NAMIRRAN: regarding Simmons (sort of Ellison related, since Harlan helped
kick-start his career), you can find a lot more information at the following
site: www.erinyes.org/simmons/
Out here, DTS.
Alejandro - I'm running in the opposite vein - I've been deeply immersed
in Miles lately, and haven't ventured into the Latin Jazz scene nearly as much
as I should (was listening to Ellington myself this morning - nothing gets the
day rolling like a cup of joe and a little "Stompy Jones") - but I'll be checking
out some of your referenced artists in weeks to come. Syzygy - it's been a while
since I've delved into Dick's body of work, but both "The Man In The High Castle"
and "Martian Time-Slip" come highly recommended (I recall no major trauma resulting
from the former, haven't read the latter). Barney - I made the mistake of stopping
out at alt.fan.ellison a few days back - talk about your caves infested with
the Dark Side of the Force...and I thought reading "Xenogenesis" made me feel
ill. And thanks, along with thanks to Peter, for the reading suggestions. Dancing
Pope - I'm not sure, but I think the golden rule is "Do unto others as you'd
have them do unto you", not "Do as I say, and not as I do." Given the phonetic
similarities, I can see where you might have been confused... Peg - All the
bravado and vocabulary in the world seldom accomplishes what a simple "Just
stop it" will. Or, as we say in my tribe, "Well said".
Namirran: Please DO let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
Peg: Thanks for the heartfelt rebuttle. I don't mean to be a pain in the
ass . . . really, I don't. :) From here on in I'll try to temper myself and
stick to subjects less nebulous as "what is art", et cetera. Also, I will stop
with the belligerent slander-antics. There is only so much sticks-and-stones
banter people care to listen to. And I don't want to drive people away from
a board that, surprisingly, I seem to have all but 'hijacked' (as described
in an earlier post.) Anyway, this is Syzygy Namirran 'signing off' (for the
time being anyway . . . )
With luck, you won't even notice I'm lurking.
Syzygy Namirran
*Barney* - *ring ring ring ring ring ring ring * you win the big prize.
But I'm afraid there wasn't much more to our conversation than he had been a
drilling hand on an oil rig down in Texas. He said it was one of the worst jobs
he'd ever had, got paid next to nothin, would be covered in mud by the end of
the day. I let him know that up here on the slope drilling folks are paid a
lot more and treated a lot better than what he went through. It's less dangerous
now than then, though there will always be elements of danger and risk when
you poke a hole into a piece of earth under an enormous amount of pressure.
*??????* - I don't know, I can't remember, it was too many posts ago. Just wanted
to say that I don't mind when people explain what they meant by their literary
critiques. Frankly I don't always get it the first time around and it helps
when it's put into language little folks like me can unnastan.
Ta,
Peg
Good grief, enough already!! You know, I really like reading this board.
People have lots to contribute of a variety of topics. And I even enjoy the
differing opinions on the quality and content of HE's work. After all (as my
boss likes to say) wouldn't it suck if we were all the same.
I'm not a critic, I ain't in-ta-lex-u-el, I couldn't string a sentence together
with half the bravado and vocabulary as most of the regular posters here. But
I've had it. I don't *CARE* anymore who's right, who's wrong, who's moronic,
who's over-educated, who's genuine, who's pretending, who's pissed off -OR-
on. Just stop it. If we're a mere shadow of what goes on over at alt.HE then
I'm never going there. If you want to keep flinging pseudo intellectual insults
please just do it on email and SPARE me, SPARE the board, SPARE the lurkers.
It has gone on LONG ENOUGH.
*KIDS* - as my parents used to tell me - I don't care who started it or whose
fault it is. Off to your rooms, all of you, and don't come out till you can
behave yourselves. Or at least till reality resumes here.
I know this ain't an official request from the web deity hereabouts, so you
don't have to do anything. But truly, it's a plea. I'd hate to end my visits
here because I have to wade through 4 crappy (no matter how nice and big the
words are and how well they flow together) posts to read one with anything to
say. But I got mo betta things to do with my time, and as much as this is the
best place I've been for HE info and discussion, I can only take so much wasted
e-space.
DTS: Thanks for the info! I have been wondering what happened to Nighttown.
Also, I hadn't realised that a review of The Crook Factory was available on
the internet. I can't wait to see the Simmons profile.
Syzygy Namirran
Ha! Just the kind of response I'd expect from the gut-spilling Aleph we
all know and love: a masterful augmentation of the obvious, put forth with the
cunning swagger and lisping speech only the mother of a cobra could find endearing.
Very well then. Let's bring an end to this wildly childish roller coaster, the
track of which seems to always bend inward and back upon itself, and avoid the
next occurance of fait a compli. After all, this ride, despite its many twists
and turns, is quite boring, as we all recognize. I would be happy, dear Pope
(nice moniker, by the way) to spare you that much grief. Because, as you know,
you absurd clown, I'm sure you really care about this board and its patrons
(ha!). What a perfect illusion of Civic Duty. Even Machiavelli would be proud.
::: clap clap clap :::
You see Pope, even us strutting and fretting poor players can properly appreciate
your gifts, mainly because we never mistake lack of talent for genius, unlike
the vast majority. So, go ahead and pitch feed to your pigeons. It makes for
a wonderful stage performance ... if only because I know that I'm the one who's
pulling your strings.
Syzygy Namirran.
NAMIRRAN: T.E.D. KlEIN's NIGHTTOWN was listed as indefinitely delayed with
the publisher in '96. He does have a short story (or maybe a novellete) appearing
in the forthcoming anthology, 999, to be published by Avon in September (and
in a limited, more costly, version in June). Others appearing in the anthology
(for those interested) will be S. KIng, William Peter Blatty, Joe Lansdale,
Gene Wolfe, Joyce Carol Oates and a whole slew of other writers that I can't
(unfortunately) recall at the moment. Also, Namirran, you asked in an earlier
post about the new Dan Simmons book, THE CROOK FACTORY, and if anyone had read
it. See the review at the following address: (www.denverpost.com/books/book522.htm)
On Feb. 28th, there should be a short profile of Simmons at: (www.denverpost.com/books/books.htm)
Out here, DTS.
Perhaps, Syzygy, you should ride the bleak morass of your ego off to a
website concerned with T.E.D. Klein's work, scuttle through the door, alienate
the good-hearted posters and lurkers with that vague, pseudo-intellectual double-babble
that flows freely from the wellspring of your insecurities, and then try to
ask a civil question of the people you've thrown down the gauntlet of bad tidings
before. Perhaps your holier than thou performance for the sake of notoriety
will find appreciation there. Trouble these good people no longer with your
petulance. And good people? Grace him no longer with attention. It only feeds
the beast. He is a sound and a fury truly signifying nothing, and he is best
left to wither on the vine.
Any fans of horror/dark fantasy fiction out there know what happened to
the publication of Nighttown, by T.E.D. Klein?
Amazon.com lists the book as out of print, although (purportedly) it was published
in 1996 [?]
Anyone know what happened to Klein's long-awaited new novel?
Syzygy Namirran
four hours of sleep later... its good. I finished it, and its good. I'm
not sure how much is autobiographical or how much is embellished, but it is
at least good (and believe me, if scenes were't embellished, then I'm going
to be ever so, ever so thankful that my parents moved us out of Oakland when
I was born. Oakland, land that I hate, land that I fear.
---Peter (Was that really four hours sleep? and me with a quiz this morning.)
Well, if we're recommending books. I'd like to suggest one that I started
reading about an hour and a half ago. "East Bay Grease" by Eric Miles Williamson.
It is an extremely well written account of growing up in Oakland, California
(where I was born) during the sixties and seventies. Now I'm not just recommending
this because the author is my writing professor, it really is good. It takes
a lot to impress me. So far, he has. I'll let everyone know if I still feel
the same when I finish. I'll definitely finish it tonight. And if I'm eventually
disappointed? Well, I'll be sure to let him know before class tomorrow.
---Peter
*** Hey Everybody! *** That's to be read in the voice of Doctor Nick from
the Simpsons in case I never clarified that. *** Doc *** Syzygy isn't a troll.
REAL trolls are currently infesting alt.fan.ellison to such a degree that if
I were Neil Bridges I'd want to kill myself (or perhaps others). The atmosphere
[fear] in here be posotively rarefied. /// 2 year old aside - I now know why
DOC asked me if I was familiar with Firesign Theatre as I recently was at a
party where somebody recited to me the Barney references from "We're All Bozos
On This Bus". Damn! I'm huge - I'm ubiquitous! *** Keegan *** Jazz... I love
this thread but can't contribute as I'm still stuck on old Dizzy - Miles - Oscar
Peterson - Be-Bop/Re-Bop Quartet Quintet stuff and then I skip over to Diamanda
Galais which I cannot recommend with a clear conscience. But I do take notes.
*** Peggy*** 6 month old aside - The unanswered answer to one of your questions
was oil wildcatter driller or somesuch. If Harlan talked to you about this stint
in his life I'd very much like to hear about it.
***Alejandro!!!*** Welcome! [belated] I have a friend in Athens [Alexandros
Diamandidis] who also reads Ellison.Webderland is now the official hub of an
official Granfaloon! See Vonnegut for details. Regarding Borges, I just ran
across a copy of "There Is No Borges" which is either a really wonderful novel
or a very long insiders joke depending on your blood sugar count and which side
of the bed you got out of. I reproduce a review of it in it's entirety just
to piss Rick off...
Reviews
From Kirkus Reviews , May 1, 1993
Quirky flights of fantasy and the literary imagination--in which Borges is alternately
a figure of substance and a fabrication--occupy this surreal tale of a disenchanted
academic on a lecture tour of the Far East, from German novelist K”pf in his
US debut. Books are the only reality for the professor, whose area of specialization
is ``Lusitanics,'' which he succinctly describes as ``the science of loss.''
He measures all that exists by its superior formulation in literature, and has
a special affinity for the works of Borges, Cervantes, and Conrad--to such a
degree that his own travels evoke comparisons with those of Don Quixote or Conrad's
Almayer. An airborne discussion with an Argentinean traveler and fellow admirer
of Borges, who believes that the writer was actually an impersonation, the work
of a talented actor, fails to be greatly disturbed when the plane loses engine
power and begins a rapid descent. That adventure safely concluded, other speculations
follow in which Cervantes and Shakespeare are declared one and the same person,
and the narrator's family is analyzed for character flaws, while the professor
himself is unable to decide whether he should exist in first- or third-person
in his narrative. The teeming backdrop of the Portuguese colony of Macao adds
to the m‚lange of impressions, contributing to the sensory overload of the real
and the speculative that culminates in a series of dreamlike encounters with
Borges--or his doppelg„nger--in a dimly lit hotel corridor, as each man attempts
to use the toilet undisturbed. A literary curiosity: intricate enough to be
challenging, but ultimately too full of itself to sustain more than an academic
interest. -- Copyright ©1993, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.
Joe Bob Dannelke sez checkitout
[kisses and brickbats - which you may divvy up amongst yourselves...]
Doc: I have three words you, you putative defender of 'all things righteous':
get a grip. Ha!
Hmmm . . . on second thought, now that I think about it, why don't you just
keep waxing bilious. After all, I can always use a good laugh. And you can rest
assured that your amateurish metaphors and hot air meant as moxy aren't wasted
on me. It's always nice to see a person defer to childish wit, especially when
it's at the expense of their own sagacity.
Bill: Thanks for the response. All true. All true.
Peter: For what it's worth to you: good luck with the story. Although we may
disagree on a few things, I'm always happy to support anyone who wrestles with
that elusive she-manx, the Muse.
