Otto <Ottomaniac@yahoo.com>
- Monday, March 22, 1999 at 18:45:35 (CST)
Otto <Ottomaniac@yahoo.com>
- Monday, March 22, 1999 at 18:45:35 (CST)
DOC: I'm sorry, but you're gonna have to clue me in a little on the "100 years, 100 stars" thing. I am a self-proclaimed amateur film fanatic, but I am currently isolated in THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE, INDIANA, with no resources to the outside world beyond Newsweek and an irate German professor who screams at us regularly for not keeping up with current events.
PETER: Don't worry about it. My roommate has to review papers from a "peer editing group." I have been helping out by reading the group's efforts and advising comments to be written on them, such as, "My roommate's ass could write better than this," "It is just as obvious that you came to school only to play football as it is that you're not intelligent enough to pick a school with a good football team" and, "Don't make me kill you, you narrow-minded religious prick." My efforts are not entirely appreciated.
ALL: Thanks so much for the feedback on Elia Kazan. I was beginning to think I was the only outraged human being in the universe. I should have known better. (Damn, these Harlan Ellison fans are neat people!)
PETER> *ALL* art (or Art) is self-indulgent. It's the self-righteous and/or self-congratulatory back-patting shit that bugs the bejabbers outta me. 'Sokay -- as with acting, anyone who *can* be discouraged from it *should* be. Bah-humbug.
Has anyone noticed me getting meaner and more vociferous about my opinions? The reason I'm asking is because I just got back from my writing class, and I just ripped into the stories that were workshopped. I think I used the phrases "whiny" and "self indulgent" about one of them. Sheesh, between getting my midterm grades, writing stories, critiquing stories, programming in C++, doing homework, attempting a social life, and reading Paul Riddell's essays online, I'm becoming extremely short tempered and easily incensed. I think this is called a slow road to burn out. Still, I'm sorry if I've seemed a little harsh lately. Hopefully, with spring break next week, I'll transform back into my usual, sunny self, and Mr. Hyde will creep back into the shadows, at least until finals.
---Peter
Is he gone? That guy, that... Syzzle-guy?
Phew! Well, I've been out for awhile, but I'm feeling very fresh, now, real good about myself -- and let us never speak of him again.
As for the Kazan thing, I keep thinking about the Nueremberg defense. To think that such terrific pictures could come from a man so small, so mean, frightened and cowardly! It boggles the mind. I also think he was/is a rat. I did not watch the Oscars, haven't done so in years because I have a pretty good idea what to expect -- and what I expect is *not* a postumous Lifetime Achievement Award to the late Mr. Kubrik, whose work has been (with the exception of "The Shining") so stellar.
I have to ask myself why anyone is genuinely surprized about Kazan's award, though. The money men in Hollywood are notoriously conservative, and look at the current political climate -- of course that fink is a hero to the Academy! I don't like it either, but what can one do?
As an (I think) interesting side-track, anyone have an opinion about the AFI's "100 Years, 100 Stars" thing? My own is none too flattering, but I'd love to hear what others (apart from you-know-who) think.
Yours Truly, the Wise Guy From the West (and I hope this doesn't mean I get a house dropped on me...)
I didn't watch one bit of the Oscars. I watched "The Rapture" on the Independent Film Channel.
The next best thing to watching them, however, is reading Camille Paglia's take over at Salon. http://www.salonmagazine.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/03/cov_22featurea.html
Paglia feels the Kazan protest is a PC thing. I disagree. I'm not sure Kazan's movies are so terrific, not after being reminded of the movies in the article Peter recommended. Yes, some great acting to be sure, but really, does Kazan's art transcend his betrayal? Well....., I'm far too ignorant to go into that territory.
Anyway, it's a highbrow gossipy hoot of an article. Watching teevee vicariously through Camille is fun.
*** Peter *** Thanks for the heads up on the Kazan article. I'm still digesting some of it. Quite a bit of info there and a nice source bibliography to boot. I love content. I watched the award to Kazan [hell, it was the only interesting part] and what really hurt was seeing Scorsese and DeNiro give it to him. My Fantasy Snub would have had it presented to him by the cast of "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer." Or Marlon Brando presenting it by videotape while lying naked in a hammock, in between bites of some big old turkey breast. Hey, it's my fantasy.
Nick Nolte, hands folded in his lap was the only touch of class I saw. Was it me, or was that room celebrity Lite?
Hi--I was upset to see that of the four PI transcripts in the "I Write" section the infamous Kazan discussion episode was not included. I was looking for a copy to show a few of my friends and refresh my own memory. Also, Rick, maybe Harlan would allow his Kazan footnote from the Slippage intro to appear in "I Write" so his side of the story could be told to a wider audience. (I'm only asking because I didn't take my ltd. edition to school with me.)
howdy gang. i did watch the oscars, with some family and the coveat (sp) that we all boo elia kazan. to respond to the previous post, it was necessary for some to stand and some to sit to differentiate between who supported the award, and who did not. to me it looked like an even split and i thought it was rather civilized. it wasn't what i would call a standing ovation. i'm glad i didn't miss roberto benigni tiptoeing across the backs of the seats to dance on the stage when life is beautiful won for best foreign film. he was adorable. wish i'd caught his film in the theater. otherwise, it was even more dull and liveless a show than ever. don't think there was any rehersal at all, lighting and direction were weak, and everyone just looked a little ill at ease. flop, to use the technical term. big, fat belly-flop. 'night all. wylie
Well, I made it without watching the Oscars.
I read some of the online news articles. The spineless, soulless, memory-impared drones in the audience apparently gave him a standing ovation. Here's my idea for an even more tasteless encore next year. Have a CG version of the late Pol Pot presenting a lifetime achievement award to the late Dr. Haing S. Ngor. And we could always use a "Hitler did some good things" speech.
One news item did mention that some audience members refused to applaud and named Nick Nolte and Ed Harris among them. Good for them!
And they actually picked a movie I liked for Best Picture. First time since Unforgiven.
I'm sitting here, not watching the oscars, despite the fact that my roommate is. grrrr.
---Peter
Peter: I went to the URL you gave for the article on Kazan. Excellent. Thank you.
Interesting discussion. When I was young, I used to go head to head with my conservative father about the evils of the USA. He would always say, "If you don't like it leave." Well, I would if I could but I can't, so there it is. Gotta deal with it. I actually don't think it's bad. What's so great about this country is that you're allowed to speak out against its evils and you're allowed to work peaceably (and may I add creatively) for change. In the most extreme of circumstances, it might come down to "by any means necessary" but at least one HAS options of dialogue and democratic process. It ain't necessarily so in other places on the globe. I express my patriotism by voting and refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance. That doesn't mean I don't respect the flag. We post the colors on major state holidays. It just means that I'd rather reflect at that moment than speak.
Our constitution gives us those marvelous first amendment rights to free speech, and it has the glorious fifth amendment that guarantees our right to shut up. Isn't that cool?
