's trying to think things through. I agree that it's not a teacher's job to teach a kid WHAT to think, but HOW. However, it's important to think intellectually about things without constantly bringing up religion - at least, that's my stance. Yes, the questions had to do with god, but as it pertained to the story, and how HE 'played' with the concept in his story. It didn't ask how the reader's religion affected his reading.
I know it's a dominantly Christian society in this country, but for a land of "freedom of religion" it sure gets shoved down everyone's throat a lot. I know we're leagues ahead of other countries insofar as religious freedom, but I think that people are far too eager to dismiss religious intolerance.
Wow - that went off on a tangent. Just got done with a public speaking class where someone was advocating the 'moment of prayer' in school with the support sentence of, "Most people in some way believe in one of the sects of Christianity anyway, so..."
Anyway...
--Zoe Rose
The writer for the Cosmic Spidey (technically called "Acts of Vengeance" was David Michelinie, with art by Todd McFarlane. And, hoo yeah, that cover of Amazing Spider-Man #328, with Spidey punching Hulk into orbit, is one of my all-time favorites! Hell, here's a link to the cover for kicks:
http://spiderfan.org/comics/images/spiderman_amazing/328.jpg
Regards,
Joseph
Sam Raimi Selling Out: how do you know? Selling out means he has always promised to do independent, low budget yet full ownership films. Did Raimi ever promise this? Just because he started low budget and independent, do you (you who believes in the big 'sell out') know for a fact that his mind was not always on becoming a bigtime Hollywood director?
Raimi made the Evil Dead films because he was not going to be handed $150 million to direct Spider-Man at that time. He wasn't even going to be handed $10 million to direct anything at all....he made the films to work at becoming a good director, and maybe some day make it to the big time.
Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know about any of Raimi's early dreams....Frank, do you?
-TODD
The Cosmic Spidey storyline was great, especiallywhen it coincided with the big "Acts of Vengeance" crossover. He took out Graviton, Magneto and then the Hulk. Great cover on the Hulk issue with Spidey punching the Hulk up in the air, Hulk smashing through the Title Logo and Spidey saying "Now who's the strongest one there is?"
I sure would have liked to see him take on Galactus. Maybe as a follow up to the What If...? when Aunt May got the Captain Universe power.
Y'know, if you were actually chosen from Hollywood's best and brightest to helm the SPIDER-MAN movie, do you think you'd really CARE if some people accused you of selling out?
Sam Raimi had genuine passion for the project, and it shows.
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
Highlights -
60% of the special effects
Kirsten Dunst, Willem DeFoe, Cliff Robertson
30% of the dialogue
The Times (Bugle) Square battle
The origin and modified Uncle Ben storyline.
The cable car battle
The Daily Bugle
Cameos by Ivan Raimi, Bruce Campbell and Sam's Evil Deadmobile as the Parker's car.
Disappointments -
The length - 2 hours to tell an 80-90 minute story.
Tobey -
40% of the special effects LOOKED like CGI.
70% of the dialogue (goo goo eyes in the hospital)
Danny "voice choir and trumpet march" Elfman
The opening and closing narration..didn't need it.
Elements too close to Batman/Superman, particularly Spiderman speeding down the wall and catching Lois...er, Mary Jane and the "we're two sides of the same coin" duality of Spidey and Green Goblin.
My seven year old pointed out two important questions which even the "its just a comic book movie" didn't answer... "If he's like a spider, how come the webs don't shoot out his butt?" and "if he bites Mary Jane's tongue, won't he poison her? How come he doesn't got fangs?" Of course I corrected his grammar, but he raised an interesting series of questions.
Some other notes - Remember when Spidey hosted Captain Universe for a while and sent Hulk into orbit...and he stayed there for like months? I forget who wrote that story arc. I, too, enjoy the Ultimate Spiderman. I think it helps new readers join the fun in a way previous revamps failed. We're actually watching Parker grow up in print over the course of several issues. It's good fun.
Must be off.
Oh, and Frank, while I don't know what you do for a living, I presume that somewhere in the occupation there lies the shameful possibility of selling out. While I'm sure you avoid those waters at all time, I'd be interested to see how long your resolve held as the zeroes were added to the check...
I'm always amused when I see "selling out" brought up as some form of accusation. As if the person who "sold out" has somehow betrayed some higher sense of purpose, or art, or ethical stance for the filthy pleasure of money.
In Sam Raimi's instance, the guy is a movie director. His job is to make films, and like everyone else, he'd like to be compensated for his job as much as possible. I won't even address the notion that Spiderman is somehow a lower artistic statment than A Simple Plan.
Unless a person has made an active (and presumably low-paying) career of castigating wealth in any form, and is modeling such a philosophy by living on rice and lentils and owning only the clothes on their back, I don't think they can be accused of "selling out." Sam Raimi, last I looked, was eating at the regular restaurants and no doubt has a few credit cards.
Joseph, that's like saying that Harlan should learn to write more like Tom Clancy. Doesn't wash brother.
Bermanator: Good christ (sorry, no pun intended), where to start? Allow me to say that the idea of using HE's "Questions for Discussion" as an actual excercise was inspired, even if it didn't get the results expected. The story was meant as a cage rattler; pity it turned out that it was your cage that got the boot.
Being a father, I see "The Kid" as a child whose had altrusim engrained into his consciousness, holding to beliefs and ideals with a tenacity that would make a pit-bull envious. My own children have their share of preconceived notions about themselves, their parents, their world, and through the experience of living will have these notions either eradicated or enforced, the same as mine, or Mel's, or yours were.
I don't like the idea of using some form of intellectual duress to push my children into thinking in patterns that I would find to my liking. It smacks of the same controls that the overtly religious engage in to raise their children within a faith, and I can't help but think that such actions could only damage any relationship between myself and my children. So, with the exception of dealing with hurtful prejudgments that the kids have brought in about race or other physical differences, I tend not to push any dogma upon them.