Alejandro: I've been listening to Marsalis' "Death of Jazz" thanks to you. :)
Hmmm. . . did anyone mention Chick Corea?
Finder: I think I'm starting the PKD binge this weekend. Any suggestions?
Syzygy Namirran, who is off to interview the eminent Mr. Campbell tomorrow.
"... she didn't hold that you were lying, on the contrary she said that you
were childishly open, but your character was so different from ours, she said,
that even when you spoke frankly, it was bound to be difficult for us to believe
you ..."
~~~ Franz Kafka, from The Castle, the thirteenth chapter (Frieda)
...and may I please be blessed with the power to construct coherent sentences...
uh. thank goodness its only a first draft.
---Peter
Hey Doc, we can't forget the nameless casualties who just haven't posted
for fear of being hit by shrapnel. So long as trolls hide under their bridges,
people will refuse to cross rivers. (or so long as I extend cheesy metaphors,
people will refuse to take me seriously)
Who was it that said "nobody likes a bully, least of all himself?" If no one
takes credit, I will!
May peace reign over Webderland! (I'm close to completing my first draft for
a story I've been working on for a week or so. I'm happy.)
---Peter
I've been hoping the virtual air would clear, but jeez it's taken so long,
and there were casualties. Grrr.
"I may not know art, but I know what I like."
-- John Cleese to Michaelangelo
And, Sissy Nannybooboo, I do not like you. You are to Webderland what the brown
acid was to Woodstock. You are a pompous fraud, apparently a 14 yr. old channeling
the spirit of H.P. Lovecraft (and I mean no offense to 14-yr.-olds). Yes, it
is my place to invite you to get lost. This is my web-home, graciously hosted
by Rick Wyatt, and these are my friends. I will not stand for your pompous,
alienating tactics. Bill D. and Wylie are mighty fine people. They, as well
as Sue luesse and a number of other regulars, are very like family to me, in
so many ways. You will *NOT* bully them off the board. I have had enough --
a surfeit of your self-indulgent, egomaniacal, self-justifying behavior, mixed
liberally with an unconvincing "Uriah Heap" manner. In know uncertain terms,
fuck off. If Wylie goes, *I* go.
K.C. Locke (who has a real name, but is mostly known to his chums as "Doc."
Furthermore, he knows who his chums are. And who they aren't.)
There's an interview w/HE & JMS in 3/99 issue of B5 Magazine. They discuss
working together and end of the show. Nothing much new, but for you completists...
Charlie
Finder: Thanks for the tip. I am afraid I am so caught up in this Latin
groove that I haven't yet ventured much outside of the realm except for the
occasional Wynton Marsalis, Roy Hargrove or Duke Ellington. But slowly, slowly
I swear I will play catch up. Gang, thanks all for reminding me of the Eric
Dolphy reference. I had forgotten all about it. Jeez, what a shitty thing memory
is. I just reread Stalking the Nightmare last year.
It is said that recognizing one's mistakes and reevaluating works (and words)
over time is a critic's true virtue. Well, kids, I am afraid that I overgeneralized
a bit on my opinions re Gonzalo Rubalcaba. Although it is quite true that in
his live presentations and in his last three albums, Gonzalo has opted for an
Olympic, abstract style (particularly his collaboration with Joe Lovano, "Flying
Colors" which is not exactly my cup of tea), the man can swing whenever he feels
the impulse to do so. Check out his solos in Ron Carter's "Mr. Bow Tie" or in
Charlie Haden's "The Montreal Tapes". (Also, most of his early recordings on
the official Cuban government-financed label Egrem which are available through
the German import Messidor.) "To Diz" (his tribute to Dizzy Gillespie) and "Live
at Mt. Fuji" (where he performs alongside Jack DeJohnette and John Pattituci)
are highly recommended.
S. NAMIRRAN: Sorry to reply so late on this topic which is probably gone
by now, but I've been off the boards for a while. Re: my first response to you:
it was exactly on the same level as your original post. Inept metaphors? So
when you say "I sometimes have the feeling that Ellison's 'audience' has the
collective I.Q. of a carrot" this was an example of literary genius? My initial
response was exactly in the timbre of your comments. And come on, surely you
must know that we capitalize HE for the same reason we do IBM--not because we
want to deify either, but simply to save keystrokes. So again, with your use
of "HIS" in your message, you were either being dumb or playing dumb, both of
which justified the tone of my less-than-high-minded riposte. I am capable,
willing and eager to converse at an intelligent level about HE and his works...when
there's something intelligent to respond to. -- Billy D.
You know that you've done enough writing for the day when the word "would"
starts to look funny.
---Peter
Keegan - sweet! Guest conductor? Those are some lucky kids. :-)
Finder - well, I did say it was my first exposure to comic-type things (in the
adult format, anyway - I did read the old comics as a kid, and don't remember
much about them).. I kind of assumed that if Ellison's name was on it, it would
be good quality whatever it was. I liked the artwork (and have to agree the
bits like the Intro's in his books, with him in them, were a stitch). I liked
the stories. And would have to say the overall work was of good quality. My
comment wasn't so much about Dream Corridor, as it was about comic book format
in general not being my cup of tea - I just couldn't make that adjustment from
print to multi-media. Kept feeling I had missed something if I didn't look at
the illustrations - and then feeling I had lost the flow of the story when I
did.. *shrug*
Thanks to both of you for reminding me of 'Quiet Lies The Locust Tells'. I re-read
it, too. A haunting work.. Well, that's what I tell everyone - sounds so much
nicer than admitting I don't particularly remember everything in detail..
Alejandro - WOW! You lurked for a year and a half?? I can see you research things
thoroughly.. ;-)
DTS - That experience you had with your editor is chilling. I can see why it
left you speechless. I guess there are bad apples in every barrel - and you
ran into one at the bottom sitting in it's own oozing slime. :-( I'm not sure
I could work for someone like that. I give you credit..
Try High - Fly Straight - Drive Safe
"Dear Brett"
"I'm going back to Mike." I could feel her crying as I held her close. "He's
so damned nice and he's so awful. He's my sort of thing."
She would not look up. I stroked her hair. I could feel her shaking.
"I won't be one of those bitches," she said. "But, oh, Jake, please let's never
talk about it."
We left the Hotel Montana. The woman who ran the hotel would not let me pay
the bill. The bill had been paid.
"Oh, well. Let it go," Brett said. "It doesn't matter now."
~~~ Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises
"Oh, Jake," Brett said, "we could have had such a damned good time together."
Ahead was a mounted policeman in khaki directing traffic. He raised his baton.
The car slowed suddenly pressing Brett against me.
"Yes," I said. "Isn't it pretty to think so?"
-- E. Hemingway
"So--with the caution born of desperateness, he entered the gray quiet
place with the tombstones one night, located freshly dug but unoccupied graves
and added to their six foot depth yet another foot. It was not noticeable to
anyone who was not looking for such a discrepancy."
~~~ Charles Beaumont, "Free Dirt"
Ahhhh. I read it again finder and it was the locust who tells the quiet
lies, not "HE himself" who remembered Dolphy. Beautiful and magical.
Finder: thanks, man! You're alreet! Gonna read it before hittin' the road
to Dreamsville. With love, I'm gone....
KEEGAN - You'll smoke, you'll swing, you'll conduct like a pro. Go get
'em! And by way of the assist, the Eric Dolphy reference is in the introduction
to Stalking the Nightmare, "Quiet Lies The Locust Tells"...an uncommon introduction
when compared to some of HE's others. --Finder
Finder-I dig all the music you listed. As for performances, February 26
and 27 I am conducting the Niagra County All-County Swing Choir. I'm not not
singing,though. Just countin' off tempos, wavin' my arms and educatin' kids
about tradition. It's my first guest conductor gig. I hope I serve well.
Hi, Alejandro! Yeah, Chucho is something else! I don't have any CD's with
him (which, you're right, I should) but I heard him on National Public Radio
and he was killin'! I enjoy Cuban music. It's so deep and different from what
I grew up with. I've been listening to Dizzy Gillespie's big band with Chano
Pozo, lately which I know is a hybrid. Guess it's time for me to hip myself
to something more modern and authentic.
I also love Gloria Estefan who is, IMO, truly one of the most talented popular
singers today. She is a good singer and seems to be a warm person with determination
and soul. MI TIERRA is a classic, beautiful disc, IMO. The jazz community is
taking notice of her fine work.
I'm glad to see relations between the US and Cuba thawing. I'd like to go there
and learn.
Trying to stay somewhat in the groove of the venue, instead of taking it completely
outside, does anybody remember in what essay Harlan wrote about finally understanding
what Eric Dolphy was about? In the essay, Harlan admitted that he first reacted
to Dolphy's music as what the musicians call "a mouldy fig". You know, he heard
it as some noise that was certainly NOT jazz. I can't put my finger on it right
now, and I really want to re-read it. Can anybody help? Something about the
song the locust sang or something the locust knew or did or......my brain is
addled. I just can't remember, and it bugs me because it was important to me
at the time and now, it seems important to me again.
Thanks, y'all. Life's short. Swing hard.
Gang:
Where have I been hiding? Well, I have been a shameless readers of all your
postings for about a year and a half now, ever since my paper decided to subscribe
to Netscape. I spend as much time lurking and websurfing as I do writing and
coordinating interviews and attending film screenings and the such for the arts
and entertainment section during my office hours. My wife and I refuse to buy
a PC or a Mac and we even refuse to subscribe the 'Net at home. Too many books,
too many videotapes, too many magazines and CDs to plow through to add one more
information-oriented device in the household. (One quick confession: I do most
of my writing at night at home. There are not as many distractions there.)
Since I am new to the bb, let me take this opportunity to share a couple of
things with you, gang. I am the arts and entertainment reporter for Exito! newspaper,
the Chicago Tribune's Spanish-language weekly (it being a small publication,
we have a very small editorial staff), covering just about everything (well,
except for contemporary art and the such. I can only know so much.) Once in
a blue moon the Tribune will commission a concert review and once in a blue
moon they will also appear on the Trib's website.
I've been reading Harlan since I was 15. I actually got introduced to his work
via Asimov's Hugo Winners anthologies. (A quick aside: you can't find much good
science-fiction in Puerto Rico. And since I had a paper route at that age and
well into my senior year in high school, used all of my earnings to subscribe
to at least five book clubs in the United States including the Science-Fiction
Book Club. That's how I got my Harlan fix. The almost daily arrival of a new
box-full of books would drive my mother bonkers. But let me tell you, my arrival
to the States almost 17 years ago to attend Carleton College in Northfield coincided
with Ace paperback's launching of Harlan's long out-of-print books…and I felt
I was in heaven.) Well, that's it for now. I am glad to see some jazz aficionados
among you. Now that the U.S. is finally opening the doors to some Cuban musicians,
I hope to share with you some of the really funky stuff out there. (And considering
how much Harlan seems to love guava paste, a true Cuban delicacy, what better
place to talk about Cuban music than in this website?)