Anyway, I'm not a major movie freak. I don't watch the Oscars and I maybe go to two movies a year (usually kidstuff for my spawn--Mulan and A Bug's Life were the last two movies I saw in the theater). I do try to keep up on history though. I think that giving a lifetime achievement award to a rat fink is an American tragedy. WHY are they doing this? Is it in some way to prove to the conservative movement in this country that Hollywood is not some kind of liberal, anti-family, pro-democratic, pro-smut cesspool? Wasn't there some other brilliant career they could have chosen to honor?
Barney, I agree wi your comments regarding patriotism 100%.
Patriotism, like religious belief, is inherently neither good nor bad. It simply is.
It is the people who are good and bad and can use such concepts as patriotism or faith to justify their actions. Sometimes that's good - like my dad in Vietnam - he was a hero just as almost every other soldier there was.
But patriotism is also the last refuge of a scoundrel and can be used to justify one's own personal prejudices and evil impuleses.
I believe that is what Tolstoy really meant.
Kazan's a bum and a snitch, patriot or not, and that's all you realy need to know.
***Peter*** Lest anybody think I've suddenly become the resident crank on this list, taking exception at the drop of a hat, let me say that I also didn't expect things to go that way with Syz. This is not a retraction. I called him out on tone and I have no regrets about that. I respect his attempts to raise the bar but William F Buckley himself couldn't have been less inclusive. And y'all are so polite I thought I'd volunteer myself to get in the pissing match. I thought [in a perverse and misguided way] that it might be fun. It was never my intention that he pick up his verbal marbels and stalk off the playground. If only the dynamics of alt.fan.ellison worked that way - I'd pick nits over there every damned day. And he did kick Vonnegut.
***SUE!!!*** OK, so you can bench press whatever I can. Plus a rep or two. Folks, for those who don't know Sue - everything Stephen King said in Danse Macabre about how Harlan is exactly the kind of person you want on your side when your having congestive heart failure on a busy street corner, well, that's Sue in spades. If only the Spartans had you to inspire those whining mercenaries or guard that ill-fated goat path. And from Spartans we go to my rant on patriotism...
While also unable to think of anything nice to say about Kazan or his revisionist apologists I think I'm going to take exception to Chris's last couple of comments. A patriot [from the Greek 'patris' ie. "fatherland" ] is somebody who loves and defends, or is willing to defend their country. Now, while the circumstances under which one might ethically or morally defend their country ought to be examined, the notion that patriotism is an evil thing sort of implies that everybody who ever died defending this country [or any other country] was misguided. I just can't buy that. If the architect of a concentration camp or it's guards and jailers rationalize that they are acting out of patriotism when their true motives are racism and paranoia, well this just corrupts the actual meaning of the word.. I think Tolstoy was right in advocating humanity or 'humanism' OVER patriotism and nationalism but in a world where 'the State" shows no sign of withering away and the alternate to patriotism is apathy or contempt, well then, I'll defend patriotism.
ps. I think one can be a skeptic, a cynic (like Diogenes) and a patriot. I am vast, I contain multitudes. And Hawaiian pizza...
I'm not sure I have a lot to add to the comments on Kazan except to say that I am as sickened as most of you seem to be.
Film is an important part of my life - I consider it a personal passion. I went to film school. I write scripts in my free time though I cannot claim to have seriously pursued film as a vocation.
That said, I will not be watching the Oscars this year. This will be the first time this decade I have not watched the ceremonies. I am boycotting the Oscars because they have chosen to bestow an award on this monster.
I've always been fond of saying "Snitches go to hell." Apparently, I was wrong. They get lifetime achievement awards.
Perhaps in a few years we'll be able to give him the award he truly deserves by visiting his burial site and pissing on his grave. It's what he did to so many whose names he named.
As for those who have rewritten history to claim Kazan was merely a patriot, I offer the words of Leo Tolstoy, who said, "Nationalism and patriotism are sins; sins against humanity and the human spirit."
Patriots interred Japanese-Americans during World War 2.
Patriots slaughtered Jews at Auschwitz and Dachau.
I'll admit to being one of the uninformed masses. When I heard they were giving the lifetime achievement award to Elia Kazan, I said "Who?" . The name had a ring of familiarity but I didn't know why.
This doesn't stop me from being appalled that hollywood would award such an honor on a person involved in the McCarthy scandals. So at least I knew about those.
For me this begs the question... how much history is needed before people feel children have an adequate education? I've heard a lot of the arguments about how education has gone downhill, and I'm sure it's deteriorated in some way. But I'm sure that each generation just can't fathom how "kids these days" didn't know or hadn't heard of some item or issue or act from their own recent history which held significance for them.
So, with the rapid political, social, and technological changes faced in recent years, and with these growing ever speedier, just how much can you cram into 12 years of schooling?
Peg
A pointed, yet poignant article on Kazan can be read on the World Socialist Web Site:
http://wsws.org/articles/1999/feb1999/kaz1-f20.shtml
It does a relatively good job of describing Kazan, the man, the director, the stool pigeon. It includes brief analyses of his movies. And while the author admits to bias, it certain is better reading than those damned congratulatory articles that some papers have been printing. Also, I was wondering what others thought of this article.
---Peter
As a populous, we suffer from ostrich syndrome. We think that if we hide our head in the sand and ignore the bad thing, then the bad thing will go away. Not that individuals such as ourselves don't recognize the evils, both today, and in history, it's just that the corporate entity known as the people has a serious case of the NOT-MEs. Throughout the recent clinton scandals, we saw a lot of elephants stand up and scream that the whole mess was Nixon redux. What most people didn't say was that the whole starr investigation was a repeat of McCarthyism, pure and simple. Starr brought back all of the kafka-esque fears and situations that plagued one of the darkest decades of this century. Only this time, sex, not communism was involved. To honor Kazan for a lifetime of artistic merit is to honor a man whose own willing participation in the communist witch-hunt, allowed him to become a top figure in the very art he tried to destroy. This would be like the Bar association giving starr an award twenty years from now for diligence in the pursuit of justice. Because we are so easy to forget the past, we will forever be doomed to repeat those mistakes which have plagued us. If anything the recent witch-hunts have proved this. Next time it could be something as volatile as sexual proclivity, or it could be something as innocuous as owning a foreign stereo system; whatever the case, we will see another witch-hunt in the near future because we forget our history and that frontier of memory is shrinking every day.
Okay, stepping off the soap-box, my anger is slightly vented. Still, I'd like to find the doctor who has written the prescription for stupid pills that has been given to most of the populous. If you ask most people, they won't know who Kazan is. That's partially understandable, he is not exactly taught in schools. Unfortunately, if you ask those same people, they'll say that McCarthy was the cute Beatle, huac had something to do with the oil crisis, and black lists were a disco craze. Bloody hell.
---Peter
Time now to infuritate the masses. (Like y'all aren't already.) The rewriting of history to portray Kazan as a victim of patriotism makes me wonder how the current occupant of the White House will be portrayed in, oh, twenty years. (Roughly half the time that passed since EK ruined so many lives with his behaviors and actions.) I'd suggest not watching the Oscars in protest of this honor to be bestoyed, but since the Oscars are such a political effort anyway, the better thing might be--
No. That would only put you in the same class as EK. Anyway, I do suggest you go see LIFE IS WONDERFUL. It is wonderful. (He said, grinding his teeth at the fact he just used a reaaaaaally bad cliche.) Until next time. . .