I also tend to think that leaving my children to challenging these patterns of thought for themselves, while Mel and I remain close by to support them through answering any questions they have or to comfort them when some act will shatter a child's altruism about life will strengthen them, to their own benefit. We both hope our children will grow to think for themselves and choose for themselves, even when those thoughts and choices disagree with our desires to maintain some form of influence upon them.
As a teacher, you've opened his to an alterantive perspective, a different opinion. What disturbs me is reading further, when you show dismay about what he's written. It's not the purpose of you as a teacher or mentor to program the children to think in one discernable pattern, but to open them to as many different patterns as possible. You suggest that what he's learned is wrong. Forcing your perspective down his throat is no more right.
Now, if you will excuse me, I'm off to give an oatmeal bath to two little walking cases of chicken pox. I hope that one thing that never changes for my three little urchins: that they never cease thinking of Mel and I as the two most important people in their lives.
Baag-O-Scott: Mortal enemy of Dr. Benjamin Spock.
For those of you interested in reading more about the African Royalty email scam, read here:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blnigeria.htm
Have you bought your Webderland t-shirt yet? How about a mug? Or a travel mug in stylish stainless steel?
http://www.cafepress.com/Webderland
Five dollars of every purchase goes to the KICK Internet Piracy Fund.
L.
Frank,
It's a sell-out to take the job directing a movie version of a character you love, even if it is owned by a corporation? To think that maybe you can artistically do something that hasn't been done before? To maybe have some fun with a movie and make something that millions of people will enjoy and appreciate? To be able to afford to keep on making independent films. Hell, look at it this way: Raimi's made enough cash and reputation on this film to allow him to make three more "The Gift"-size movies. Sure, it may be "selling out" but your definition. But not everyone can be a starving artist. Being a starving artist sucks. You want to be paid like any other human for your hard work.
Regards,
Joseph
Joseph, no, I meant the obvious sell-out.
LA LA Land - those who cannot tolerate the traffic, population, smog, or concrete of LA will never be able to fully appreciate all it's other myriad joys. I love it. I still love it, although the concrete aspect is less appealing after living in more natural settings. LA has such an immense representation of cultures, and *culture*, that it practically serves as a definition of "cosmopolitan".
*rant mode on*
What exactly is it that's distrurbing about this student's response, that is "truly horrifying"? Is it
- the actual writing, which has its flaws (albeit you can at least follow it, which is more than can be said for the writing of other high school students)?
- that he has a strong religious belief and is not bothered by discussing it?
- that he doesn't seem to touch on anthropomorphism, instead considering the implications of the statement with regard to his own beliefs, thereby missing the point of the actual assignment?
What's disturbing at times is the (apparent) attitude that having a spiritual belief is akin to brain damage or terminal illness, requiring a cure, if one should be so fortunate. Or that it is somehow mutually exclusive to the ability to have an intelligent discussion about deep, meaningful issues in life. ("Jezoid". Thanks for that special nugget. I'll relish knowing that's how I'm viewed by some folks 'round here. Not to mention the Kid).
Alex Jay - thanks for showing a bit more tolerance.
*rant mode off*
Just to clear the air on a certain topic, some people seem to have got their noses bent over the fact that Harlan called me a bitch. Guess what? I knew it was in jest, I didn't get my feelings hurt, and it didn't bother me for a moment. So ultimately, this was a non-issue. Harlan can call me whatever he wants (I'm still gonna get me a t-shirt that reads "W*R*I*T*E*R") and probably will.
Just so long as he spells my name right. ::wink::
L.
Oops in previous post: Amado is a sorta-kinda Latin American Dickens; Donoso is a mad alchemist.
R.
Ms.Rose: Harlan Ellison's recommendations of Latin American authors include Garcia Marquez, Jorge Amado, and Jose Donoso, whose novel "The Obscene Bird of Night" is awesome. My favorite Gabriel Garcia Marquez books are "One Hundred Years of Solitude," and "Love in the Time of Cholera," although everything I've read by him has been admirable. Donoso is a sorta-kinda Charles Dickens of Brazil. And there's an out-of-print short novel, "Sergeant Getulio" by Joao Ribeiro (I may be wrong on the spelling)that is a mind-bender, too. These guys are just a few among many fine 20th Century Latin American scribes( Not to mention the Master, Jorge Luis Borges --he deserves a book of a post).
R.Wilder
Zoe "dots 'n' things" Rose: a little bit of belated here, but re: the Slaughterhouse-Five film. I actually saw that a few months ago. (Me in the middle of the store: "They made this into a MOVIE?!?") I thought it was a pretty good job of filming what I would call a fundamentally unfilmable novel. The jumps between eras in his life were well done.
Incidentally, my housemate #3 came home while I and housemate #2 were in the middle of watching it.
"Whatcha watchin'?" asks #3.
"Slaughterhouse-Five," sez I.
"Oh," continues #3 innocently, "Did you already watch numbers one through four this weekend?"
In her defense, she knows that I do like to watch trashy horror flicks, and when she walked in, the shot on the screen was of the topless porn actress standing in the middle of the glass bubble on Trafalmadore. But it's still right up there with my favorite Vonnegut joke: "Slaughterhouse-Five, Cows-Zero."
Frank,
Leaving aside this whole issue of selling out, Raimi can sell out as much as he wants to be able to make classics like "A Simple Plan" (a Paramount production).
Regards,
Joseph
I will skip, Spiderman, possibly because I am still mad at Raimi for selling out. What in the hell is wrong with doing independant films your entire career? At least you have some artistic leeway.