TO ALL YOU GUYS: Picking up on the topic of elitism regarding literature
(I know it was a few posts ago, but it's still fairly fresh), I gotta share
this with you folks cause you'll appreciate it. I do some regular "gigs" with
a couple handfuls of newspapers in and around the midwest, and since I freelance,
I usually get to pick what I'm gonna review. That way (says my brain), I can
use the limited newspaper space I'm given to cover books I like and basically
recommend some good reading to anyone who is "listening." (Although constructive
criticism of a bad book is valuable, in today's world of "we don't have enough
space" newspaper book coverage, and considering there are fewer and fewer people
actually picking up a book and reading it, I figure my time is best spent encouraging
folks to pick up a good read). Anyway, a couple of the papers I write for had
some editorial changes, and at one of them I just spoke to my new editor and
the subject of Stephen King's new, surprise, novel (THE GIRL WHO LOVED TOM GORDON,
slated for April) came up. Though I cover mostly thrillers and mystery for her
paper, I told her that I was on the list to get an early copy of this new King
book and that it sounded more like mainstream than genre fiction. She told me
that maybe we should cover it, because she had noticed too many reviews were
sounding "nicey-nice," and that the book section could use a few scathing reviews
to mix things up. I told her I hadn't yet read the new King book, so I couldn't
say whether it was bad or not. She said (voice overflowing with glee)"It probably
will be since it isn't his usual suspense or horror." I didn't just say anything,
just chuckled politely, and waited for her to take a hint. She did, and we moved
on. And I'll still cover thrillers and mysteries for her that I think are worth
the reader's time and money, but...somewhere out there (or in her offices) is
a person just waiting to tear into a book because they need more scathing reviews...or
because they've already decided that the writer (or genre) isn't worthy of serious
consideration. What makes it doubly worse is that someone decided she was fit
to be the "Book Editor" at this paper. I've always thought a love of all sorts
of books and writers should be a requirement for such a position. (Out of the
other nine editors I work with, eight of them seem to espouse the same beliefs,
so I'm not alone in that thinking).
Anyway, just thought I'd share that with you guys, since it sort of related
to a recent topic (I gotta tell ya, when she suggested reviewing King's book
in a bad light, BEFORE I'D EVEN READ IT, I actually found myself speechless
for the first time in a long time). Out here, DTS.
KEEGAN - I really dig your metaphorical prowess. I'm always amazed at how
jazz conversation has as distinct a style as the music. As an aside, got any
gigs happening the weekend of the 27th? I'm making the Rochester run, and any
potential side-trip for jazz in the Empire State is a worthy one. SUE - I found
with Dream Corridor that while the comic presentation of HE's stories was okay,
I really enjoyed the framing sequences - whether because of the patented HE
narration, or the fact that the artists had a great deal of fun with the comic
version of the man... ALEJANDRO - Jazz is a fine topic to jam on. There seem
to be quite a few enthusiasts here. Right now, I'm in my second Miles Davis
phase, now that his second quintet's catalog has been upgraded by Columbia (the
current groove is "E.S.P."), with side dishes of J. J. Johnson, Lee Morgan and
Diana Krall (whose next release, sometime late spring, I wait impatiently for
- she has a honey of a voice, and her trio can really cook)... And to harken
back to a previous post of yours, I felt "Life Is Beautiful" was poignant and
worthy of so much more patronage that it will get - fortunately, there has been
a slow but perceptible shift over the last few years towards a more mainstream
mindset where foreign language film is concerned (a large part of which is owed
to the widespread acceptance and screening of "Il Postino" in traditionally
'mainstream' locales). American filmmakers and audiences alike would learn so
much if they'd just open up to other cinemas. I'm lucky to live in the DC area
- the American Film Institute often screens films that don't even get a US release
(such as Kurosawa's final (?) film, "Madadayo"). GARY - I wouldn't have thought
Lyle Lovett was prone to a jazzy sound either, but he and his Large Band more
than hold their own...so Tom Waits may not be so dramatic a stretch. And I haven't
read "The Fountainhead", but I did make it all the way through "Atlas Shrugged"
- from what I've been told, the themes are similar. Her philosophies aside,
she paints a rather chilling future that sometimes seems all too possible. WYLIE
- Hurry back soon. Your voice and insight lend themselves well to this mix.
ALL - Speaking of the AFI, they've been screening the international version
of "Brazil" this week (the 142 minute version, not the hobbled, shambling mess
Universal turned loose back in the day) - a treat I indulged in last night.
In a word, fascinating. Shows this Saturday and Sunday if you're in the neighborhood.
Wish the AFI had a classier theatre than the room they're in at the Kennedy
Center, though - cinder block walls just aren't aesthetically pleasing in the
least. -- Finder
Gotta return to Peter’s comment from ages and ages and two days ago –“It
is sad that people have turned to our microwaved fastfood popcorn culture and
have declared it art in place of works that are good and meaningful.” While
I don’t go into her Objectivist philosophy, has anyone read _The Fountainhead_
by Ayn Rand? The frightening character Ellsworth Toohey would applaud politely
at this and approve, rather than consider it sad. I call him frightening because
he was so good at promoting this dumbing-down.
And jazz? Keep it coming. I am a musician myself, and I’ve recently and abruptly
realized that I’ve been creeping into the jazz world for years. So I’m trying
to catch up on traditional greats, and I’m finding it awfully hard to define
jazz. Is Milt Jackson jazz? Yes. Mingus? Yes. John Zorn? I say yes. Astor Piazzola?
I think so. The band I play with? Sometimes. One of my favorite artists, Tom
Waits? Hmmm… And then I get back to the truth - that the separation and fencing-off
of genres is an awfully artificial and limiting thing. And I stop wondering
too hard about definitions.
**KEEGAN** !! Good to see ya! Still in the groove - and swinging, too..
:-) And still working on the thesis?? eeuuuwww.. Hope it doesn't take much longer..
What a waste of superb performance time.. ;-)
Hiya Maggie! Nice to see you back. I've been missing all the regulars.. *sigh*
Missed the fun you always bring to the conversations..
And, HEY! Alejandro, where have you been hiding all this time? Welcome! Welcome!
Really enjoyed your posts. Guess I must be naturally muddled - I understood
them - even the one you appologized for.. ;-) I can really get behind the dilemna
of a professional art critic (any form of art).. Always thought it must be the
pits to fend off the pressures of the bizzschmucks, acedemics, and the public
coming at ya from all directions to give an honest reaction that is fair to
the work, and of service to the readers. There's just too darn many folks trying
to decide for everyone what everything "should" be, with hidden agenda's. I
can't even sort out who all the players are, let alone what their agenda's are,
or if they are 'good' or 'bad'.. I'm not even sure there is even a scorecard..
I do know that the critics and reveiwers I respect (and read at all) are the
ones that wrestle with those demons, rather than deny they exist. I'll be looking
for your by-line now (hee hee - and what newspaper am I buying to look for it?
DOH!)
Thanks for sharing Jazz names that are new to me. Have to take a listen (except
for the one noted as having gone Olympic). Sorry I don't have much to contribute
on a Jazz thread (I just lurk, collect the names, and listen), but don't feel
that Jazz is forbidden on this board. There have been some really great Jazz
(and other forms of music) threads before, that resulted in new "finds" for
me, and hours of listening pleasure (Todd - where are you?). That's one of things
I really like about this BBoard - always turning me on to really great stuff
I would have missed otherwise.
*ALL* Well, I finally read Strange Kadish (well worth the read) - and had my
first exposure to Dream Corridors. I don't think I'm the comic book type - didn't
like having to read "around" the pictures.. that didn't look the way my imagination
thought they should.. hee hee.. The stories were good, though.. Good enough
I kept reading. :-)
Try High - Fly Straight - Drive Safe - and blow off SN
Oops, that's 1999. My fingers are rather clumsy today.
I don't know...I kinda like Narriman. He/she/it brings a new level of stupiditty
to the bb. Hey Narriman are you male of female? If you're so smart why are you
wasting time bugging us?
Like keegan I too have not read the bb in detail since Syzygy has up and
hijacked it. Syzygy's rants are tiresome, boring and yeah, a bonafide drag.
Let us all respond from now on with stone cold silence. Maybe then Syzygy will
go away to haunt some other bb.
Wow, Keegan! Loved your jazz comparisons. Damn, it all of a sudden brought
to mind so many Cuban jazz artists who have recently opted for an Olympic style
of playing and have forgotten how to swing (can you say Gonzalo Rubalcaba?)
(If you folks haven't heard any Cuban jazz lately I strongly urge you buy a
copy of Chucho Valdes' "Bele bele en La Habana". It's amazing the things that
man can do to a piano with only two hands.)
Time for an aside: okay, gang, let's stop beating around the bush. I can see
our discussion with Syzygy is headed nowhere. I propose that, now that Keegan
has so well addressed the issues in jazzistic terms, we start a jam session
here and talk about…what else? Jazz. It's not a matter of avoiding the discussion.
It's a matter of putting an abrupt end to it. It is, most definitely time to
move on. All right, so maybe jazz is not quite an enticing subject, but how
about this?
999 marks Jorge Luis Borges' 100th Birthday. Maybe we should all put our collective
minds together and figure out a way to celebrate it via this website, considering
how Borges was one of Unca Harlan's intellectual teachers. The birthday will
be celebrated sometime in August so there is plenty of time to come up with
a good electronic shindig.
Oh great good gods!
Peter: May I just complement you on your clean, precise and elegant prose? Your
itemized rebuttal to narriman was just lovely.
Narriman: Oh puhleeze. So, because you have no social life, you're going to
inflict yourself on us? Actually, I do agree with some of the things you have
said about HE's stories (I love the story "Mephisto in Onyx" yet the voice of
the character, supposedly a black man, sounds so distinctively Jewish to me,
and so unlike the way my black friends have communicated to me about their experiences.
However, this is a pretty minor quibble as the story is tight otherwise, and
I still like it.). Although you clearly have a large vocabulary, I find it difficult
to believe that your ego is quite so tough as you represent when you are clearly
engaging in a behaviour designed to prop up a sagging ego. You do not communicate
clearly. You do not use language precisely, and do not put this off on the fact
that you are British or a writer or some other crap like that. Your prose is
rambling, overly verbose and as you are the one who started tossing around insults,
don't be surprised that you get them right back in your face. I have no problem
whatsoever with dissenters. I've been dissenting practically since I was born,
and yet I do not feel it neccessary to insult the people who disagree with me.
Also, I daresay everybody on this board understood all those really big words
that you used, but as your usage was so deliberately convoluted, it is a bit
hard to figure out exactly what the hell you mean.
Brilliance is revealed in the clean elegance of it's presentation.
Humanity is revealed in it's generosity.
Great art transcends labels and extremes. Great art speaks to the universal
human experience, not the extreme.
Bright but not brilliant, petty and pathetic. Sound familiar? It damn well should.
Wylie- don't let the twerp get you down.
Has anyone read the new Dan Simmons book yet? Just curious.
Syzygy Namirran
Just for the record, I am capable of speaking and writing standard American
English. However, I chose not to do so in my last post to more effectively draw
a metaphor between a BBS and a jam session. It also makes the point that one
must choose the manner in which he communicates and consider the audience.
For some reason, God only knows why, I pictured Namirran as a graduate student.
Why? Because Namirran writes like an academic. When I'm writing papers for my
master's degree, I, too, tend to write in that manner.
Aaaah---who the heck knows (or cares). It's probably all because I'm an American.
Peter: I continue to provoke animosity? Hardly. If you read what I have
written (aside from those things which I have written in response to other's
acerbic comments) you will find that I have presented a very credible point
of view that is also supported by many of those who post to this board, whether
they realise it or not. Even you have expressed agreement on some things.
Nope. You guys just don't like my 'tone' or something.
Syzygy Namirran
Sue: You are quite an amusing person. It seems you would prefer that I
waste large amounts of space on this board trading insults with you (a feat,
I might add, you seem ill-equipped to handle properly) instead of simply explaining
why I couldn't care less about engaging you and your simple-minded metaphor-laden
'babbling meant as affrontery'. Now, while I can understand that you are merely
reacting (yet again) without due reflection---the same kind of behavior responsible
for producing such an 'intelligent' sentence as, "Yeah, I load my pants in terror
every time someone doesn't agree with me on a BBoard....", I must tell you that
it does nothing but make you appear smaller in my view. (And, just to clarify,
I mean this not to sound arrogant. I state this objectively. Take from it what
you will.)