I'm gonna take an unpopular stance and say, I just didn't see it. I certainly felt that Syz was making an honest to goodness effort. And in the end, he proved that he was as vulnerable as the rest of us. I can't condone his behavior at the last, but I can certainly understand it. His feelings about Gardner seem to be on par with our feelings about Ellison. So we managed to finally peel back that armor which he so fervently paraded. We elicited from him, a visceral response to an attack on his own literary hero.
Reading back on the posts, I got a sense that Syz was really trying to hold back. He was making a deliberate effort to tone down his posts, write in simpler language, and curb his natural tendancy toward snobbishness. When he was called on something that made him seem priggish (like when he was first called on the use of the term fichtean) he made an effort to apologize and even asked if he was wrong in his use of the term. It was only after his apology was apparently not accepted that he freaked.
Now, I'm not blaming anyone for what's happened here. But I'm not exactly proud of how we've all behaved. I have a feeling that very few here will agree with me on this one. That's okay. Although I've never been one to broadcast an unpopular view I may hold, I've gotta start sometime.
This is the last I'm going to write on this subject. I want to move on and put this unpleasantness behind us. But should the syzygy one ever decide to come back, I hope we can be a little more understanding, and maybe a little more forgiving.
---Peter (a not so happy camper)
Wow, go away for a couple of weeks and look what all happens!
Hawaii was great - every woman deserves an afternoon at the Grand Wailea Spa, accept no substitutes - and Hong Kong was tons-o-fun, definitely an interesting place which I would love to return to with more time. Did not get to eat nearly enough cuisines in HK, and you can never have enough beach time in Hawaii. Seems like we walked for miles every day.
Call me naive, but I just took Syz's approach as a personal style thing and blew it off afterward to focus on content (that is, once the majority of posts were devoid of the personal insult thing). Reading some of the material from the last 2 weeks, it looks like there was *some* constructive discussion occurring; certainly I was getting an education (heck, I'm lucky if I understand what y'all are talking about even half the time). But I suppose sometimes you just gotta realize when one of the guests is ruining the party for everyone else, intentionally or otherwise. You make your polite request to alter behavior, then eventually just ask 'em to leave. Restrict your interaction to other venues.
I didn't catch the PSI factor or Outer Limits shows. Anyone know when the re-runs are on?
Peg
I agree with all the Kazan comments. Well said, Rick. As HE said, Hitler may have painted roses, but he shouldn't be rewarded for making one or two beautiful paintings, then with the other hand slaughtering millions upon millions of humans. Disgusting. On a lighter note, I found a cookbook of Anne McCaffreys with recipes from SF writers. HE had a coffee receipe and wrote a mini essay about it. I didn't pick it up, but thought it worth mentioning. Also, Gahan Wilson's story from A, DV, which has no title, but is the ink blob, is reprinted in his latest collection out now on TOR. Also, Edgeworks 1 is out in paperback, will all the nifty corrections-especially the one re: THE date, which so irked HE. Charlie
The AP ran a piece about Kazan and the protesters…I found it at
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/078/living/Blacklisted_writers_protest_Kazan_honor+.shtml
And there are people, unfortunately with voices and respectable pulpits, who stand up for the man. The token conservative columnist on the Globe’s staff, Jeff Jacoby, ran an ugly piece on March 8…I’ll try to lay my hands on it…at least, the beginning of it ran:
“KAZAN DESERVES HIS OSCAR AND OUR APPLAUSE FOR BEING ANTICOMMUNIST
Elia Kazan had a choice in 1952: to stand with the communists or to stand against them. He chose to stand against them, and Hollywood’s Stalinists have reviled him ever since.”
Anyone know of plans for organized protest?
I'm steamed about Kazan and I know for a fact Harlan is FURIOUS over it. To me, it just shows how completely ignorant most people are of what really happened with the HUAC and McCarthy. People who are NOT plotting against the government, who were NOT involved in any sort of "Red Menace" -- people who were merely exersizing their right to free thought and speech -- these people were hounded, ruined, disgraced, jailed, and treated as pariahs. And it's folks like Kazan who pointed them out.
I see little difference between Kazan's finger pointing and some bastard who showed the Nazis the hidden trapdoor to the hidey-hole of a family of Jews. The thing that makes it even MORE reprehensible is that Kazan didn't HAVE to name names. Unlike many others who faced unbelievable pressure, Kazan was well-off and well-respected and didn't have to worry about not being able to keep his house or feed his children.
Furthermore, Kazan remains unrepentant and unremorseful. He continues to state that he did the right thing in ruining so many lives. The saddest thing of all is there are people who agree with him. His actions were part of a dark and ugly period in America's history -- it's one thing to give him Oscars for his individual achievements (Oscars he won mainly during the blacklist period), but to reward him for a lifetime of acheivement is to condone his cowardice and selfishness.
Kazan may have done great work and influenced many of today's actors and directors - but his enduring legacy is one of betrayal and pain. In my house we shun monsters, we don't give them pretty gold statues. And if you think that makes me as bad as he is, just remember -- Kazan actually did something to DESERVE my anger.
French? as in Fries, Dressing, and overpriced restaurants? ;-) geez KEEGAN, and you think *you* are under-educated... I still haven't figured out how to spell Wella - but I think I got *moi* down pat, now.. Haven't heard any French Rap, but have been listening to Bongra (from the subcontinent of India).. talk about "different".. but still gets under the skin with those rhythyms and makes the toes tap involuntarily..
MAGGIE! Welcome back! I'm waiting patiently at the Golden Oracle of Gossip, and it looks to be way cool.. Sailors on top of the L'Arc de Triomphe? Always wondered why they called it that.. Boy, the French think of everything, don't they.. Spew, honey, spill it all - make me crazy with envy. :-)
BILL D - been there, done that - sucks, doesn't it? hee hee
Charlie - yeah, I gotta agree with you, Syz is pretty impervious to what other people think or say or feel..
On the Kazan thread - *sigh* - guess it's true they put something in bottled water that eliminates long term memory.. Not sure it's worth the hassle of a cross-country trip, but sure takes the status of that award down several notches..
Off to play with my *new* toy - an Irish Harp Hubby surprised me with on St. Pat's Day.. Really cool, and a big adjustment from guitar.. may take a while before the dogs stop howling along in accompaniment..
Try High - Fly Straight - Drive Safe
Jeez - I only remember enough French to get my face slapped. Oddly, I can make the same claim for Spanish and German. Bad influences all around...Maggie - welcome back. I'm glad you had a good trip. Otto - I spit when I heard Kazan was getting the life achievement award. I don't think it matters how greatly his work advanced the art of film - in my view, it was built on the bones of everyone he ratted out the McCarthy. If I weren't on the other side of the country, I'd be up for a bus trip and protest. The lesson apparently is Hollywood can forgive, but has trouble with apologies...
I'm as far from an expert as you can get on the subject of the french language. So I only know what people tell me. I do believe, however, that the french have a literary tense of their verbs so as to make writing a neater chore than us with our past perfect, future perfect, perfect perfect and not-so-perfect tenses. As I said, I'm just repeating what I've heard. Literature-wise, Voltaire's Candide is one of the most poignant stories I have ever read, and Emil Zola's Germinal is a disturbingly brilliant tragedy.