But, I must say, that Kirsten Dunst wet t-shirt scene gives me a warm feeling. Does that make me sexist? Does it make me a bitch??
----------------------------
Lynn, actually LA is more seedy then plastic. Sorry, but even the palm trees there give off the aroma of dried semen.
You know, much as this is a silly discussion, I'm with Chris on this one. Cap is trained, lean and mean. No contest.
On the other hand, Spidey did manage to defeat an entire superpowered paramilitary group (the X-Men) all by his lonesome (to be fair, this was during the "Storm has no powers" period). Not bad for one teenager.
Regards,
Joseph
P.S. That's from Secret Wars #3, by the way.
Not that this has any bearing on any of the threads being followed (Spidey vs the world, scientific comic book facts, and CEP's awesome rebuttal to Shropshire), but I recall reading in some book or intro or another that HE liked the writer Gabriel Marquez at some point. Ironically enough, as I've been going through all my books and crap (trying to get ready to move! agh!), I came across a Marquez book that I read for a freshman "World Lit" class (oh so long ago... heh) that really freaked me out. I reread it and it still made me shiver a bit. Anyone ever read "Of Love and Other Demons"?
Brrrr. I remember having the reaction of going straight to the professor just before class started on the day we were to have finished the book, and saying, "Creepy, Amy. Just really frickin' creepy." Yes, I said frickin'. She loved that I had that reaction (thought I must note, no one else really cared much... infuriating when your classmates don't even process what they read).
Just kinda cool. Shiver. Mmm.
--Zoë Rose
P.A. BERMAN: Remember what Carlin said: "Religion is like a lift in your shoes. You can put on any pair you like. Just don't ask me to wear YOUR shoes." The kid's chosen his footwear for now; don't cut off his heels just yet.
ROB: "I've tried diligently to stick to the hard science here. To keep our feet cemented to the facts." BWAH-HAHAHAH! We're talkin' bout funnybooks here, you know?
CHRIS: Fucking crackhead, eh? You have to realize going in, with Mahfood drawing and Wells writing, it's going to be a comic comic. Comedy, y'know. Besides, who WOULDN'T want to see Britney Spears, Sisquo, N'Stync, et alia, swallowed up by a ravenous beach?
"Worst issues since Secret Defenders"? You say this, KNOWING that the Byrne Chapter One crap existed? KNOWING that Liefeld still walks the earth (albeit with tiny, tiny ankles)?
BERMANATOR:
"It seems to me that if one were to adopt the "I am God" that would provide the perfect out to be a very selfish/self-centered person b/c what would anyone else matter?"
I think you're only skimming the surface of the whole statement, 'I Am God'. It could be perceived as selfish and self-centered, as you put it, but it could also mean how STRANDED we are individually, each and every one of us. For example, if I was to say, 'I Am God,' how do I not know I AM 'God'? I'm only aware of myself as a person. How do I know that the rest of the world and everyone living on it are illusions, phantasms? You could say the same about me, that I'M only an illusion of yours, and so on. There's an intriguing book out there called 'Dying Inside' that deals closely with a similar subject. I can't remember the name of the author at the moment, but it's about a telepath who one day loses his powers and suffers the most agonizing existential pain imaginable.
CHRIST: I prefer to believe that Jesus was a great prophet, but not the Son of the all-powerful On High. If JC really did return one day and walk over water, raise the dead, give sight to the blind, etc. I'd be happy to eat crow. But I think I'll stick with the ideals of Jesus for now.
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
Rob,
OK, we agree except on the Cap issue.
First of all, Cap is no wimp in the strength department. He can lift about 800 pounds or so. He's as a strong as a human being can get without actual super powers.
Spidey is stronger and faster, no doubt. But Peter Parker never learned how to fight. He relies entirely on his spidey powersto see him through. Cap is like tempered steel. He's a fighting machine equipped with the tactical knowledge of everyone from Genghis Khan to Norman Schwartzkopf. His shield is a manifestation of his spirit - it's unbreakable and one of a kind.
Cap just plain kicks ass and that's the truth.
Chris,
"Now Spidey could beat the living snot out of Hawkeye, Wasp, Swordsman, Black Knight, etc. It's his Spidersense that gives him the advantage..."
I've tried diligently to stick to the hard science here. To keep our feet cemented to the facts. But you keep running off into la la land and we get no where.
Now this is important: Spidey is capable of lifting 10 tons. Spider sense or no he could collect all those putzes along with Cap and grind their bones to make good processed bread.
BERMANATOR: The funny thing is, I always thought "Questions for Discussion" was purely satirical. It never occurred to me that a teacher could actually USE it in a classroom. Huh.
(I still think The Kid should drop by here. It might do him some good. Of course, he may decide that this board is populated by spawns of the Devil. Hell, it seems that way to me sometimes, and I don't even BELIEVE in the Devil...)
Re that reply to Shropshire at Locus. The author is Charles Petit, his email address is cepetit@authorslawyer.com
, and I just sent him a note thanking him for his reply.
To P.A. Berman re The Kid. Take solace in the fact that he actually _tried_ to respond to Harlan's story. There's no guarantee that he'll remian a Jezoid for the rest of his life, and with the right questions, he might eventually renounce it. But remember, the job of a teacher isn't to instill the "right ideas," but to teach students how to think.
I just have to share this with you, after a day of horrendousness. This was written by a student in reply to Mr. Ellison's "Questions for Discussion" after "Ahbhu," specifically the questions, "Is there any significance to the reversal of the word 'god' being 'dog'?" and "Discuss anthropomorphism in light of the phrase 'Thou art God.'"