Again, if you want to discuss something worth your while, then so be it. I urge
you to stop wasting your time writing these half-witted, wannabee-scathing monologues
you seem so fond of producing. Either that, or hit me with something better---something
worth the effort behind shooting for that Gold Medal in sterling vituperation.
Syzygy Namirran
Try High - Fly Straight - Drive Safe
I quit reading in detail two days ago. I'm a good sight-reader and page
skimmer though. This is my take: Namirran is what we jazz musicians call a "drag".
Namirran, cool out. Use plainer words and shorter sentence structures. Come
to your points quickly and build them to a climax. Learn to use silence. Your
blowing is too busy, you need to learn how to swing. When you jump up on the
stand with that egotistical show of technique and theoretical knowledge, you
get in the way of the music. Pretty soon, don't nobody wanna see you coming
around with your axe in your hand. A good soloist can stir up the ensemble without
trampling on it.
Wylie: hi. Take some time out, but don't be a stranger.
Sue: You are a true radical and get right down in the nitty gritty. That's why
I dig you so much.
Art? Some cultures don't even have a word for art. Art is what it is. Popularity
is a fluke. Sometimes, the two intersect.
Isn't it just amazing how that every time someone comes onto this board
with a "dissenting viewpoint" they do so with defenses up, egos on full booster,
and armed to the teeth with feelings of superiority. Shall I list the crimes
of the current "dissentor?"
1. comes onto this board with a post which was clearly meant to provoke a response.
Is surprised when some of us responed to the post in a civil and constructive
manner but targets those who have a slightly more visceral response.
2. continues to try an provoke responses. Each time, comes back with the idea
that we have somehow misinterpreted, or misconstrued, or misunderstood something
that was said. We are always the ones at fault for feeling offended at something.
This keeps the feet firmly planted on the moral highground.
3. Abuses the english language for the purpose of senseless posturing and needless
obfuscation. rather than communicating ideas, the language is used to hide arguments
in a cloud of ambiguity and pointed statements.
4. after all of this... wonders why we fail to accept when all we have been
offered in return for acceptance is narcisistic egotism and veiled insults.
Should I go on? I will not ask you to leave, for it is not my place to do so.
But I will ask that you re-read your posts and see if I haven't hit on something
here. You need to remember that while you are posting to a board, there are
actual human beings who are reading them. These are people who deserve respect.
You came to this board filled with prejudices about how we would respond, and
you have allowed those predjudices to guide your posts ever since.
---Peter
Sure glad Narriman "don't possess the self-serving desire to make a melodramatic
show of defense for people (including
myself) where one is not needed." And it only took how many paragraphs to explain,
and justify what he isn't defending??? Must be nice to have a bullet-proof ego..
Shame about that no friends.. Understandable, though - a complete lack of humility
has that effect.. Still not sure what birthplace and coat-tails have to do with
it.. If I was born in Washington, D.C. and eat the in Congressional cafeteria
daily, am I a political insider?? Darn near wet my pants laughing when I read
"Why is everyone so fearful of a dissenting perspective?" Yeah, I load my pants
in terror every time someone doesn't agree with me on a BBoard.... right....
Like I don't read Ellison, 'cause he doesn't write what I've been told I want
to hear... right.... It's not the "concepts" or "perspectives" Namirran - it's
you.
Sue: Incidentally, the way in which I 'bandy' with words is merely my manner
of speaking. I'm sorry if that offends you. As a writer, born and raised in
Britain (Stratford-on-Avon), and member of certain publishing circles here in
London, I'm not entirely sure as to how you expect me to write. [?]
For instance, your particular 'voice' sounds distinctly American to me, but
I don't reproach you for it.
Syzygy Nammirran
Sue: Actually, I selected the name Syzygy for the very reason that it represents
my standing in relation to others. The dynamics of a moon-sun-earth configuration
is suited to my current social position, at least insofar as I am viewed as
a constant 'thorn in everyone's side' but constantly endeavoring to move into
a better social alignment. (Well, at least, that was the plan anyway.) :)
As far as your comments are concerned: I would respond 'in kind', but I do not
see the point of wasting space on this board for such a reply. Besides, because
I have a rather secure view myself, I don't possess the self-serving desire
to make a melodramatic show of defense for people (including myself) where one
is not needed.
For what it's worth, Sue, I think you have a number of interesting opinions,
and I think that we could have a few stimulating conversations if only you could
sidestep your own hatred of what I seem to represent in your mind: a callow-minded,
arrogant elitist with nothing else better to do than to sit around berating
people with flashy dialogue and prolix sophistry. Why is everyone so fearful
of a dissenting perspective? Perhaps I should use a more effacing tone? I don't
know?
If all of you simply want me to leave, never to post to this board again, I
can do that too. Just let me know if I've worn out my welcome, as the phrase
goes. :)
Syzygy Namirran
Well said, Alejandro. However, I still maintain that art should be measured
and valued by its effect, not by its qualities of 'artistic balance' or general
acceptability. For instance, a twelve year old girl living in the projects,
reading a story by Piers Anthony, might have every bit as much of an artistic
'frisson' as that experienced by a college literature professor encountering
Finnegan's Wake for the first time. Even moreso, in some cases.
I think literary elitism and snobbism are beside the point, really, notwithstanding
the multitude of objective considerations that are instrinic to each of these
views. The effect that a work of art has upon a person is influenced, ultimately,
by what that person knows, understands and feels about the human condition.
All that can be said is that sometimes certain measures of understanding require
certain qualitites to be present in a work of art in order for it to directly
evoke the same sense of awe felt, perhaps, at an earlier time in the course
of one's life. Everything, at bottom, is relative. Hence the confusion generated
when an attempt is made to objectify a constantly shifting aesthetic spectrum,
one which rests mainly upon a dynamic change in what is commonly refered to
as 'personal taste'. No one is 'on the same page', as it were, although certain
similarities may exist amid people. What I view as a valuated 'extreme', may
not even be visible to someone else.
Syzygy Namirran
wylie - I'm gonna miss you, *hug* but I do understand.
Narriman - I'm talking to you. I have no respect for people who posture and
attack others from the safety of anonymity, with a sneer. Yes that means you.
No e-mail address.. Fake name.. Slams without provocation, that you deny.. Against
people you don't bother to get to know.. Just blow in, and blow hard.. You forgot
to (define syzygy for the obviously inferior intellects) - or mention that it
is probably the last listing under "S" in your Dictionary, and is an astronomical
term, not a name. Get a good unabridged dictionary - there *are* more S words
after syzygy, which I'm sure would suit you better - not to mention all those
other new words to bandy about impressively.. I'm talking to you, Narriman (have
to make that clear, since simply addressing it too you doesn't register with
you). You ARE like a turd in the punchbowl - you end the party, and drive people
away. Sure, some people will take another look to make sure it isn't chocolate
- but they realize their mistake. Sure, everyone is polite and tries to find
something positive to say. Doesn't matter, they still leave. You have the charm,
personal warmth, and sensitivity of an IRS Audit. Should I break out the thesaurus
to translate this into "your terms"? Should I define every word over 5 letters
in leanth for you, to make sure you "get it"? Should I assume you are completely
uneducated and without any esthetic sense - and insult you, until you prove
to my satisfaction you don't deserve it? Nahhh - then I'd be *you*... I'm talkin
to you - but just this once. Your prancing and taunting, and narrow expertise
didn't deserve more than the few moments it took to realize you have little
to offer - just a rehash of what is better stated and more pleasant reading
elsewhere. Sure hope you aren't thinking about being a writer - if so, keep
your day job. Go ahead, flame away with your honed and obtuse "art" of verbal
abuse.. Gotta keep *that* skill honed, doncha? It's the only social skill you
have. Hey!! Why don't you learn a *NEW* skill?? It's called "Shut Up, Listen
with respect, and Learn something". It will more than double your current personal
appeal...you may even make a friend that way. I'm done talking to you now.
Peter - A good heart, keen mind, AND well spoken - the best combo :-) Art communicates.
The better it communicates the artists intention, the better it is as art. The
good art not only communicates the intention, but conveys a truth. The best
art communicates a universal timeless truth - which means even the ignorant,
unworthy folks "get it" any place, any time. So I agree Peter, the true test
of great art is time, which allows the universal communication aspect to retain
it (that means ALL people - not just those "educated to appreciate it" - isn't
that a Madison Ave strategy? creating a market?). I'm not sure that it is possible
to define great art any other way. There just doesn't seem to be a formula for
it.. ;-)
Oh, dear. What a good night sleep can do to one's psyche and "little grey
cells". Upon re-reading my post and reading the ones that follow, I suddenly
find myself embarrassed at my idea of "snobbism" as the last line of defense
against the massive bombardment of cheezoid information courtesy of your friendly
neighborhood mega-giant. Why? Because as so many of you have pointed out so
well, that sort of elitist distinction can very well lead one to overlook worthy
works of art that are popular as well. The problem, again, is not one of whether
art should be popular (which it should) or whether one must evaluate an individual
work on its own merits (which can work most of the time). But of how one personally
defines what popular art is and how it is being defined by the forces of merchandising
and (oh, dear, that word) synergy. As a critic I have to come to terms with
this question every day of the week. Particularly given the limited amount of
space that I have to introduce my readers to works of art (books, music, movies,
et al.) that might prove both popular and enlightening while at the seem time
covering most of what is out there just because it is seen as popular. This
whole snobbish notion of what is popular has led us to think that foreign-language
films are "art films", aimed at a certain class of people, with a certain income
and x amounts of degrees. Which is why most people will ignore a film like "Life
is Beautiful" and Ken Loach's "My Name is Joe" (to my mind, films which balance
very well the populist and the artistic) while flocking to see something as
hideous as "Armageddon".
What I really am against, and what really drives me batty, is the sort of extremist
elitist attitude that most seudo-intellectuals have against or for art. Careful,
kids. Because it is that same kind of extreme elitism that sooner or later drives
most intelligent people away from engaging in a constructive dialogue. And it
is that same kind of elitism that drives most real, true popular art underground,
leaving future generations with nothing more than the equivalent of mind control
drugs.
Peter: In saying, " Great art always stands at an extreme, if only because
a certain level of aptitude for aesthetics is required of its audience, one
that, in most cases, is not often found in those deprived of certain kinds of
education" I meant only to illustrate, in an objective manner, merely a single
element of the same spectrum which I indicated in an earlier post. The operable
word in this phrase is 'extreme'. To suggest that I mean this phrase to apply
a subjective implication for the whole spectrum of merit available to a given
work of art is hardly my aim, I can assure you.
Wylie: How was I being insulting with my most recent post? To say that a certain
assertion is 'moronic' is not to say that those who puport it are moronic. (In
truth, I was ridiculing the suggestion of such an assertion.) Surely you see
the difference [?] In fact, even Peter noted the absurdity of using quantity
as a proper measure of artistic merit. All the same, if you like to take personal
offense to the censure of generally propounded---but illogical---statements,
then so be it. Far be it from me to impose upon your need to attack me. :)
Syzygy Namirran
Syzygy::: " Great art always stands at an extreme, if only because a certain
level of aptitude for aesthetics is required of its audience, one that, in most
cases, is not often found in those deprived of certain kinds of education."
I'm not sure how I could have misinterpreted this. Language is used for communication.