---Peter
bonjour tout le monde! is that right? high school french is so far from me now the dust has not only settled, it's part of a new galaxy. welcome home, mags :). sue: you are a goddess of clear seeing. i think you nailed the syz syndrome perfectly, esp. with the way he diverted the topics to his pet bits of expertise and "held court." it's actually something i have to watch myself about and i resent it in others. i appreciate older people who have grown out of that fragile shell of trying to appear smarter and more knowledgeable than they are. the thing about those shells is that others can always see in, but the wearer can never see out. call me a cracker, but i just think it smells a lot better around here now. more later--psycho-toddler has finally succumbed to the sand-person (ca pc talk) and it's grown-up time at wylie's place. take care all. wylie
Maggie: Oooh la la! Bienvenue, deja (ooh, would the French have a field day with my poor canuck patois!)! Please do tell! Looking forward to reading you 'round these parts.
On a side note, French IS an interesting language. I ain't no expert, but I have read LE PETIT PRINCE and L'ETRANGER in their original language and my opinion (as the undereducated American swine that I am) is that French literature in French says much more than French literature in translation. More nuance in French, IM (very limited and hardly informed)O. Any francophiles wish to comment?
And hey, man--I'm w/ Bill. If your Spanish is better than your French, go for Spanish. The French will at least give you credit for trying ONE other language than Standard American English (or Canadian, I'm not *exactly* sure where home is for ye, Maggie!). And by all means, don't slaughter French in front of the French.
Un autre sidenote: French rap is very hip. Anybody ever hear any?
As for whoever asked me about that singer: nope. Never heard of her, but now I have. Will hunt it down. CDNow is *my* best friend.....
Love and all best to all!
MAGGIE: Welcome back. Hope you had fun with your sailor. How'd the French take hearing Spanish? I ask because we used to live in Germany and made a trip to Paris. I didn't speak French, knew that "American" wasn't a good choice, so I decided to order in German. Mistake. Big Mistake. BIG BIG MISTAKE. -- Billy D.
Man! A girl goes out of the country for a couple of weeks, and y'all run amok! I was able to read about 3 days worth while I was on the other side of the world, but I will be catching up for WEEKS! The conversations look very interesting though. The bad news is that I was unable to find any HE books in French. The good news is that I was able to find a LOT of SF/Fantasy authors. I almost bought a bunch of them, but stuck to my budget and bought the French Shakespeare and Moliere.
I had many adventures while I was gone (met a sailor on top of L'Arc de Triomphe, flew in on the wings of a hurricane - that would be Cyclone Davina for those you interested in such things - played in the ocean and walked on new earth. Not to mention the completely entertaining fact that my friend and I ate in an Italian restaurant in Paris and placed our order in Spanish!).
Soon as I get caught up on all of the back posts, I will have something a heck of a lot more relevant (I hope) to contribute.
Au revoir!
This is what I see: Syz, for some reason takes this BBS and his own opinions WAAY too seriously. That's probably, much as I can tell why Syz doesn't dig Vonnegut. Vonnegut is kind of irreverent. He points up a lot of weird problems and pecadillos and smirks and says, "So it goes."
So it goes. I don't much care one way or the other and since Syz pretty much ignores me (I sense that I speak in a paradigm with which he is unfamiliar or perhaps feels is "low-brow". I dunno. That's conjecture and remember, I don't much care).
It's too bad he went gun shy on us, 'cause it was showing some promise before. I was sittin' back and thinkin'. I was learnin'. All was cool.
Just a reminder to remember that a lot of us are here for play not work and not a post graduate lit course. We're just here funnin' on topics ostensibly related to one of our favorite writers, Harlan Ellison. Have FUN, folks!
ALL: A review of SLIPPAGE by Donn Jehs can be found at:
http://www.bookwire.com/TBR/Lead-reviews/read.Review$5410
I get a kick out of people when they come in here, antagonize, then placate, then a harmless comment drives them away forever (supposedly). I hardly think that anything Barney said drove ol' Syz. away. I think Syz. was looking for an excuse to leave. Why the big proclamation (I'm outta here)?? Just never post again, or lurk and shurrup. This is happening almost daily on alt.ellison, with all the flamers driving some folks away. My once a year quick rant. Charlie
I think I've realized the source of my naivete. I haven't actually responded to anything Syz has said for quite some time. Maybe my lack of real exposure to his words led me to draw incorrect conclusions. Maybe that attack on him earlier also left me a bit defensive. Who knows. I'll defend anyone who is attacked without apparent provocation (as when that duke dorkus maximus descended on him) I need to learn to curb these blindly altruistic tendancies.
---Peter
Oh well. I had thought that he was trying. Maybe I was wrong. I realized that he hadn't changed his ways completely, but I did see an effort toward civility. As I said, oh well. Who'd of thought? Me being optimistic about someone's character. That's funny. Maybe it just goes to show how much I've actually been paying attention to the posts as of late. I'm usually the person who is quickest to decry the human condition. As I said. Oh well.
...Speaking of lost souls, it's been a while since we've seen Nicole on this board... hmmmm.
---Peter
OK - been thinking about it, in my non-ivory-tower channeled acedemia-speak way, which so clearly indicates a total lack of native intelligence (and therefor merits no respect for the person, or for ideas expressed) - and I gotta say Barney is right.. Syz, makes it no fun. His personal opinions are consistanly expressed as judgements made about the "worth" of PEOPLE he adresses and/or discusses - justified in acedemic techno-speak as warranted and irrefutable absolute truth - a single example of less than perfect literary output "proves" the AUTHOR of what he didn't personally care for is without merit, and therefore incapable of doing anything meritorious in a literary way (though the reverse is never true, if he likes the Author - then there no end of excuses for them).
That's what no one likes - Syz is a cultural bigot. Haven't seen a single post of his yet, where that bigotry did not ooze out between the words, and singe the hairs of my nose.. I have read a novella's worth of posts judging a library's worth of authors as PEOPLE, based on Syz's personal reaction to something they wrote, or did - and the consistant attitude that the ONLY reason for disagreement with his pronouncements is a lack of inteligence, culture, or education (or all of the above - as in my case) inferring incompetance and inability to comprehend any truth (using whatever he thinks is the truth as the only truth, and the standard) - and the occasional kudo's handed out for attaining the wherewithall to elevate oneself to that exalted level of personal perfection required to perceive and affirm one of his pre-established 'truth's' (even if it is only a momentary achievement).
The expectation that being open-minded means you must accept anything said or done without flinching or negative response is a false interpretation. Being open-minded merely means with-holding a response until the message being communicated is clear, and has been assessed in the correct context.
Peter, I haven't seen any change in that bigotry at all. The only concession Syz made was to replace the personal attacks on people "unworthy" to post on the same board he does with a pointed ignoring of anything they said, and flushing any discussion among them unrelated to his "area of expertise" down the cyber-toilet with a flood of posts to re-direct the board into topics where he can hold court. I suppose that could be construed as "cleaning up his act".. On the receiving end it feels more like judged, found worthless, and punished by being 'dismissed', and shoved off the board. "Making room for Syzygy" does not mean I in any way agree with his bigotry - it merely means I accept the reality of bigotry and my inabilty to change bigotry in others, and the 'engaging' of those afflicted with bigotry in a B-Mod sort of way..