"I disagree with the statement "Thou art God." Initially it's because that's what I've been raised to believe, but it's not that I've been indoctrinated. I think the idea is sacraligious and I can see how someone not exposed to religion might see it as correct and liberating in the sense that it gives them the freedom to do whatever they want b/c "They are God." Personally I try to be more altruistic and be in service to others. It seems to me that if one were to adopt the "I am God" that would provide the perfect out to be a very selfish/self-centered person b/c what would anyone else matter? How would you find a spouse with that type of attitude? No one would be good enough. I think it would lead to a very lonely life if one thought they were God. Another argument is what happens after death? Who would save them?
Personally, I believe in Jesus as my savior which gives me great comfort not b/c it takes the responsibility from me, but that's just something I believe. Additionally, I believe it makes me a better, more altruistic person b/c if "I were God" I could just thing "oh, I'll just forgive myself." The aspect of having someone else forgive sins by confessing them to another is humbling experience whereas if you didn't have to confess them others wouldn't know the impurities of the person. Agreed that God gcan forgive all sins, but one has to have the courage and humility to confess them and claim those impurities as their own and be ashamed/humbled.
Lastly, like the person I am because I have a savior.
The End."
And you know what the really, truly horrifying thing about this? This was written by "The Kid." Some of you remember, the one I was trying to discuss deep life issues with, get to read Ellison, listen to Bob Dylan, etc. I don't know how to take this screed but... but... ARGH!
Sorry to rant and take up bb space with this crap. I just don't know what to say to this kid. I don't know that I *want* to say anything...Maybe I won't. Mr. Ellison, you warned me about bringing you stuff into class.
God help me (sic).
Yrs. in confusion,
Bermanator
I don't have much to add to C.E.Petit's skillful rebuttal of Shropshire's article. I will note a couple of things, however.
First, though it claims to address the KICK lawsuit, "Why I Don't Support..." reveals itself to be utterly BESIDE THE POINT in regards to the main issues. As a primary example, Shropshire devotes considerable space to the topic of micropayments, implying that Harlan could wage all the silly lawsuits he wants, if only he could realize that a subscription-based weblog/archive is a diamond mine waiting to be struck. He even makes the incredible statement, "My dream would be that he builds, starts pulling in $10 grand a month, and asks "Why am I suing again?" and "What for?" Perhaps, in this dream of a Harlan Ellison future, he might make $10 million a year in online profits while losing another $10 million in theft — but that's $20 million that he wouldn't see without a free and vibrant net that's open to innovation."
With all due respect (Shropshire is very big on getting proper respect for his views, you see), WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING/SNORTING/INJECTING INTO YOUR VEINS? Do you honestly believe that Harlan, or anyone, could rake in this kind of money in the forseeable future? Dreams are all fine and good, but to essentially bet the farm on such a far-fetched get-rich-quick fantasy is absurd. I'm not saying that ONE day a system won't arise that supplants the traditional print houses, and gives authors a real living wage. But to exaggerate the current financial benefits of paysites in this fashion is unrealistic, and sets everyone up for a fall. Please, show me ONE example of an author who's pulling in this kind of cash solely through the Web. Otherwise, don't blame authors like Harlan who choose to not to partake in this kind of pie-in-the-sky thinking.
(And what IS the deal with this John-The-Baptist style fervor about micropayments? Is Harlan right--is there something Mr. Shropshire isn't telling us?)
Second, what was with the snide comment about Neal Stephenson? "Neal Stephenson, a great writer who codes and truly understands the net, would probably starve. I say this because I saw Neal speak in Pittsburgh and he didn't look comfortable in public. I got the distinct feeling that someone had threatened his family with death and was poking a sharp stick into his back at all times...Yep. Neal would starve." Classy, Shropshire, really classy. Apparently, since Stephenson didn't dance a merry jig and pick the lute with his teeth, he deserves to "starve" in this Brave New World of your making. Silly me, I think being a great writer should be guarantee enough of a decent living, but I guess that's just old-school, right?
Feh. There's more I could say, but I'm tired of writing on this matter. (The phrase about a sadist refusing to give the masochist the beating he/she deserves comes to mind.) If this article is the best argument the anti-KICK forces can cobble together, then I consider my donations to Harlan's lawyers money well spent.
HARLAN/SUSAN: The game arrived this afternoon, safe and sound. THANK YOU for the bonus magazine--It was completely unexpected, and doubly sweet as a result. You guys are terrific, as always.
FAISAL: Regarding your vengeance scheme: I LOVE IT!
Good afternoon, all. Just taking a small break from the wheel, shepherding nine-year-olds to their playoff games and tending two chicken pox infections to let any who'd care that all is relatively well here.
To CEP; Thank you for the informative response to a churlish diatribe. One would hope Mr. Shropshire would learn from Pope's admonition about "a little knowledge", although he seems unable to learn from mistakes he'd made in the past.
Spiderman?: Nope, we haven't seen it, or care to, with the kids screaming to see "Attack of the Clones". Cinematic fluff designed more for marketability than craftsmanship just turns me off, so I figure Scotty and I are getting off easy with the kids focusing their attention on one assembly line produced studio money maker.
Well, I figure that's enough to produce evidence of a pulse, despite Mr Ellison's attempts to reduce me to a figment of my husband's imagination. Hope all is well with all, and I will see (actually read) you all when next I see (read) you.
Love to all, Melissa
**Inferiority complex or not Spidey could handle THAT group, Cap America included.**
I think it's become a steadfast rule in the Marvel Universe that Cap can beat anyone. Even though he's one of the least powerful heroes, his indomitable will is supposed to allow him to triumph over anyone.
Geez, that sounds pretty damned Randian too, doesn't it?
Now Spidey could beat the living snot out of Hawkeye, Wasp, Swordsman, Black Knight, etc. It's his Spidersense that gives him the advantage. As long as his reflexes are fast enough (i.e. we're not talking about laser blasts or such) it's almost impossible to hit him.