If you are purposely being ambiguous, then we cannot converse on anything resembling
equal footing. As for your manner; I am asking you once more to cool it. I for
one don't like seeing insightful, intelligent people driven from this board
because some myopic troll has set sites on them.
wylie:::I can understand why you'd want to steer clear of the this, especially
when the shrapnel seems to fly your direction no matter where you go. But don't
be a stranger. I probably speak for most people here when I say we really don't
want you to stop posting. hopefully our friend here will realize that this undue
belligerence is counter-productive. Of course, sometimes the best way to kill
a troll is to burn its bridge.
---Peter
shit. i still misspelled your name. sorry again.
NAMARRIN: I apologize for misspelling your name previously. Apparently
my skin is not thick enough to deflect your poisonous darts. I will no longer
attempt to communicate on this board. ALL (except Namarrin): You have all been
warm and kind to me and I wish I could take this crap a little better. Please
email me anytime. Count on me to be lurking and waiting for safer waters. Happy
trails. Wylie
Well, well, well . . . .
DTS: Thanks for your comments, both those aimed at advancing the dialogue on
this board (as much as you 'don't have the time to squander on debating aesthetics')
and those aimed at furthering your own assumptions regarding little ol' me.
Needless to say, with respect to the former, you have some valid questions;
with respect to the latter, however, all I can say is: *yawn* At the very least,
you might have provided a insult commensurate with your abilities. :) All the
same, I'm always happy to be misread.
I'm afraid that you misinterpreted my latest post. I had considered, while writing
it, that it would be misinterpreted, as I knew that I wouldn't have the time
to flesh it out fully, thereby leaving much that might be considered, at best,
to be ambiguous. I was hoping to merely illustrate an understanding of 'valuation'
in literature ('valuation' being a term that was used by the French philophes
to describe the various shades, or gradations, of value that can be derived
from the enjoyment of art, mainly that proffered to humanity by virtue of the
literary medium.) If read with this supposition in mind, one can see very plainly
that I do not, in any way, mean to suggest that one should "ignore the success
of Charles Dickens, Ernest Hemingway, and hundreds of other writers . . blah
blah blah ". (Although, as many so-called scholars will tell you, both Dickens
and Hemingway are far from being representative of literary "paragons". Well,
that is, unless you're Eric Blair or Ray Bradbury, needfully exorcising the
vestiges of a boyhood fascination with a literary icon.) I meant only to state
that there is a spectrum to which all works of art adhere.
If you find me "insulting", DTS, then so be it. If you think me arrogant and
youthfully stupid, you're certainly entitled to your own thoughts. As far as
me 'trying hard to impress everyone' is concerned: not at all, mon cher. If
I were 'trying', as you put it, you'd know it, I can assure you. Contributing
to this board requires from me an effort that is akin to breathing, if only
because I've been doing this sort of thing for a number of years, which might
account for my being less sensitive and self-conscious than most. Perhaps I
could stand to review my posts before posting them. :) Who knows? All I can
say is: if you're trying to get published, or if you are a published writer
hoping to continue a career, then you'd better grow a thicker skin.
Peter: Thanks for the comments. Like I said to DTS: I think you've misinterpreted
my post (or, at the very least, the intent of it.) Oh, and by the way: demotic
means "Of or relating to the common people", whereas popular means, "Widely
liked or appreciated." And although I can see how you might misconstrue the
meanings of these words, they hardly mean exactly the same thing. (I just thought
I'd mention that---one prig to another.)
Syzygy Namirran
Syzygy::: So am I right in believing that it is your assertion that "great
art" can only be appreciated by a select few with a hightened sense of aesthetics?
If I'm off base, please let me know. If not, then what I'm seeing is further
proof that the idea of art has been relegated to the wastelands of elitist whims.
Sure, the idea of numbers is a ridiculous premise on which to base a work's
merits, but to declare something as trash without giving it an opportunity stand
the test of time which makes something art is reprehensible. Art is great when
people keep coming back to it. It doesn't matter if the people are boarding
schooled, ivy leagued, ph.d'ed, poseurs with egos the size of their vocabularies
(on a side note, "popular, demotic" is redundant. please try to lay off the
supersyllabic words as they do less to communicate than they do to show off.)
or everyday, public high schooled, state colleged, working folk who know a good
thing when they see it. People forget that ol' Willy Shakespeare had his plays
shown in large theaters for the masses. Little Charlie Dickens had his overly
inflated but terribly interesting stories published in the pulps, the nineteenth
century equivalent to daytime soaps. So to say that great art is above people's
heads is to proclaim that both Willy and Charlie were flukes, and that there
will never again be a popular writer who will one day be considered a great
artist. The fact that we let these "great minds" decide what is art and what
is trash is a tribute to the extent to which the learned intelligencia have
cowed and beaten the free thinking members of society who want to be able to
make their own judgements as to what is good or not. It is sad that people have
turned to our microwaved fastfood popcorn culture and have declared it art in
place of works that are good and meaningful. But the way I see it, this is just
a reaction to the oligarchy of the "truly literate" who espouse formless style
with greatness and honest storytelling with shit. I can only hope that in the
future, when all of us are dead or dying, the world having reached the last
quarter of the first century of the new millenium, that work is finally judged
as art, great or otherwise, by standing the true litmus test of art; time. Only
then will I be proven right or wrong on my beliefs as to what constitutes great
art. But I'm willing to place good money that it will not be the constant influx
of esoteria that is being held up on a pedastal by academia as great because
"if people got it, it wouldn't be great."
---Peter (sticking my foot where I probably shouldn't. I left my asbestos suit
at home.)
Oops. That word in the first sentence should be aesthetics (hey, I said
I was pressed for time, didn't I?) While I'm about it: a big hello to all the
regulars -- you've been keeping up some pretty lively and interesting debates
around here. And while I may not have time to join in on them, I always try
to take a moment (every few days) to follow along. Best wishes, DTS.
Though I, unfortunately, don't have much time to squander on debating the
aestetics of writing and what constitutes literature, I had to stop in to say
something to NAMIRRAN (if I mispelled it, I apologize, but as Van Morrison would
say, "I can't stop now!"): in your last post you wrote, in part, "The very analyses
employed by critics (the measuring of a work by its individual merit) precludes
any great work from also being culturally popular. It is a logical impossibility."
I had to bring it up because you started your post by addressing the "moronic"
beliefs of others. If we were to believe your statement, then we'd have to ignore
the success of Charles Dickens, Ernest Hemingway, and hundreds of other writers
who are (by resounding agreement of egghead academics everywhere), writers of
literature. Not only did they write literature, but they were popular. What's
more, it was entertaining. Hell, even John Updike (who mostly writes about the
bedroom antics of aging New Englanders, and actually believes that literature
cannot be entertaining), even he is writes books that are popular. (using, here,
a couple of Webster's definitions: "relating to the general public,"frequently
encountered or widely accepted"). Now, when you speak of popular fiction we
know you can't be referring only to the Grishams, Kings and Cornwells of the
writing world -- because they are phenomenons in their own right -- and to expect
every popular writer to live up to that sort of once-in-a-lifetime business
would be, well, moronic. And since a small percentage of Americans actually
read, it's a safe bet that books that hit bestseller lists are popular. Books
like A FAREWELL TO ARMS, RABBIT IS RICH, SOPHIE'S CHOICE, OLIVER TWIST, BELOVED,
etc., etc. So you see, literature and popularity aren't mutually exclusive.
You are obviously young, and trying hard to impress everyone with your knowledge.
But constantly insulting people you are debating with (when you weren't even
provoked) doesn't show knowlege or wisdom. It displays an arrogance born of
youthful stupidity...and a sad need for attention to fill a void or stroke an
uncertain ego. And since you'll no doubt fire off an insult at me (and at least
I, unlike others, will be deserving of a salvo) I gotta tell ya that I really
am too busy to engage in pissing contest. I just wanted to point out that you
were not only wrong, but you managed (as usual) to be snotty-nosed while putting
your foot in your mouth. I'd suggest that sit back, take stock of yourself and
why you feel the need to try and impress everyone with your knowlege while simultaneously
insulting them, but I'm sure that would be no smarter than taking a piss in
a wind tunnel. I do hope you learn to like yourself a little more someday. Out
here, DTS.
"I read his mind. He was a filthy little scum."
"Nonetheless"
"Don't yell at me."
"This isn't a game, friend Lhayne. This is survival."
"It's always survival. But not necessarily Art."
"Oh yes. I'd forgotten. You're still call yourself an artist, aren't you?"
"That's what I am. It's the correct word."
The Supervisor snickered. There were no features to the mask, so it was impossible
to tell how much of a sneer accompanied the sound. "Correct? Perhaps operable
is what you mean. An Artist who is himself the Art. Standing in a public place
and letting rain wash over you, and calling it 'Rebirth.' Crawling through broken
glass till your body is torn and calling it 'The Eternal Appollonian-Dionysian
Conflict.' I suppose that's Art."
"I don't tell you how to supervise."
"Art criticism is as old as Art."
"I rearrange the universe. That is the nature of my Art."
"No, friend Lhayne. We all rearrange the universe. What's left of it. The ten
thousand of us, here at the end of time. That is the nature of survival."
~~~~ Harlan Ellison, from "Shoppe Keeper" (Shatterday)
Dear Syzygy, Peter and the rest:
I do think that this whole notion of esoterism versus populism is even a tad
more complex. I do agree with both Syzygy's and Wylye's assertions. And I do
think that even though these are issues that date back to the seventeenth, eigteenth
and nineteenth centuries (hell even to the Elizathen era. After all, wasn't
Shakespeare accused of being a populist? And haven't his plays, even some of
his more flawed ones, endured to his day?), the whole notion of what is acceptable,
of what will endure from our popular culture today, is complicated even more
by the constant pouncing we the consumers receive from all media in this so-called
marketplace of ideas. How can you defend true popular art forms —whether in
literature, film or even television— when we have to wander through so much
sludge? A point can be made that it is better to have so many books/movies/magazines/TV
programs et al. to choose from than to have nothing at all. The problem is that
with the rampant merging of such media empires as Time Warner, AT&T and company,
those choices are nothing more than a quick and dirty act of hocus-pocus. And
with the masses constant obssession with numbers (who made the New York Times
best seller list, who dumped who from the box-office over the weekend)
Yes, I have drifted from the main point: a discussion of snobbism versus populism.
But it seems to me that the societal and economic forces that surround us (and
that diminish the actual amount of intellectual choices available to us as readers
and viewers) are pivotal in understanding what is truly at the heart of this
discussion. Who knows, maybe snobbism (whatever that may mean) may be the last
stronghold against the corporate hordes who wish to control what we read, think
and even watch.
No wonder some intellectuals are holding tight to the flag of "snobbism".
To suggest that literary 'snobbishness' is the mere result of private taste
influenced by an aversion to popular, demotic culture is simply too moronic
an assertion to let stand without due censure. And while it may be true to say
that many literary critics are failed writers for whom this sort of intellectual
'elitism' is common practice, it is also true to say that there exists a rather
large body of writers who support their 'snobbish' criticisms with legitimate,
and informed, claims, most of which fly far above the heads of the common, conventional
majority.
The preference of literary 'snobs' is not one supported by measures of quantity.
On the contrary, critics of literature stand by their declarations of what is
'good' and what is 'not good' with only a work's measure of artistic merit in
mind, a measure that is recorded in terms of 'magnitude', or ambition, not sales.
It just so happens that most of what can be considered 'good' is also not as
popular as, say, the writing of Stephen King. The very analyses employed by
critics (the measuring of a work by its individual merit) precludes any great
work from also being culturally popular. It is a logical impossibility. Great
art always stands at an extreme, if only because a certain level of aptitude
for aesthetics is required of its audience, one that, in most cases, is not
often found in those deprived of certain kinds of education. And certainly,
this acocunts for the rampant growth of the 'midlist' and all of its mediocre
'talent'.