You don't have to agree with my assessment of "why" to see that this board has changed from a "people-friendly" fun place to post, alive with inter-acting, distinct, and unique perspectives, into a battleground for ego and expertise since the advent of Syzygy. It really isn't fun any more, just an assault on self-esteem by innuendo, that doesn't "prove" anything except who has the thickest skin, the biggest ego, the best reference library.. I don't see where any of what has gone on rececntly contributes to communication, or to art in general in any of it's manifestations. In fact, I see it as killing the senstitivity required for gaining new insights (critical factor in any art) - in essence killing what made this board special in the first place.
But what the heck - wadda I know - I'm just an biker without portfolio - who reads - and buys books - and tells friends to buy books - whose ultimate revenge is that the books people like me buy and keep and pass on will BE the time-tested classics of the future..
Sorry for the long post
BARNEY *HUG* :-)
***Peter*** DTS is reading me exactly right. Kicking Vonnegut, now that he has one foot in the grave, for not being as bright as say, Douglas Hofstadter is, to my stunted knee jerk way of thinking, about as useful as saying Sue shouldn't participate because I can bench press more than her. Maybe. Vonnegut is an old PR -marketing flack with a background in Journalism. I'd say he ran the literary mile pretty fast with those handicaps.
And kicking Gardner was indeed low. Just like singling out one of Harlan's earlier works and immortalizing [for academia] the thing like a retarded bug stuck in amber was a bit harsh. Like Gardner cares at this point.
Bikers - Why some of my best friends and deadest relatives are bikers. Hi Sue. [nudge nudge wink wink].
Regarding "Cras amet qui numquam amavit quique amavit cras amet". At first I thought it was redundent but after reparsing [?] it, realized it was quite poetic. And good advice, as long as the implication isn't that it would be beyond my capacity. 'Cause, like, it's not, OK dude? For my part, I will respond in an equally dead language, 80's dancespeak -
"Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight."
Don't worry folks. We'll sort this out in Mark Twains heaven, where everybody will be hugging and hugging and hugging and hugging...
I feel like I'm wandering through the ruins of a bombed out building, searching for the spark that lit the fuse. I may be out of it, or not reading too carefully, but I had thought that Syzygy had made a real effort to clean up his act. Sure he got a little high minded sometimes, but he honestly seemed to be trying. I don't know. there is just something about this whole incident that doesn't sit well with me. I just can't place my finger on it.
On a happier note. My college is (hopefully) going to start an MFA program in creative writing. I've heard a rather interesting rumor (from my writing professor who is apparently one of the instigators of this venture) that Ursula K. Le Guin is one of the writers that they've gotten to teach in the new program. I'm gonna have to get my act together writing-wise if I'm to even consider getting into that class.
---Peter
Well GEEZ!! Darned if I know what the heck is going on.. I thought Syzygy *liked* those tasteless dives into flame-wars - he seemed to relish them so.. Then I thought, if Syz was gonna bail, it would be when we did our semi-pro verbal mud-wrestling tournament, and he's still here - so I made room for him.. So NOW he boogies off to parts unknown.. Go figure.. *shrug*
DTS - no offense taken by your remarks. :-) We get the willies every time we see a biker without full protective gear..
BILL: maybe Barney hit a nerve with that remark about Gardner. I get the feeling, from his posts in which he often mentions the guy, that Namirran holds John Gardner (in particular) in high esteem where writers are concerned. (I could be completely wrong, but that was just my first impression after reading the exchange and Namirran's unexpected departure -- after all, as you pointed out, worst things have been said by Namirran AND others). As for myself, I thought the remark about Gardner was kinda funny. Having ridden a motorcycle for a few years when younger (and having often been stupid enough to remove my helmet riding home at night to feel the Gulf coast winds flowing through my hair) and having been lucky enough to be wearing my helmet when fate knocked on my door (I was told my bike and I traveled 254 feet -- damn near made a touchdown), I find it hard to feel sympathy for those who purposely ride a bike without protective gear (it's bad enough that the things offer no protection from vehichles weighing several tons, a person shouldn't ignore the few protective articles available. Gardner was in his forties when he had his accident, sans helmet. No excuse. It reminds me of something the wife tells her husband in "Entropy's Bed At Midnight" (a Simmons novella, available in LOVEDEATH), regarding motorcyles. She says she approves of them because it helps weed out the feebs from the gene pool (Ha!). (By the way, Sue, this is NOT a dig at you and your husband) That's all the news...Out here, DTS.
SYZYGY: On the chance that you sneak a peek back here to check for any post-mortem responses re: your unforeseen early departure: man, like, "I just don't get it, Dude." You must know the tone of your posts can tend toward the acerbic. That's fine. Just be prepared for someone to rub the sandpaper back a bit now and then, maybe even at a coarser grit--or come at you with a belt sander occasionally. But, geesh, Barney's response was mind--and I know you have a hide thicker than a mu shu wrapper to take it. So, you know, like a few others here, I'm not sure what happened. But, of course, this comes from folks with the individual IQs of carrot slices, so maybe we missed something. -- Billy D.
Peter: I have no clue.
I'm going to leave the sorting-out to other, cooler heads, but I do believe that several people acted under the same bitter impulses that produced my "everyone's-just-cattle-anyway" post of last night. Although Syzyzy's departure definitely needs to be discussed, I have too much momentum right now with my pet irritation to talk about anything else.
Okay, y'all may have already known this. But do you know who's getting the lifetime achievement award at the Oscars this year? Elia-fuckin'-Kazan! That's right, the fink! Is anybody else pissed? Pissed enough to help me charter a bus and cruise several thousand miles in order to picket the damn ceremony?
Okay... what just happened?
---Peter
Barney: Oy vey!! Just when I thought I had garnered a welcome seat in the sandbox you had to go and kick sand in my eyes. In the immortal words of every pre-teen American suffering from 'parental domination', I give to you the only phrase that comes to mind, the only phrase suitable enough to meet your insistent nettling: whatevuh dude!! :)
Finder, Peter, DTS, Peg, Rick, Sue, Wylie, Alejandro, Bill and all the rest: It was fun. I learned a lot. However, because I can't deny the fact that my presence is still a continued 'pain' (for some people, anyway), and because I realise that my standing is unredeemable, I've chosen to depart this mortal coil (well, as mortal a coil as hypertext can be) for other caverns to haunt. There's no hard feelings--it's just a drag to be the creature of past hatreds. So, in the interest of all, I'm 'outta here'. Maybe our paths will cross again someday. Who knows? Maybe sooner than later. Until then, however, this is Syzygy Namirran signing off. Good luck, good life, and take care . . . everyone. :)
Gosh, your right. Vonnegut's no bright boy like Gaddis or Pynchon. He probably couldn't lift the pencil cases of either David Foster Wallace or Daniel C. Dennett. We should just take him to a vacant lot and put him out of his misery.