One of my favorite Spidey moments is when he beat the X-Men, all of them together, in Secret Wars. Of course, Wasp also beat the X-Men in that same series. They were mired in a slump.
And who besides Peter Parker could teach the Beyonder how to go potty? OK, maybe it woulda been funnier if Ben Grimm did it.
I don't think Shropshire is the real problem here. It's Locus. They're the ones who ran the piece, and more to the point, they're the ones who failed to edit it properly so that was a legitimate discussion of the issue, and not the rambling personal attack that it turned out to be.
The continued use of "Harlan" instead of "Mr. Ellison" is an example of the rude and amateurish style that was given a pass here. You'd never see this kind of prose in The Economist, or even Time.
Shroppy is a blogger who'll publish anywhere he thinks he's wanted, including public toilet stalls. Nuff said. I say storm the headquarters, and forget about this limpid foot soldier.
My apologies to Webderland for originating the 'who wants to be a supervillian' thread. Silly question, silly answers.
ROB: Toilet training responsible for supervillians? Who would've guessed? It certainly might explain how a malicious little turd like Agamatto came into existence.
LW (Benjamin A.A. Winfield)
CEP - Read through your response - kick ass, man. Hopefully Shropshire will take pause. More than likely not, but we can hope. Anyway, kudos for the article, keep it up.
--Zoë Rose
Alex Jay,
"Who wants to be a super-villain?"
Yeah, I wanna disown that right away. I wouldn't ask a question like that. I might inquire about the toilet training those guys received that led to their adult life dilemmas, but never that.
Don't get into habits like mine, misreading posts with a half-assed glance.
Direct link to response to Shropshire's nonsense:
http://www.locusmag.com/2002/Features/Letters05.html
Alex Jay,
Hm. Well...very instructive except that you cross-wired two of my posts with Chris' and Washu's.
"original Spider-Man artist Steve Ditko, who strongly espoused Rand's philosophies."
Well, that explains a lot about his rigid drawing style.
As for your ever-blessed Avengers:
OK, so they had a revolving door of sclerotic mesomorphs over the years; they were still out-numbered by whimpy ectomorphs who could tout such useless talents as the bow & arrow and turning themselves into annoying mosquitoes. Inferiority complex or not Spidey could handle THAT group, Cap America included.
Folks,
Hie thee back to http://www.locusmag.com and read C.E. Petit's response to Shropshire's rant. Also, check out Petit's website, which looks like a fine resource.
--Alex
Peter-- we've been listening to THIEF OF TIME on car trips for the past month. The whole thing is a delight, very well read by all involved, but I get a particular kick out of hearing Harlan on the footnotes. It's fun to hear a voice you know personally on one of those audiobooks. And who reads better than Harlan?
My older daughter couldn't wait for the next car trip to finish to story. Now she's a big Pratchett fan, and is drilling through the first Death trilogy.
Xanadu-- it's no surprise that Shropshire's examples don't pan out. They miss the point of the argument anyway. First, Harlan dealt in micropayments long before these sites; as I've mentioned, I hosted an article of his, at a buck a pop, fully five years ago. He made some money, but it's not the stuff of a decent living.
Second, and more importantly, whether micropayments work or not is entirely irrelevant. If Harlan wants to sell his work only via mimeograph, or satellite transmission, or 900-pay-me phone numbers, or just books, that is his choice. His, and no one else's. If everyone else in L.A. decides to sell via the net, or Western Union, or the Orient Express, that's their choice. Theirs, and no one else's. It is, and must be, each creator's decision. Philip Shropshire hasn't been consulted, and he doesn't get a vote. Nor more do we. The difference being, we're not demanding one.
I know, I know, I'm preaching to the choir. Just hacks me off, thassall.
--alex
Awwwwww, isn't Agamatto CUTE when he's angry? Goochie goochie goochie!
Chris,
I'll respectfully disagree with you on the art and humor of the recent "Peter Parkers." They amused the hell out of me, and I thought the manic art was a perfect compliment. Same artist as a recent "Marvel Team-Up" where Peter goes to the Baxter building as an intern. It just works for humor. Certainly would not work for a dramatic scene, but that's okay.
Regards,
Joseph
David:
Harlan was also involved in the recording of Terry Pratchett's THIEF OF TIME. He read the Pratchettian footnotes.
---Peter
Ahh, Spring is in the air, the countryside is greening up, and there's the smell of Shropshire in the morning. (For the uninitiated, Shropshire is the waste product of the dairy industry stored in large, underground or surface lagoons all winter - where it literally ferments, and when spread on fields causes the fine nose hairs to crisp and burn away... Trust me, it's potent stuff.)
A nod in greeting to Stan - a pleasure to have you post, sir. I very largely agree with you, in almost every point you make - in fact, the only point where we differ is in the future of the internet. I believe money will be made on the internet - widely, in fact - too many smart people want it for it not to. But, it will not happen using the limited technology of today. It requires several key pieces of tech that simply have not been invented yet. Perhaps not even imagined yet. But I think the time will come.
Now, back to Shropshire's hoary old arguments. He lists three "web loggers" as examples of the concept. Well, back when he brought them up on this board, I actually went out to each of their sites and checked out the veracity of his claims. One of them complained of an outright loss last year, and the other two were cagey - but indicated they had made a "profit". A quick examination revealed "profit" is calculated as site income minus site expenses. Not a terrible formula, but an inaccurate one because it fails to take into account one important factor - wage. Yeah - the two that showed a "profit" - did so at an hourly wage that, at best and in kindly terms, would be considered slave labor even by most governments of the "Third World". Clearly, that's not gonna work to feed the family. (These are three fairly popular logs - considered prime examples of the form...) Thus, web logging is shown to be the updated, spiffed and polished vanity press of the new media it is. Maybe some people will make real money that way, but the very vast majority simply won't.