"Those least fit for survival breed with the most frequency."
~~~ Malthus
Syzygy Namirran
(the person wearing the flame-resistant suit) :)
ps. I would like to impart my beliefs about what art 'is', but I'm not sure
that anyone (save Finder) is all that interested. I just don't want to clutter
up your board with my senseless prattling. Let me know if there is interest.
No sweat, Gary. Thanks for your help. Have you ever read "Harrison Bergeron,"
by Kurt Vonnegut (sp)? If so, that is how I find life with my two-and-a-half
year old. God forbid I get to complete a thought . . . Happy Trails. Wylie
A snobbery based on the esoteric, yes, but I think generally it’s a snobbery
that assumes that anything liked by the great unwashed must be dreck, not capable
of being appreciated on any deeper level. The work that is praised by this snobbery
may not necessarily be esoteric, but very very traditional. Maybe Dickens, even,
but I haven’t read any. Pardon me if I’m splitting hairs and saying the same
thing you just did, with more words…
Peter: I have thought about this question myself and I have only come to
a few conclusions. There are people who are attracted to popularity, and people
who are repelled by it. Many are caught up in feeling self important based on
the obscurity of their tastes. Snobery based on the esoteric. I believe that
choosing likes and dislikes because of popularity is stupid, in either direction.
There is another thing. Have you read much Dickens? I remember being disgusted
one day (although I really like Dickens) when I realized that, in his time,
he was a popular writer like any we have today. Complete with sensationalistic
tugging on heartstrings and over-the-top characters. Today he is considered
one of the greats and anything he ever wrote is a classic. I believe his work
is valuable and timeless, not only for his social commentary, but for the way
he builds the setting with rich details, making the reader feel like they know
his London--as if we were really there. I believe Stephen King will be valued
for the same thing one day, although his work has to struggle against the prejudices
surrounding genre. He has a wonderful tone. I have always thought of his books
as just so american, and that's what I liked about them.
That's my take, Peter. My train of thought was derailed numerous times by the
toddler menace, you can probably tell. take care. wylie
Heya everybody. I was watching the new Stephen King mini last night and
I started thinking about something that has been disturbing me. Every time I
take a creative writing course (I find the workshops invaluable) I inevitably
get a professor who spends most of his time praising "literary" works and slamming
"bestsellers" as if the two were always mutually exclusive. The basic mentality
of these professors is that if a book sells more than five copies it must be
crap. Not that a book which sells poorly is necessarily literature, but that
a book which appeals to the populous as a whole is obviously trash which caters
to the lowest common denominator. Now the only explanation I can come up with
(besides simple jealousy) for this behavior is that the academic definition
of literature is slightly skewed from the popular definition. I don't know.
No one is going to make me feel inferior because I enjoy a book by Stephen King
(or Clive Barker for that matter). But I would like to get other people's views
on this. For me the most important things are characters and plot, they are
what I focus on while writing. Am I wrong? Will this consign me to the library
of mediocrity in which the remainders wait to have their covers torn and their
pages recycled? Or am I just suffering from a bad case of academic molestation?
Or is there really something to all this that I just don't get? Food for thought.
Aspirin for a headache.
---Peter
DTS: Worrying me? Naw; not really. Were I entirely honest, I would have
to admit that worrying about picayune details like this is just a shuck and
jive--one that serves the dual purpose of procrastinating from writing these
last three chapters as well as it keeps me from worrying about the chapters
themselves when I actually sit down to write. It's much easier to have a beat
a straw man like a little worry than to slap knuckles against a man made of
stronger stuff--like brick.
Wylie: Thanks yourself. Yup, that's me--gallant, sweet, and alone on Valentine's
Day (and not a little brokenhearted, but that's another story altogether).
ALEX: Thanks for your kind words in my defense. You are gallant and sweet.
SUE: Thanks to you as well. ALL: I can see some of you have been busy while
I was gone. Despite all the good wishes, I didn't see a whale this trip (maybe
some spray, otherwise--zip). I did, however, show myself a really good time.
Lots of great food and fun on the beach. Fort Bragg, CA is a great place for
r&r. Next week I'm taking the two year old terror to the snow. Scared o' that!
Take care everyone. Wylie
ps Narriman: Let's try plain, old Anglo-Saxon, okay? I DON'T HAVE A DAMN THING
TO SAY TO YOU.
ALEX: if approaching Ellison about permission to use a quote from one of
his stories as an epigraph is really worrying you, don't do it. While permission
will be required, it will only be required AFTER you sell it to a publisher
-- process that could very well take a while. And, when you do succeed in selling
your novel, the publisher has people whose job is to take care of matters such
as getting rights to use quotes from books, stories, and songs (the last of
which will cost a pretty penney, so if you can avoide using quotes from popular
songs, do so). Out here, DTS.
Would HE's place truly be different if he was only taken on the merits
of his work from the mid-sixties on? Tricky double-edged sword. While this removes
many of the stepping stones that show the man honing his skills, some of them
wildly imperfect, it also removes a large portion of what could be called his
more mainstream fiction (such as Spider Kiss, or the tales in Gentleman Junkie)
and Memos From Purgatory, mature early work which I think speaks well of him
as a writer. (Total aside - I think if in no other way, HE shows great class
and character by not beating the public to death with the fact that Dorothy
Parker thought well of Gentleman Junkie. At the other end of the spectrum, is
Clive Barker ever going to stop reminding us that Stephen King thought he (CB)
was "the future of horror"?) There IS a bias in some circles against HE, ostensibly
for his early days, when no genre or forum was below his radar. I had a professor
back at SUNY, another published author of minor note whose name I'm withholding,
who looked down his nose at HE with the dismissive comment "Well, he'll write
anything." Of course, this professor's measure of quality was whether the tale
could be published in The New Yorker, and he was staunchly against any kind
of genre writing. (He openly dismissed Ray Bradbury as a writer, at which time
I knew this individual had a vein of anthracite where his soul should have resided
and no manners to speak of.) Given his druthers, I'm sure HE would like to expunge
the record of a lot of his early work that shows a writer in growth. He's worked
hard for the reputation he has, and through his actions (like pulling "Invulnerable"
from Stalking the Nightmare on Stephen King's comment that it evidenced some
dating, and his distress over the reprinting of "Doomsman" at a time when it
was so unindicative of the writer he had become), he shows he holds himself
and what he releases or re-releases to a high standard. I would be surprised
to see a book like the sometimes-listed Rough Beasts see the light of day without
a whole lot of introductory matter. BARNEY - I may have to start collecting
The Quotable Barney Dannelke; "Lord knows he's used the epigraph more often
than Wambaugh has used a hooker to forward a plot." is a definite keeper. --Finder
***ALEX*** Don't see why not. It promotes him without requiring a blurb
standing by your work and it's not a high ticket item like "Repent..." or "Jeffty".
Lord knows he's used the epigraph more often than Wambaugh has used a hooker
to forward a plot.
***Sue /Syzygy / Rick / Doc / Finder / DTS / Shane / Everybody else *** Just
wanted to say I've really enjoyed the dialogue this week even though I didn't
participate. I'm just not comfortable on the lit/crit side of the fence. I will
say that I've always enjoyed a higher percentage of the essays to the fiction
but that's no suprise. I probably have a larger collection of never reprinted
pre-1960 material than most, and Harlan, even more than most writers, taught
himself to write in public. By that, I mean there just isn't as much "early
struggling to find a voice" material from Oates or Updike or Vonnegut. If it
would be possible to simply jettison the pre-1965 material I think Harlan's
place in American letters would be quite different. But what the hell, maybe
Twain wouldn't have tried "Joan Of Arc" and Wilde wouldn't have pressed that
lawsuit... SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA AT THE TIME
Alex - I've had two encounters of the Ellison kind - both times set in
the intimate context of a loooong line-up at a convention for getting autographs.
Not exactly a setting conducive to making friends, or doing the *happy dance*..
My impression is that "tit-for-tat" is more what happens when HE interacts with
the public. Ellison and his wife Susan tolerated this fool.. :-) .. Twice. I
didn't expect either time would involve more than "Who do I make it out to?",
and was surprised extended conversations followed what I would consider normal,
civilized chat while Ellison did his obligatory signing. Not exactly the Ogre..
I did smile as Ellison torched a couple of snot-nosed wannabe's trying to make
an impression (we'll never know who they were trying to impress). I get the
feeling that the "suffer fools" should be "be put upon by over-bearingly rude
and stupid people" And since that doesn't seem to describe you - have no fear.
:-)
ALEX - My experiences in person with HE (both one on one and watching others
approach him) only enforce what you've probably already heard: the two things
he won't suffer are ignorance and insincerity. I'm sure if you make the request
in a professional, polite manner (which I'm certain you will), he'll respond
in kind. He might decline - but the refusal certainly won't arrive on razor-edged
paper. (I've seen the man do an impression of a goldfish to amuse a small child
- it does a lot to shatter those myths about dropping fans down elevator shafts.)
Good luck, both finishing the novel (I have a ways to go on my own, so your
nearness to the finish line is an inspiration) and with your request of HE.
--Finder
You know, it's funny--I was just reading my copy of Kersh's _Nightshade
and Damnations_, reading Ellison's introduction, wherein he nanes Kersh as a
"Demon Prince" of writing, able to wring more from words and descriptions than
any other--as Ellison wished he could, and I thought about it.
I'm something of a writer myself--just three chapters away from finishing my
novel--and I have a demon prince as well--Ted Sturgeon.
I love Ellison's writing, but for me, Sturgeon did things with words and description
that few have ever equalled--and that I despair of ever nearing.
Still, I know that, if not a great writer, I'm certainly a GOOD writer (not
that you'd know it from these Board comments), with a style of my own.
Still, I dread finishing this book for two reasons--one, that I'll have to get
moving on the NEXT one, and two, that I'll have to approach HE about using a
quote from "Ernest and the Machine God" as the book's opening epigram.
Those of you who've been in actual contact with the man might be able to tell
me--do you think he'd suffer a fool like myself?
ALL - Ten thousand pardons are asked, for I misquoted "Catman" - it should
read "He came back to existence, brute MATTER, on the three-quarter-inch ledge..."
Reason #361 I should have been in bed four hours ago...
SYZYGY - Not what I would have guessed the S. stood for. Intriguing choice
of name...Thanks for your feedback and again, some interesting points. It seems
very much like your appreciation of Ellison the essayist carries with it a heightened
expectation of 'more' from HE when he writes fiction. I am heartened by your
admission that he has produced "some fine pieces" - perhaps there's some hope
for you yet (that would be in 'sarcastics', if such a type style existed). You
make two statements that I would be curious to hear some elaboration on: first,
"The hallmark of a good writer is the ability to inject the life of art into
something as abstract and unmoving as mere words." and second, "Instead of presenting
his fiction from a character's point of view (or the view of any narrator, for
that matter) Ellison uses his own punchy rhetoric to fill the mouths of his
characters...". I feel the latter is far too general an assertion to be wholly
defendable (though, as usual, I can see stories that could be used to buttress
the claim - "The New York Review of Bird" jumps to mind). Entertain if you will
a quote from "Paladin of the Lost Hour": "So much about him as he spoke of her.