On the other hand, if John Gardner was so smart, how come he got on that motorcycle? Hmmm? I'll just go back to wasting space and sucking up precious oxygen now...
Oh, and just for the record: I think Vonnegut is about as insightful as a spelling-Bee held for super models.
He might be interesting to watch, and everything he says might be slightly amusing (even entertaining), but give him a complex subject to talk about and his words become a maundering drivel of mocking satire, just as stimulating and smoothly contrived as the blank voice of Cindy Crawford. A jerking apparatus of head tilts, smiles and batting eye-lids.
Barney: If you choose to interpret a single-sentence, paranthetical aside as the definitive voicing of an assertion or an "effort to become the 600 pound gorilla in the corner sitting on all the good books [in which] you somehow manage to SUCK ALL THE FUN out of the room!!!!", then far be it from me to try and dissuade you. As much as you'd like to charge me with careless name-dropping (or word vomiting), you might want to take stock of the fact that Song of Kali is, in fact, a 'perfect fit' for the Fichtean drama curve. I merely thought that those who were studying creative writing might like to know that. I'm sorry if that offended you and sparked your personal obligation to stomp on me.
In the future, I'll simply refrain from clarifying my opinions. After all, if I'm just going to be ridiculed for it, what's the point, right?
"Cras amet qui numquam amavit quique amavit cras amet"
***DTS*** or he could just read "Phases Of Gravity". No sequel/prequel/diptych/tryptich/lindatriptych thingee going on there.
***Syzygy*** Vonnegut used to do a marvelous deconstruction of Fichtean literary curve theory [and some others] by proving that Shakespeare couldn't plot and had no literary merit. Of course, some Irish writers might agree but that's not the point.
Proving Shakespeare talentless with a grease pencil graph and a overhead projector is some funny shit, man. I think the reason some of us winced at the term is because, in your effort to become the 600 pound gorilla in the corner sitting on all the good books you somehow manage to SUCK ALL THE FUN out of the room!!!! [channelling Kinnison again]. When I think of all the stuff I enjoy that would not withstand the harsh withering light of post-modern/[panic theory also] lit crit it just depresses me. Pining away for Vidal and Mailer in PA...
KEEGAN: Have you heard the music/singing of an an artist called Anggun, and (if so) what do you think? I caught her on a late-night music program (on some cable channel) and thought she was so good I bought her CD -- "Snow on the Sahara." Anyway, just interested in your opinion since you are well-versed in music and singing (pun intended). Out here, DTS.
All- HE writes the preface to a SF anthology called "Dreaming Down Under", however, as the title suggests, it's only out in Australia. Try those import dealers for a copy. Charlie
ALEX: I feel the same way about sequels and such. Hate to pick up a book and find I needed more information from the one published prior to it. Which is why you are WRONG about Simmons' novels. You can read HYPERION and THE FALL OF HYPERION seperately if you choose, and still enjoy them (there is enough "back story" in the latter to clear things up). (Actually, the two were supposed to be one long novel, THE HYPERION CANTOS, but publishers were afraid no one would buy it, so Simmons had to break it in half). And his following novels in the same "universe," ENDYMION and THE RISE OF ENDYMION (once again, two books that are essentially one novel), are set three hundred plus years after the others and deal with entirely different characters (with "cameos" by two from the "Hyperion" books, but that doesn't necessitate the reading of those novels). And Simmons even wrote one last novella set in that "universe," "Orphans of the Helix," which also takes place hundreds of years after the events in all the novels -- after all the main characters in each of the books is dead). If you like SF, Alex, you're doing yourself a disservice by NOT reading Simmons stuff. From the "Rosetta Stone" structure of HYPERION (which makes the perfect primer for anyone just introducing him or herself to SF -- it's structured along the lines of THE CANTERBURY TALES) and the meta-fictional touches therein, to the action-packed pacing in THE FALL OF HYPERION and ENDYMION, and the tragi-comedy story structure of THE RISE OF ENDYMION. Not to mention all of the various subtexts and themes running through the novel (the poems of John Keats, mankinds inhumanity to man, our hubris in defiling nature and other cultures for the sake of progress, the inherently evil nature of politics and how it corrupts religious organizations as well as societal, technology VS. humanity, the necessity of radical evolution, religious beliefs and their importance -- or lack thereof -- in human society, the poetry of T.S. Eliot, and dozens of other things I'm not mentioning). Reading those novels has been one of my richest experiences in all the SF reading I've ever done between the ages of 8 and 38. As for Simmons' other books -- there are no sequels involved! (the "Elm Haven Triptych" he wrote involves separate novels with characters that all came from the same small town, and who knew each other as children). All I can say is that if you continue to avoid Simmons for all the wrong reasons in your post, it's your own loss. Cause you're missing out on some of the best writing and story-telling to be had in the latter half of our dying century. Out here, DTS.
As for Simmons, I hate to say this, but even taking into account how much I respect him for his short stories, I've never read any of the man's novels.
Why is that?
Because I hate, hate, HATE sequels. The only sequels I can think of that I've read are the Hitchhiker's Guide books, McCaffrey's Pern saga--and the Big SF sequels--Foundation and Clarke's Sentinel, 2001, 2010, and 2061 (no, I've not read the latest in that numeric scale).
Now, _series_--and interconnected books--are an entirely different manner. Heinlein's Lazarus Long books, Robinson's Callahan's Place series, Leiber's Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser--and his Big Time novel and the related storiesKinky Friedman's autobiographical mysteries--Robert Anton Wilson's Illuminatus books, John D. MacDonald's Travis McGee, Laumer's Retief, Gregory McDonald's Fletch and Flynn, Westlake's Dortmunder, Block's Scudder and Bernie Rhodenbarr tales, all of Asimov's Robot stories and novels, Martin Cruz Smith's Arkady Renko books, Joe Gores' DKA mysteries, Philip Roth's introspective Zimmerman novels, Walter Moseley's Easy Rawlins mysteries, Hammett's Continental Op, Thin Man, and Sam Spade books, Updike's Rabbit, Chandler's Marlowe noirfests, and tens of other series I follow.
I don't want to get into a book to find that I should have read all twelve books preceding it to feel I truly know what's going on. It's for this reason I decline to read certain books by writers as good as Zelazny, Moorcock, Simmons, Tolkien, Gerrold, Lawrence Watt-Evans, and others, simply because I see them as having been struck by sequelitis. The books may be great, yes--but I won't read them until I have all the books in hand.
Two odd things, though--I like Harlan's Kyben tales, and they'd seem to fit my predjudices for interconnected tales, but I donb't warm toi them as much as I do to what I consider his "real" work. Also, I'm a comic book aficionado--and a monthly series would seem the acme of sequelitis. I dunno; I just reads 'em.
I know sequels are the way to go, financially speaking, but I just can't buy into that.
My book won't have a sequel.
Still, it's nice to see writers who DO write sequels making them stand-alone projects, as my newsgroup and e-mail friend W. T. Quick did. Bill really made his trilogy, Dreams of Gods and Men, Dreams of Flesh and Sand, and Singularities books that could stand on their own.
So. Having rambled on in TWO messages, let me now stop to ask: Anyone feel the same way (or the opposit) as I?