Secondly, he points to "Cool Beans" or whatever the hell the site is called as an example of the monthly "subscription" concept. Three bucks a month and I can watch all the new content they provide. There's just one major flaw in this concept - The Archive. I needn't pay thirty six dollars a year - I only have to pay once a year and just plunder the archives. I get all the content for the price of one admission. (Lest he think this won't happen - remember we are talking about a group of people who adamantly believe they are entitled to all content for FREE.) This completely ignores the fact that we haven't changed the basic nature of the people involved - why would they want to pay for content - however small the payment - that they've previously obtained for free. More likely, as more and more content gets tied up behind "subscriptions" (especially popular content) - there will be a growing underground ready, willing and able to steal and distribute it - and in Mr. Shropshire's world we won't punish them - it's too ineffective.
Mr. Shropshire hasn't changed the system - content creators will still get ripped off - but under his plan they will have to content themselves with the piddling micro-payments of the "new paradigm", rather than the meager, but perhaps still adequate, payment of "traditional publishing". Yeah, right - pandas, butts - you do the math.
Thanks for expressing the situation so clearly, Mr Wallace.
Unfortunately, the UK has no written constitution - we are "subjects" rather than citizens - and rely on the courts (ie precedents) to define the limits of our freedom.
I'm interested to learn, though unsurprised, that many of the most vocal would-be copyright abusers don't have the necessity of earning a living in the real world.
Cindy: Thank *you*. Perhaps I should have cut the waffle and posted just that one sentence!
Just in case anyone cares, I believe I have brought Ellison's audio recording projects up to date in my little wing of Mike Zuzel's superb Islets of Langerhans Web site. Half a dozen or more recent recordings have been accounted for:
http://www.islets.net/audiolist.html
**His recent two-part fill-in on PETER PARKER: SPIDER-MAN (with indie artist Jim Mahfood) were hilarious: Imagine Spider-Man stuck at the MTV Beach House.**
You people are FUCKING CRACK-HEADS!
Those were the worst two comic books I have read since Secret Defenders. I cannot recall a similar combination of terrible art and terrible story in my entire collection. Don't you people have any standards at all???
(OK, needed to vent - hearing someone call those books good is like listening to Roeper rave about Planet of the Apes)
Jesus, I still feel disoriented. What else was I going to say? Oh yeah, after years of disastrous stories, Spidey is finally back in the saddle again with some great stories.
Oh my GOD! How could any thinking human being have liked those last two Peter Parker issues? I mean, dear sweet baby Jesus, what the...
**I think your alluding to the Avengers was very immature.**
Hey, Rob, you smeg-head, Spidey is the one who kept saying that Firelord wassomebody for the Avengers to handle, not him. He's Peter Parker,see,and he has this inferiority complex.
Maybe if you'd read a comic book since Jack Kirby stopped doing X-Men, you'd know these things.
Mr. Nicholls, you're correct on the underlying problems with the "information wants to be free" movement. As I've pointed out before, EVERY SINGLE ONE of the major advocates is either independently wealthy or a tenured faculty member. NOT ONE depends for his (and the major advocates are all male) livelihood upon present or future income streams from creation of intellectual property, except in the most roundabout way (faculty members must do research, etc.).
However, there is a very simple answer to their objections: because the Constitution says so. Like it or not, that is the law of the land, and would require an amendment to change. Article I, § 8, cl. 8 explicitly explains that the purpose of copyright and trademark is to "encourage Progress in the Useful Arts and Sciences."
What these yoyos really don't get is that "copyright" used to be a method of censorship by the government... and that is what would replace the "private ownership" system we have now. There are, admittedly, serious problems with such ownership; the problems with censorship are a helluva lot worse, as even so "enlightened" a government as that of the UK demonstrates continuously (e.g., SPYCATCHER).
* * *
Bread and water is not an Article 15 punishment. It may be imposed only by court martial. My grade was not sufficient to invoke a summary court, which (in my service) has been essentially abolished outside declared warzones anyway.
Stan Nicholls,
You wrote:
"Having people who probably earn considerably more than I do from safe jobs with regular salaries telling me I shouldn't complain about being electronically mugged doesn't make things easier."
What you said cut to the core of the matter.
Thank you,
Cindy
As I understand Philip Shropshire's article in Locus online, his basic argument is that there's no point in fighting internet piracy because there will always be other pirates waiting in the wings. Excuse my naivety, but isn't that like saying we shouldn't bother to punish murderers because more people will inevitably be murdered in future?
I think Shropshire's problem is that he's so dazzled by the medium he can't see the message. If it's OK for creators' work to be offered free on the internet without the copyright holder's permission, how is that different to arguing the same thing for TV, radio, movies or any other outlet? Using his logic, book publishers should be at liberty to take an author's work and publish it sans payment or permission. What's so special about the internet?
I've been a working writer here in the UK for just over 20 years. In that time I've seen several of my books appear in pirated editions in Russia, Poland and the Far East. I've had short stories and journalism ripped-off. The worst offenders in recent years have been people on the internet - I've lost count of the number of times my work has appeared on the net, often without even a byline. When I've been able to trace the culprits their response has usually been one of incomprehension at my daring to object. I've been called "greedy" and "unreasonable" for suggesting recompense.
Shropshire seems to believe that it's acceptable for people who's livelihood depends on writing to be robbed without redress. At the same time he talks about how wonderful the internet has been in providing an outlet for aspiring writers. I don't want to be unkind, but for "aspiring" read "couldn't get themselves published commercially". Shropshire suggests that readers will be prepared to pay for these vanity efforts, and in time self-publishing on the net will bypass conventional publishing. People will *pay* to have access to the slush pile? Is he serious?