His voice soft and warm and filled with a longing so deep and true that he had
to stop frequently because the words broke and would not come out till he had
thought away some of the passion." Far from rhetoric, this story to me is poetic,
and far removed from such things as HE's diatribes against knife kill flicks
and Christmas. Of course, Paladin is easy to cite. Something else, perhaps -
"He came back to existence, brute master, on the three-quarter-inch ledge outside
a dreamcell apartment on the ninetieth level. He was flattened against the force
screen that served as wall. It was opaque and he lay against it like a smear
of rainbow oil. He could not be seen from inside, where the wealthy ones he
intended to rob lay quietly, dreaming." From "Catman" - a tale which isn't everyone's
cup of tea, but which I think is well told and makes good use of language. The
question I'm angling towards in all of this, I guess, is how would you define
'art'? Can an individual define 'art', or can he/she only set parameters by
which technical merit can be judged? My experience has been that what constitutes
art has determinates on both the individual and the societial level - but can
both be right? I'd love to go on, but it's past 4 a.m. here at my keyboard,
screamingly past my bedtime, so I'm out of here. Great weekend, All! --Finder
Alex, thank you for the gentle reminder concerning my current social standing
(or lack of standing, as the case me be) as ajudged by those who contribute
to this message board. I can assure you that I do not expect any kind of instant,
shake-and-bake change with respect to the general disposition shown toward me.
As I have already stated, I know how I portrayed myself in my initial posts.
Only an idiot would expect freely given respect as a follow up to such an unimpressive
mess of a first impression.
My words directed toward Wylie and Sue are not 'slams' as much as they are subtle
invitations to further continue the exchange of verbal vitriol. You see, I am
happy to exert my efforts on multiple fronts, whether those fronts are ignoble
or not. And although I would prefer to engage myself in genuine debate, I would
be a liar if I did not admit that I find quarrelsome argument also strangely
stimulating. If people wish to maintain an argumentative disposition toward
me, even in the wake of my most recent posts, then so be it. I am ready to trade
blows, in the interest of both genuine criticism and rancorous tirade. After
all, it's not as though I didn't ask for responses illustrating both of these
extremities. Moreover, I am happy to be of service to anyone who wishes to joust.
I'm sure that both Wylie and Sue are wonderful people, though not especially
cut out for making personal attacks upon others. I suppose that is a skill that
only Devils like myself ever fully appreciate.
"And whenever she would try it again, he would inflict the pain on himself.
Until she was so horrified by it that she stopped. 'That's how I developed a
very high threshold for pain,' he had said."
--- Harlan Ellison, All the Lies That Are My Life
Best regards to all,
Syzygy Namirran
Don't let me disturb the debate too much - just wanted to let you know
before I post on the newsgroups that Susan Ellison is looking for three strong
backs in the Los Angeles area to help move some books into the storage facility
next week. It's about a half-day's work and it pays $35.00 plus a free signed
book. Contact me with a phone number and name if you're interested.
S: I know that this may be presumptuous, but it would really be preferable
to have a first name by which we could address you; initials get tiresome after
a while.
Now: Regarding your slams at Wylie and Sue--these are very nice people. Where
someone has asked for help or clarification, they have been quick to give.
You have to realize that their reaction to you is going to be tainted for a
while; after all, you DID come in brandishing colostomy bags, throwing their
contents helter-skelter at all around (now if that's not a metaphor no one wants
to hear again, I don't know what is).
You stated your express desire to inflame, incite, and basically piss people
(generally everyone here) off--so your turnaround into thoughtfulness IS a bit
hard to swallow. Should you keep it going, there will be more acceptance as
you go on.
You obviously have a talent at dialectic--though a bit wordy, I'm not one to
talk. I don't agree with you on most points, but what the hell--that's the spice
of life, yes?
Listen. Considering your entrance, it's going to take people a while to warm
up to you--keep writing thoughtful posts and back up your words, and it'll go
all the faster.
Finder, thanks for taking the time to comment on my latest post. I can
certainly understand that, in light of my invidious and belligerent debut to
this message board, you might not have much of an incentive to contribute to
any thread I might attempt to start. After all, unless you're Flash Gordon trying
to impress Prince Baron with your legendary bravery, why would you be willing
to stick your hand in the face of some unknown, unseen, and potentially dangerous
beast, an act performed with no guarantee that you'll be spared the poisoness
bite of crass chance and unpredictability? Which is not to say that I find pleasure
in being spiteful. No. Not at all. I do, however, understand your 'wariness';
it is not altogether unexpected.
In regard to my opening and closing comments, however, I think you've misconstrued
my tone (not a difficult thing to do, considering the voiceless way with which
I hammer out these posts.) I did not presume, in the closing of my last post,
that you would 'garner nothing', as you put it, from what I had to say. It is
likely that my choice of words was inapposite and, therefore, conveyed an unintended
meaning. I meant only to suggest that your convictions regarding Ellison are
most likely strong enough to withstand any ineffectual shaking that I might
give them. In addition, because my 'argument' is steeped in personal bias (like
a theosophical proposition) I really don't expect you to be persuaded to any
particular point of view that I might hold. Which is not to say that you will
garner nothing from my comments, of course. Clearly you have a firm grasp of
Ellison's work as a writer, and, if nothing else, I hope that you can find this
kind of antipodal debate at least more stimulating than an ice-cream headache.
Also, I am well aware of your ability to understand poly-semantic 'puerile babble',
the kind of which I am prone to producing at times. I place words in parenthetic
braces for no particular reason other than to add additional qualification to
words that may already be clear and unambiguous. This is a practice I've adopted,
in writing e-mail and posting messages to boards such as this, as a way of preempting
the onset of Textual Growth Syndrome, something which I'm susceptible to, I'm
afraid. Nobody likes to read long, tiresome messages, right? And although I
can see how you might have read my parenthetic "(that is, friendly)" as a patronization,
I can assure you, it was included as an abstract modifier and nothing more.
After all, the word magnanimous means "forgiving", not "friendly", and therefore,
by virtue of logic, should not be seen as a condescending explanation. (p.s.
Thanks for the applause regarding my passing of the SATs. My parents were proud
too.)
Now, about your comments: You said, ". . . very few writers dramatically alter
their voice when switching between forms" [?] This is an interesting claim,
in my opinion, because it indicates precisely what I am pointing out with respect
to Ellison's writing.
Given enough time all writers gradually develop a particular 'style' and distinct
mannerism that is recognizable in their writing. No one can discount the inimitable
styles of, say, Dostoevsky and Flaubert: where the one is fond of tuning his
reader's ear to a particular locale of the pathological in the human psyche---by
way of an energetic, highly abstract, and vigorous representation of 'the way
we think'---the other is happy to adorn scenes of compunction and dramatic 'profluence
born of guilt' with topical ornamentation and an all too obtrusive use of literary
convention. But as unchanging as a writer's style may be, a writer's voice should
never be static, unless he is writing nonfiction articles or essays. The difference
between an essayist and a writer of fiction is that the essayist is always present
in his writing, his 'voice' is the prevailing tenor; a writer of fiction, on
the other hand, is a silent party and speaks only in terms of dramatic action
and characterization, creating a voice for the work. A review of Dostoevsky's
'anarchist' articles or Flaubert's essays on the 'passing of Rouen' clearly
show this distinction when contrasted with their fictional work. And, of course,
the same can be said for a number of writers, although in Ellison's case, I'm
hard pressed to say that this distinction is very pronounced.
The hallmark of a good writer is the ability to inject the life of art into
something as abstract and unmoving as mere words. A writer's voice and the voice
of a written work of fiction are dissimilar and are not one and the same: the
former encapsulates the writer's world philosophy and sense of life; the latter
is the exploration of the human condition as evoked by an imagined event, scene,
or happening, all of which is filtered through the foci of character. A writer
of non-fiction does not have this obligation to fiction; he can go about venting
his criticism of the world without regard for the basic tenets of story, character,
plot, etc. (This is what I meant about conventions and tropes: not plot devices
and deus ex machinas.)
All that I'm saying about Ellison is that, in my opinion, he is always visible
behind the scenes, pulling levers and working gears, not unlike the old man
behind the curtain in The Wizard of Oz. Instead of presenting his fiction from
a character's point of view (or the view of any narrator, for that matter) Ellison
uses his own punchy rhetoric to fill the mouths of his characters and to pave
the way for the vague impression of 'having told a story'. This is the main
reason why Ellison 'the man' is constantly confused (in the minds of his fans)
with the so-called fiction that he writes. As a non-fiction writer, Ellison
is a genius-there is no refuting that fact. As a literary artist, however, he
leaves much to be desired.
Thanks again for your comments, Finder. As you stated, our little debate here
"ultimately comes down to personal taste". And don't get me wrong: I don't think
Ellison's work is valueless. He has produced a number of fine pieces, many of
which you have listed in Ellison's defense. I suppose, at bottom, I would simply
like to see Ellison produce more pieces that have lasting quality as opposed
to being merely the record-holder of 1,100 short stories (or whatever the number
is), most of which are repeated performances. Anywa, if we shall agree to disagree,
then so be it. All the same, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on writing,
literature and the artistic way of life, whether related to HE or not.
WYLIE: If you have something to say to me--say it. Otherwise, go somewhere else
and feign your winsome impassivity, preferably for someone who cares.
SUE: I don't know how you expected me to respond to your post about turds in
punchbowls and slovenly run education systems. If that post was directed to
me, I must confess that I failed to see its relevance. Also, I would like to
say that I don't rank people by measure of their 'worthiness', nor do I subscribe
to the use of such callow pecking orders. If you prefer to view me as a priggish
'stuffed shirt', then go right ahead. Get off on it all you want. All I wanted
to do was debate. And if that means I feel that Finder's comments deserve the
respect of an 'intelligent' response (even one that might give you cause to
sarcastically label me a 'great literati') then I will respond as I see fit,
regardless of your opinion. If you see that as wasting time, that's your prerogative.
If I haven't responded to your post, you can rest assured that it is not due
to some malicious intent on my part. As I said: I didn't notice the relevance.
Besides, I thought you hated 'receiving intellectual arguments every time you
put in an order for a Big Mac'. Or was that comment merely a sophist's preamble
made to entertain the masses at my expense? Whatever your thoughts about me
may be, I should let you know that I am more than willing to participate in
a debate with you. However, I should also tell you, before hand, that I don't
know that much about 'high self-esteem kids', 'observing factless flamers' or
the cult of 'rock-stupidity' . . . although, with your instruction, I'm sure
that I could learn quite a lot.
S. Namirran
Hey, wylie - I can get behind that mistrust you feel. Guess I failed the
S.Narriman Worthiness Test - I'm still down here with the ignorant unwashed
masses, the ones that aren't worth the great literatti wasting time on to even
so much as acknowlege exist. Guess you made the initial cut, since you got a
nod. hee hee.. Keep working at it, and you, too, may satisfy the criteria necessary
to be worth wasting time on.. oh.. and congrats to you Finder, for being found
worthy.. ;-) ..or was that Peter? hee hee
Yaknow - it's OK with me that I'm unworthy, 'cause I'm not interested in people
who stereo-type, are pro-actively judgemental (ooo- doncha love it! a catch-phrase),
and are basicly about trying to prove they really are better than most other
people. Just not in the mood to be impressed, told what my opinion should be,
and affirm ego's today - or any other day.. Saying "sorry" doesn't cut it -
especially when the behaviour continues. It's a wonderful thing to be dismissed
by people who stick in your throat... It's easier to ignore them, and a lot
less boring.
Have a good one wylie - and say "HI" to a whale for me (hope you see LOTS of
them).
that was supposed to read "too quick." i need to hire an editor.