CHARLIE: Well, the papervack copy I have here (Berkeley, 1980) says nothing about the movie, but I also have seen a copy at a used bookstore (copyright '82, I think), which trumpets in bold type over the top, "Now a Costa-Gavras film!" Knowing that the film would have been shot from Harlan's script, and knowing how good Costa-Gavras was at directing political films, you can begin to get an idea how upset I am by this. Say, does anyone happen to know who was being kicked around in preproduction for the lead role? It'd be interesting.
To my mind, there are only two screenwriters who could ever have done this work justice--one is, of course, Harlan; the other, sadly, is no longer with us--Paddy Chayefsky.
PASSIM: I just realized--I never would have picked up Spinrad's work (I now have about five or six of his books) were it not for Harlan and the fact that he wrote the screenplay for Bug Jack Barron. I'm thinking of all the writers I was hipped to by other writers--Spinrad, Wilhelm, Borges, Mario Vargas Llosa, Kersh, and a few others by Harlan, Dan Simmons, not by HE, but by Stephen King. More on Simmons later. John D. MacDonald and Alfred Bester by Spider Robinson (who also got me into Lord Buckley), Joe Gores by Dashiell Hammett (or rather, I saw the movie of _Hammett_ and had to read the book, which led to his others), Donald E. Westlake by Lawrence Block--and I better stop now before I fill the board. In the interests of readability, I'll continue my thoughts on Simmons later.
Oh, dear. I guess that roundfiles the Idea *I* had. But, in case you're curious, feel free send me an e-mail to the above e-mail address, putting in the subject header "ATTN: shameless commerce department" and I will let you know this demented pot of stew has in mind. Until next time. . .
Umm - when was that Golden Era of exquisite literary refinement among the majority of the human race?? I missed it... If the majority of our species can even read, that is a new development. So what exactly are we bemoaning the loss of? There has always been a plethora of 'great' works - that faded with the small groups who proclaimed them 'great'... It has always been the majority of a minority who preserved literary works long enough to become time-tested Classic Literature (and sometimes, just plain dumb luck they were found by archeologists). Lets stop with the "Audience-Bashing".. And be thankful for all those illiterates of the past, whose search for entertainment preserved the "Classics" of theater, dance, music, sculpture, painting, architecture, oral history (much of which is poetry), and all those other things that didn't require literacy to "get into".. Geez, guys - *YOU* are that great faceless, nameless, "mass of consumers" for the creators of most of the art forms you indulge.. Lighten up, before you hurt yourselves.
You know, the suggestions so far on how to promote deserving authors have been hoots, (personally, I'm all for a nationwide coup and putting a different author in charge of the country every week -- read his/her books or be charged as a traitor) but the problem with any method a crowd with this much brain power comes up with is that it'll work.
Yeah, you heard me. We could probably come up with even a reasonable and practical way to do it. (The gladiators are nifty, though.) But I really don't see a way to do it that wouldn't involve fighting on the terms of the people we want to bring this stuff to -- people who are happy sticking with Danielle Steele and her ilk. These would, necessarily, be attempts aimed at sensationalism and "cool" value, as opposed to any campaign carried on at an intellectual level.
Even if we won, if we got Neil Gaiman and Ursula K. Le Guin in the hands of the majority of the US population, it would have been through the wrong methods, even if it was for the right reasons. We would be encouraging the current shallow nature of the majority by giving them an extra-special treat at the end of the Pavlovian trail we set for them. This I find abhorrent. If they want it, let 'em find it.
Rick- Read in Locus that HE sued Ackerman for sending harassing faxes. What's the scoop? Has he stopped?
where can i get harlan on video?
is he on tv any more?
Jim - Two words: "Literary Gladiators". Two writers, quarterstaffs, broadswords, shields, maybe a little speed-typing for good measure. Winner gets to read a passage from their work and a thirty-second television spot with a toll-free number to peddle their wares from (no COD's, please) while the loser has to read from Danielle Steele and gets their work deconstructed by over-eager lit majors. Three wins gets you a prime guest spot on Rosie O'Donnell to talk about your craft. If that can't raise the public's love of the written word, well, I'm stymied...Syzygy - Comment was meant as gentle sarcasm and nothing more. I'm in a mood - or is it a mode? Finder a la mode? Alrighty, then...Charlie - Good book. I've never seen HE's screenplay adaptation, even on the secondary market (where I once saw a photocopy of his typewritten manuscript for "I, Robot", leaked from the studio I presume), but I imagine it's an interesting read, and would be almost topical again, given the current preoccupation with talk shows these days...Peter - Your imagery gets downright creepy around midterms and finals; this isn't a criticisim - rather, there's something horrifyingly effective about the notion of writers with their contracts carved into their hands so the terms of their enslavement will always be evident. Interesting jumping off point for a piece of spec lit, if you ask me...Oy, look at the clock on the wall - time for bed...Finder
While I'm a little more sane... (that midterm was horrrrrrible, with rolled r's)
There isn't any way to push a writer worth his weight in coal onto the populous without relinquishing control of him/her to the marketing daemons who run the media. People today won't read a book unless it has been blessed by those daemons in a satanic ritual of goats blood and oreo cookies.
Writing is the last remnant of pre-industrial society, the cottage industry. (I have this horrible image in my head of fiction writers sitting in cubicles at a large publishing house working on the latest in corporately sanctioned literature.) Who in their right mind is going to spend four to twelve hours reading a book when they can rent a video and watch it in an hour and a half? (I'm obviously not in my right mind, but I'm trying to show how society seems to want to operate)
But seeing as how most readers of fiction aren't in their right mind, the only way to get people to read a specific writer is word of mouth. Kind of like what we did here. Everyone has learned of at least five new writers on this board. People they've never heard of. People they never would have considered reading. People whose books they would probably pass over at their local Barnes and Nobles while they scouted for the latest Anne Rice. (I have nothing against Anne Rice, I'm just using her as an example of a popular writer) And if you work in a book store? Better still. Recommend writers to people. Someone buys a collection of Raymond Carver short stories, then recommend Hemingway. If someone picks up the latest Clive Barker, recommend Simmons. If someone picks up the Lewinsky book. Shoot that person on sight and throw the book in the recycle bin. Honestly, advertisement for most writers has to be a grass roots movement, instigated by the fans, an perpetuated by the acceptance of a writer's work as good. Otherwise the daemons will be waiting to smear twinkie filling all over the writer's body before carving a contract for the writer's soul on the back of his hand so that he knows what he owes whenever he sits down to write.
---Peter
We have wandered far from my original point,which was this:How to get more coverage, more play, more push for writers (not 'authors' like the wretched sort who cobbled up the nonsense Monica dear is quick to take credit for). Short of dressing the likes of Harlan Ellison up like Barney the Dinosaur or 'discovering' he was, in a previous life, a space alien of some manner, I'll be &$%#! to the People's Republic of Boulder and back when it comes to ideas on how to do this. So I am open to any suggestions, thoughts, opinions, whatever. Maybe a lottery? Buy ten thousand copies of Harlan's Ellison latest literary volcano and get to watch him attempt to eat Malt-O-Meal with tomato juice while listening to John Tesch? Maybe something like: Buy Harlan's latest and get to join in the fun as he flogs Regis and Kathie Lee with a rolled up copy of People magazine? As perverse as that may sound to the blue-haired, blue-noses it might just work. But. . .it's just a thought.