His view of the internet is actually quite dated. He hasn't yet appreciated that the dot com boom was the modern equivalent of the South Sea bubble or Dutch tulip bulbs. I'll stick my neck out and say I think the net will never be a significant retail outlet, except in a few very specialised areas. When the dust settles, the only people making real money out of it are likely to be pornographers. I can't see how wannabee writers offering bad work in any way adds to the joy of nations.
It's hard enough making ends meet as a writer. Having people who probably earn considerably more than I do from safe jobs with regular salaries telling me I shouldn't complain about being electronically mugged doesn't make things easier.
If creators - be they writers, musicians, artists or anybody else - can't bring in sufficient revenue from their efforts, eventuallly there will be no work for the pirates to steal. Why do Shropshire and those who think like him find that so hard to understand?
Damn. This is what happens when I sleep - Alex beats me to mentioning "Tangled Web" and it's fantastic Frogman story. Best story from that series, for me, was #4, "Gentleman's Agreement," where a worker for Kingpin takes the blame with honor for Spider-Man screwing up a heist - and Kingpin returns the honor. Fabulous story.
Anyway, Alex is dead on regarding the embarrassment of riches that is the group of writers Marvel has working on Spider-Man right now. Thank you, Alex, for reminding me about Zeb Wells. I loved his fill-in on "Peter Parker," but for some reason didn't make the connection between that and his short films.
Regards,
Joseph
HAH!
I love it.
Okay, long story short: I have been writing a weekly film and movie review column for, oh, more than two years now. Each week, without fail, as each new installment is published I get, as response, en masse, the garden-variety F^&% mail.
Then comes this note:
"It is obvious you do not like films and movies so why do you bother to review them. You're just like Harlan Ellison."
I dunno about you folks, but I'm starting this week by calling THAT a compliment.
And a bow from the waist to HisSelf.
Until next time. . .
I am Geek; hear me roar.
ROB: I was going to go into depth on the whole Goblin history, but I see someone beat me to it.
One interesting aspect of it, however, is that Harry Osborn, who in the early years of Ditko and Romita, was the child of privilege, the rich guy's son, who befriended Peter when few others would. Something of a geek himself, Osborn still had the cachet of being well-to-do and well-connected; he could easily have run with Flash Thompson and his ilk (and did).
Instead, Harry became more and more the second banana; the man defined as Peter's friend. Where once he dated Gwen and MJ before Peter did, he later had to settle for Peter's castoffs, finally marrying Liz Allan (Hey! Anyone notice that, Betty Brant and Glory Grant aside, Stan Lee was one of the first to espouse non-alliterative names [Lois Lane, Lana Lang, Lori Lemaris, Vicki Vale, et cetera] for women in comics?). I can't help but think that this, down his road of filial guilt, drug addiction, and occasional insanity, contributed to his troubled life.
The current ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN, by Bendis and Bagley, is revisiting and reinterpreting Peter's high-school years quite adeptly; you would do well to read this.
Currently, the core Spidey titles have Paul Jenkins and J. Michael Straczynski writing perhaps the best Spidey in a decade or so, and Kevin Smith waits in the wings.
(And Smith even went on Leno to promote his upcoming BLACK CAT miniseries!)
Also, the title TANGLED WEB has stories from all manner of offbeat Spidey stories from writers and artists one wouldn't usually think of doing sooperhero funnybooks. The last two issues are of note, issue twelve following the trials of Vincent Colavito (Frog-Man)'s son after his father is paroled. Imagine being in high school and being known as the son of Frog-Man. The shame. The humiliation. Issue thirteen is another very good story, with three villains meeting at the Bar With No Name and bitching about Spider-Man.
The writers of these last two issues, Zeb Wells and Ron Zimmerman respectively, are names to watch. Wells, after winning the Wizard magazine's film contest twice in a row, has been given various jobs at Marvel--and he's worth it. His recent two-part fill-in on PETER PARKER: SPIDER-MAN (with indie artist Jim Mahfood) were hilarious: Imagine Spider-Man stuck at the MTV Beach House.
Zimmerman, a friend and collaborator of Marvel EIC Quesada, is looking to get a lot of plum assignments tossed his way, as well.
But the Spidey book most likely to appeal to this board is the recent PETER PARKER: THE MEGALOMANIACAL SPIDER-MAN, by underground writer/artist Peter Bagge ("HATE!"). In it, after being given ATLAS SHRUGGED by a frustrated Gwen, Peter changes his whole life. Imagine an Ayn Rand-ian Bill Gates being the former Spidey. It's a bit of a joke on original Spider-Man artist Steve Ditko, who strongly espoused Rand's philosophies.
Further: Rob asked: "Who wants to be a super-villain?" Late last year, Rick Lundeen put out a VERY funny little comic called "So, You Want To Be a Super-Villain?" through Epoch Press. This is DEFINITELY worth seeking out in the back-issue bins and blowing two bucks on. "Step one: Shape eyebrows into evil points."
ALEX K.: Stop the flagellation; you tried to do a good thing. There was no way to know that the "reporter" you reached wouldn't know research from rebar.
ROB AGAIN: Firelord is noble, and he is powerful, but he is often headstrong and easily beaten. The X-Men, the Guardians of the Galaxy ... also, these are hero-on-hero misunderstanding fights, so it stands to reason that the guest star will lose.
As for the Avengers: There are quite a few Avengers who are Galactic-class powers. Thor, Iron Man (when suitably armored), Wonder Man in his current form, Quasar, Captain Marvel II, et cetera. Then there are those who, having spent so much time in space, can get away with fighting the Thanos-types: Moondragon, Jack of Hearts, Starfox, and more.