Sorry, Narriman, but your turn-around was way to quick and sacchrine for
me. Your arguments, now that you are presenting some, are just a reminder that
Ellison is not the only writer in the world and no one here was in danger of
forgetting that. By the way, whoever mentioned "Friday," during the cast-your-
favorite-sf-classic posts -- thanks! It's been about 12 years since I visited
that old friend, and it was long overdue. I managed to find my copy and review
some of the material that shaped me as a fifteen year old. No wonder . . .nevermind.
So, anyway, back to the present, you guys have your fun hashing this out. I'm
going away on my whale watching weekend and I'll catch up when I get back. 3
days with no phone, no computer, no job, no family . . .maybe I'll just stay
forever. Outa here. Wylie
S. - I'll admit that your first impression still doesn't sit well; it's
hard to find the patience to entertain a dialogue with someone whose first move
is to dump on the very people he or she to trying to seek the opinions and insight
of, regardless of the intent. From that, you have redeemed yourself - though
it didn't escape notice that you would compliment me at the outset of your post,
and yet do me the disservice of presuming I would garner nothing from your post
by the time you had finished. Does this mean I won't be polite in debating?
No. Just wary. Don't misunderstand, I have a very nice disposition - until I've
been bitten. (And as an aside, I know what magnanimous means, thank you. Enough
already, you passed your SATs, and we're all very proud of you...)
"Ellison's fiction does not stand far enough from his non-fiction to be considered
'different'." Excuse me? Putting aside for a moment that a writer's voice is
his voice, and very few writers dramatically alter that voice when switching
between forms, how can you possibly say that a fragile and tender tale such
as "Susan" is no different from an essay such as "When I Was A Hired Gun"? The
self-loathing narrator of "Final Shtick" versus any installment of "Harlan Ellison's
Watching"? Within types, HE does run in themes - lonliness and alienation pervade
much of his fiction, while his essays are all cut from a similar cloth. Of course,
there are pairs that support part of your arguement: "Jefty Is Five", for instance,
whose first-person narrator uses a similar language to what HE uses in his essays.
But does "Jefty" suffer because of this? On the contrary, one of the stories
major stengths is the intimacy of the narrative.
"The reason for this is because Ellison does not pay heed to literary convention
(which is not to say that conventions are the saving grace of good literature.
However, many fine novelists have taken convention and re-invented it..." Why
should Harlan Ellison - or any person of a creative nature - be penalized for
not measuring up to what some group has deemed "the norm"? Where do new directions
come from? I consider it in jazz terms: where would it be as a musical form
if Miles Davis and John Coltrane had not only pushed the envelope, but completely
changed its size and shape? And again, HE's experimental works, such as "The
Deathbird" and "The Beast That Shouted Love At The Heart Of The World", which
play with structure and try new things, bring the reader a freshness, a new
way of looking at storytelling. It doesn't always work when attempted - for
example, as different as it was, I found the film "Pulp Fiction" an affront
to film-making. But you never know until you try it out, both for the force
creating the work, and the public taking it in...
Regarding the lack of character development and the way HE dances around big
issues in too small a space - ultimately, the writer must decide what is needed
to tell the story and convey the desired mood and intent. Not every tale requires
a full slate of completely fleshed out characters in order to make its point,
and not every short story needs to explore in depth the questions it raises.
It is enough, in my opinion, to introduce the theme, to present some arguements,
and leave it to the audience to explore further its ideas, methods, the feelings
it elicits.
It ultimately comes down to personal tastes; Rick mentions breezing through
the new Tom Wolfe novel; personally, I've never been able to get into Wolfe
- but I enjoy Faulkner, who is an acquired taste. Some people swear by their
pulp reprints; others decry the pulps as utter crap. Ellison isn't your cup
of tea, and that's fine, and you've made some interesting points. I read Ellison
because he touches an emotional chord in me, because I like the way he writes,
and because I think he's entertaining. He indulges in hyperbole, true; he can
be ascerbic, yes; but for me, he weaves a hell of a tale. And on matters of
artistic taste - which I argue will always vary from person to person, regardless
of the opinion of the masses - the most we can hope for is to agree to disagree.
--Finder
SUE - We're working on the "off-topic" board option, I'm not happy with
the various WWWBoards out there and we're rolling our own. For now, don't sweat
it - this ain't some moderated newsgroup where you'll get attacked for "OT"
material.
S. - Thanks for coming back with something solid, you surprised me. I admire
someone who is as willing to question their own assumptions as they are those
of others. It looks like you've got a good thread going, so pardon me if I ride
herd on it instead of jumping in with both feet.
I will mention you won't get any argument from me about Ellison's ideas about
great art requiring great effort - I've read enough about different great writers
to know that some write without effort and some sweat over every last word.
I think the same goes for readers - I read Tom Wolfe's latest in a couple of
evenings, yet I've been creeping through the first 100 pages of the Gormenghast
trilogy for the past week. I also think that at a certain point you have to
put aesthetics aside - if you continually are disappointed by a writer's work
there's probably something more at fault than aesthetics.
Thanks for the comments, Finder. It's nice to see that you have a cordial
and magnanimous (that is, friendly) disposition, especially in the wake of my
less-than-amiable first impression, one which, I suspect, still does not sit
well with you [?]
I do not discount the fact that Harlan Ellison gives his writing careful attention
and meticulous review during its production, at least insofar as he understands
the writing process. However, I must argue my contention that Ellison's 'revision',
for all its effort, does not contribute much to the development of a rich, fully-rounded
fiction. I am sure that, as you said, he often 'tweaks his fiction prior to
reprinting, and may even rewrite whole sections (although, from many who know
him personally, I've heard that this is rare.) To me, Ellison's writing is similar
in kind to that moribund trend of modern literary impressionism, or post-modern
fauvism, that became the trademark for boorish, semantic jingoists such as Thomas
Pynchon, William Gass, John Barth and Donald Barthelme during the 60's and 70's.
With such a diffuse style of writing, one which relies upon stream of consciousness,
'experiments' with structure, and an almost patent disregard for depth of character,
what really is there to revise? A few words here and there, to perhaps smooth
a cadence, or make a sentence less arrythmic? Some small show of finesse with
respect to what is the original intention of art.
Should non-fiction and fiction be compared and contrasted by the same set of
rules? Is it de rigueur to make and defer to such claims: of course not, as
long as the writer writes with this understanding in mind. Ellison's fiction
does not stand far enough from his non-fiction to be considered 'different'.
In all of Ellison's fiction there exists a familiar narrative tone that is unmistakably
Ellison 'the man'. It is not so much a style of writing as it is a style of
gut-spilling. The words may be different, the 'characters' may have different
names, but the same sense of frenetic word-crunching is always the same, the
same mask of Dis-Pollyanna (as one Ellison critic called it) is always there.
It is always present, like an obtrusive narrator in a badly written novel. The
reason for this is because Ellison does not pay heed to literary convention
(which is not to say that conventions are the saving grace of good literature.
However, many fine novelists have taken convention and re-invented it: Martin
Amis, for example, has shown time and again how fertile tropes and devices are
for being mined anew.) Ellison's characters are, at best, only half-realized
and cursorily portrayed, in spite of his talk about how 'good' writers convey
the body language and gestures of their characters with considerable flourish.
Sometimes I even think Hemingway's characters had more depth. (I would provide
you with examples, if I were not at work and had recourse to my Ellison library.)
Every time I sit down to read an Ellison story, I do so anticipating an inundation
of comic-bookish dialogue,
snappy single sentence attention grabbers, made in lieu of providing clear transitions,
and a whole host of sententious tap dancing around subjects that require much
more exploration beyond that provided by a happy-go-lucky game of literary artifice.
At bottom, I realize that my argument is an aesthetic one. I am forcing Ellison's
writing through my own criticism of what 'good' writing is and should be. I
am merely stating my 'informed' opinion (what a cow-beaten phrase), and I hope,
Finder, you can find something useful in what I've said-although I doubt you
have. I am interested to know exactly who do you consider Ellison's peers to
be? The answer to that question qualifies every criticism of comparisons that
follows.
S. Namirran
So, if someone wrote something such as "The Cheese Stands Alone" in one sitting,
without revision, they should be considered a 'genius'?
I'm sensing the build up of a massive, enthymeme-induced antinomy. Oh, the horror!
:)
Imagine my surprise when I learned I'd been renamed Peter; not that I mind
- Peter seems to be a very stand-up guy - but it did throw me. If I was suspicious,
I'd believe it to be another haphazard test. Bygones. (I think I also said something
about people not doing research these days...go figure...the self-fulfilling
post...) Anyway, onward- NAMIRRAN: to tackle a couple of your points: "It is
well known that he hardly ever revises his work..." - on the contrary, if you
check his copyright pages, he often tweaks his fiction prior to reprinting.
With regards to essays, reviews, etc., these do remain static to the time they
were written, but HE has proven very good at using his 'Interim Memos' to incorporate
new or changed information on the topic within the essay. Check out "The Day
That I Died" in the Edgeworks edition of Stalking the Nightmare for an example.
Should nonfiction be subject to the same revision concept as fiction? Personally,
I would say no; the two forms are created with different intents, and born of
different parts of the writer - and nonfiction, by its nature, is linked to
the time and circumstance under which it was created. Would a reviewer who,
say, hated "Chinatown" be worth their salt if they went back and revised that
review ten years later when they've discovered its merits? Of course not; most
would simply create a follow-up to say, in essence, 'My viewpoint has changed.'
I don't know that you make a strong enough case for a lack of craft on HE's
part; at what turns does he ignore structure to a greater degree than his peers?
While it's true that his personality is infused with his essays and reviews,
that goes with the territory; there are bits of him in his fiction too, but
can you cite an example of a piece of fiction where his ego, inserted into the
story, actually undermines the progress of the narrative? Going back again to
Stalking The Nightmare, even a tale like "The Hour That Stretches", in which
HE uses himself as a character, unspools cleanly, in part because it uses an
honest (surprisingly honest, some might argue) characterization of how Harlan
Ellison interacts with the world.
This is not to say every word that drips from HE's pen is sheer perfection.
He's written some dogs - and writers will tell you that sometimes, in retrospect,
certain fruit should have been allowed to die on the vine, no matter how ripe
it looked. But overall, his body of fiction is literate, is emotionally compelling,
and has a polish to it that you simply don't toss off the top of your head.
In my opinion, if HE could sit down and have, say, "Paladin of the Lost Hour"
or "Go Towards The Light" or "The Cheese Stands Alone" simply flow unbidden
from his pen, word for word as they have come to exist today, without a single
alteration from his heart and soul to the final pre-publication proofing, then
we shouldn't be calling him a literary artist. We should be calling him a genius.
Finder
Er . . . my comments to "Peter" were meant, of course, for Finder. (What
can I say? I suffer from aphasia and I constantly confuse names. Ha!) Incidentally,
I must confess that I have not read "Pulling Hard Time" yet, though I will do
so as soon as possible; I have yet to encounter a story written by Harlan that
can be aptly described by the word "tight".
S. Namirran
FINDER: Thanks, I'll check it out. ---- SUE: On a related topic, kids who
commit violence because they were "disrespected." Of course, their idea of disrespect
is when you don't step aside and let them pass. How dare you expect to share
the sidewalk! I wonder how different the world would be if people had to specifically
choose when intercourse would result in the birth of a child instead of the
uncounted (and often unwanted) surprises that join us everyday.
I would like to say "Thank you" to all of those who responded to my preceeding post(s). I was anticipating a torrent of enmity and heated dissent to follow, as is usually the case when such an incendiary display of ill-will and unfounded personal attack is conveyed to a literate assemblage. However, much to my surprise, the decorum with which many of you responded has shown me, once again, that, despite the fair-minded opinion that I have of myself, I also possess a monstrous penchant for over-simplifyin