Also, remember that many of the Avengers are just plain strong. People forget that Sub-Mariner and Beast are near-Hulk class, plus have other powers and abilities as well. Even the lightly-powered among "Earth's Mightiest Heroes" have to be considered--if you have nothing but a shield or a sword or some wings and biostings, yet can still face down the Kangs, Ultrons, Korvacs, and Immortuses of the world, you have to be reckoned with.
And remember, kids: Being a superhero isn't as cool as it's cracked up to be. Just think: The Mole Man. The Kangaroo. The Rainbow Raider. Doctor Bong. Killer Moth. Toyman.
Friends don't let friends handle radioactive isotopes capable of evolving people, or exoskeletons, or rocket-powered rollerskates, or ...
Chris,
"...Firelord is an Avengers' level foe."
Well, let's leave Geekville behind and deal with reality here...
Most of the Avengers Spidey could beat the waste material out of. Thor was the only one "cosmically inclined" enough - or perhaps I should say "mystically inclined" enough - to spar with Firelord. Iron Man would be as much a match to Galactus' former herald as Jack Haley. The rest would be capable of no more than a rigadoon, given the hope Firelord would be in such a mood.
So don't be too unfair in the status you attach to Spidey.
...I think your alluding to the Avengers was very immature.
C.E.P.~ Is this true what I understand about an Article 15, that there is a way to bring a troop up on charges and have them restricted to bread, water, & vitamin pills (the latter added sometime in the 70's)?
Do you think that might slow those little brain cells down long enough for us to pick them off one by one?
L.
I won a lot of money on the Hobgoblin. I knew it was Ned Leeds all along. My friend in high school had come up with some ridiculous theory that it was Flash Thompson. Utter nonsense. I won a cool $5 on that bet.
And, in my day, five dollars was like a million today...
So ya know a lot about Spidey, huh, Joseph?
Let me say four words that should strike fear into your heart:
The Fabulous Frog Man
Everybody talks about the classic Spidey stories and justifiably so but there some wonderful Spidey issues written in the late 80's and early 90's. Even some minor story arcs that stuck out for me.
I remember the two-parter where Spidey has to tackle Firelord all by himself. He's genuinely scared because he is so keenly self-consciously. He knows he's the super-hero who takes on the low-rent guys and Firelord is an Avengers' level foe. But he puts his brain to work and traps Firelord in a building about to be demolished. *KABOOM* No luck, Firelord can take it. Then he tricks the big schmuck into blowing up a gas station. No dice. Bag of tricks empty, Peter Parker just has to stand toe-to-toe with Firelord and duke it out with him. Riding an adrenaline burst, he dances like he's never danced before, raining punches down on Galactus' former heral in a Barry Allen-style flurry, never getting touched himself. Then, just as the Avengers show up on the scene, he drops Firelord. All by himself. Man that was sweet.
As I cannot compete with Harlan in vituperative commentary (and trying to compete with one's client strikes me as somehow dubious, albeit not technically unethical), my response to Locus--which has been indirectly acknowledged by Locus, and hopefully will be posted as rejoinder--merely eviscerates Shropshire's position without once calling him a naughty word.
I didn't even question whether he had enough brain cells for them to play a pickup game of basketball.
Neither did I question whether he could spell "logic" if I spotted him the "l-o-g-i".
In fact, not once did I mention Shropshire himself, except as an adjective to "argument."
In other words, I was a model of gentlemanly restraint.
Enough of that. Lt Zoedotdot, hand me the chainsaw, please. We're obviously going to need to sneak up on those brain cells, so we must remove the top of his skull QUICKLY before they can hide in the dark recesses between his ears...
Oh. Sorry about the uniform; I'm a bit out of practice, as it's been a decade since I issued an Article 15. Occupational hazard, I suppose; however, AF Shade 1549 trousers don't wash very well.
"Current Fusion has no relation at all..."
I'm just JOKING!
Rob,
The original Fusion was a twin-headed radioactive being from 1980, the result of twin brothers who became fused in an accident. Current Fusion has no relation at all, but is a guy who can use mind-control powers to make people believe he can combine powers of anyone he chooses, or make them do things. Good character from the last two years of "Peter Parker."
Regards,
Joseph
And I should have added: Tito and Eddie were the best of firends (in fact, Tito's last album was a collaboration with Eddie). Eddie was hit really hard by Tito's death. They had been working together for so long in this album. And, to make matters worse, Tito died of the same heart condition that afflicted Edie's brother Charlie, who used to play in Tito's big band back in the 50s. I spoke to Eddie's son the morning Tito's death was announced. The phone in the Palmieri household had not stopped ringing during the morning; the media was hounding Eddie for a quote. He gallantly spoke to the media. When I called, Eddie Segundo answered the phone, we chatted for awhile and I told him, "Look, man, I know Tito's death must have hit your father really hard so that's okay if can't come to the phone. I'd much rather he recovered from the shock than to answer one more question". Months later, I had the good fortune to introduce the Tito Puente Orchestra and Eddie Palmieri at Ravinia in a tribute to Tito. And Eddie is now fighting the good fight, making sure that this music is kept alive and well and kicking.
Joseph,
"I know far too much about Spidey. Anyone wanna discuss the similarities between Fusion I and Fusion II?"
...Jeezus-fucking-Christ...is that Fusion as in plasma heating experiments or Jazz improv? That's where I left off.
So, Harry Osborne became a GG too, eh? I remember his drug addiction poignantly but I lost track of 'im after that. I guess as I said before, GG wasn't my favorite of villains. I'll say this: in spite of the inevitable rehashes Marvel cranked out through either reincarnations or resurrections, Spider-Man maintained a higher degree of consistantly good comic book writing because of Parker's complexity. This title outdid them all 'cause the flesh exceeded the flash.
Additional note: J.J. Jameson remains one of my alltime favorite characters in comics history.
You've probably already heard