Until next time. . .
My find at this weekend's book show was a 1st edition of Spinrad's "Bug Jack Barron" w/dj in fine condition for $30. Yeah, I was smiling. I remember reading that HE did a screenplay based on the book. Was the screenplay ever released? Charlie
Finder: Well said. The fact that Monica Lewinsky can sell more copies of her illiterate trash tale than any number of well-written books---in one day, most likely---is enough to make one want to slash their wrists the long way. Well, those who 'know better' anyway. It's an annoyance and a hallmark significant enough to make one believe that we truly are living out the future history of a 'new dark ages'.
Sorry for the technical terminology. I certainly didn't mean to sound boorishly pedantic. I thought that it might clarify what I was saying, at least for those familiar with the notion of plot profluence. If I used it in an inappropriate context, let me know. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or abrasive. (I thought that the Fichtean--as opposed to the Aristotalian--ideology about drama was a commonplace with students of creative writing. Writers such as Alexander Pirov, John Gardner and Harriet Bouren often use this same ideology in their instruction.) Oh well . . .
Jim - There is media coverage - unfortunately, it's either in the slick pop-culture press (a USA Today or Entertainment Weekly), which doesn't normally stray far from the popular mainstream, or specialized press, such as the book section of any one of a number of Sunday papers or periodicals aimed specifically at the book-buying public. I'm firmly convinced that most people who read the Washington Post don't even bother with the Sunday Book Review section, given the crap that's selling. (Ironically, reading that section is how I got to meet HE the first time, but that's another story for another snowy day.) Steve's point is very valid: the vast majority of occasional readers are clueless. I think it's compounded by the entire system: publishers who throw gobs of money at a Grisham or a Clancy, and then throw more behind promoting their work in every medium, while leaving fifty other authors twisting in the wind (if not for Webderland, I doubt I'd know when new Ellison was imminent); bookstore chains that, in turn, push the latest "blockbuster" but let lesser-known quality authors languish (for which I think Steven makes a very good point: any visibility outside the norm elevates the book above every other thing on the shelf...that's how I found W.P. Kinsella; people are more likely to read something recommended to them, by friend or by a bookstore staff, than to buy it cold); and the readers, many of whom are loathe to expand their horizons beyond the two or three people they read regularly. How can the system be fixed? I don't know that it can. As a society, we're no longer braced and paced for reading - it's all go go go, flash and glitz and Andy Warhol's fifteen minutes. I read because I was encouraged to at an early age (it's said I cried when I came home from my first day of pre-school and they hadn't taught me how to read big-kids books - I'm treating this as apocryphal, as I don't remember); but I wonder how many parents these days are reading to their kids, or encouraging them to shut of the Nintendo in favor of Mark Twain and Jules Verne. Have we come to the point where celebrity endorsement will make or break an author's financial success? Do they need to find an Oprah or a Don Imus to give them a presence in the media? Or corporate sponsorship? I shudder at the thought - 'Harlan Ellison...brought to you by Kelloggs'... I think it probably comes down to what the author wants out of his or her writing - be it the tenuous nature of their name on the bestseller list and a seven-figure advance, or to find a cadre of attentive readers and publish with whoever is going to give the work the best treatment. As for us readers? I guess we just have to keep recommending what's worthwhile, subverting friends and family whenever possible. I'm not above passing along my copy of something (within reason) for someone else to discover it. Syzygy - the Fichtean dramatic curve? Oh, sure, throw in technical terms.
Chris: As far as 'atmospherics' is concerned, nothing (in my opinion) matches up to T.E.D. Klein's 'The Ceremonies' and the short story collection, 'Dark Gods'. Also, anything written by Thomas Ligotti--specifically Grimscribe, Songs of a Dead Dreamer and Noctuary--is fraught with an atmospheric 'sense of place' and an ambiant, almost palpable feeling of moving through the course of a wayward dream. Of course, both of these fine writers are paying homage to people like Lovecraft, Leiber, Derleth and Machen . . . Straub is a remarkable descriptive writer, and shows an immense talent with refining imagery (as in "A Short Guide to the City", a story which is quinessentially 'atmospheric'. I also like the Gabrial Garcia Marquez "tie-in", whether intentional or not. "A Very Old Man With Enormous Wings" is a Garcia Marquez classic . . . and, also, superbly 'atmospheric'.)
Song of Kali is much more than a punch-line purveying plot device; it is also much more than a traditional atmospheric tale of the macabre. In my opinion, to label it with either of these descriptions is to simplify it for the sake of argument.
The most striking thing about Song of Kali, to me, is the literary 'balance' that it displays. Granted, there are a few empty spaces in the plot, and some of the characters can seem contrived at times. But, when looked at critically, one has to appreciate the delicate flourishes that Simmons creates in evoking the secret world of Calcutta. Simmons writes with a competancy and lyrical simplicity that is uncommon in the 'horror field'. Not only are we witness to the bewilderment (and vengeful rage) of the protagonist, we are also witness to the injustices of an environment who's government is a failure, a place where people die by the hundreds each night in the muck and squalor of poverty. As remarked, the 'build up' of the book is similar in kind to that of a short story (if we are to follow the Fichtean dramatic curve). But one has to keep in mind that the book is also extremely short, a novellette really. (To compare it to Ghost Story, an expansive, discursive narrative incorporating many sub-plots, is a bit unfair in my opinion. Also, the 'build up' in Ghost Story is, to me, decidedly conventional, almost overt in its familiarity.)
As previously mentioned, Song of Kali is a book about terror(s): terror of the so-called modern world, terror of death in anonymity, terror of an environment without recognizable law or safety nets. In addition to the terror it evokes, Song of Kali also incites a sense of astonishment in the reader---the astonishment felt at the possibility of such things being true.
Anyone who knows the literary history regarding Song of Kali will tell you that 'most' (if not all) of the harrowing detail written about Calcutta is 'true', and accounts for the reason why Dan Simmons has been publicly reprimanded by its citizenry, admonished by its government officials, and threatened with litigation by the leaders of that notorious city. It also account for why, in numerous interviews, he states that he will never write about India again. For me, that is much more sinister than (the imagined) mythos of mutilated cows or vignettes shared between aging septogenarians reviewing a troubled past. Maybe it's just me. I don't know.
DOH! I meant DTS! But my brain saw the first person he was talking to... Can everyone say "studying for midterm in circuit analysis which happens to be scheduled for seven AM on a monday morning?" Sorry about the mixup, but I think my brain is seriously fried (wait until after the midterm though) Heck, even typing this is an ordeal.
--- Peetr... I mean petre... Or is it Peret? Aww, nevermind.
*** Peter *** I wasn't the one reading Dante. Being neither a christian nor a numerologist my opinion on the subject would be somewhat lacking in critical insight. Now "Infante's Inferno" I can endorse. Today I hope to knock off G.B. Shaw's "The Perfect Wagnerite" and "A Cool Million" by Nathanael West.
***Rick*** I have to confess, my showtime connection went out drinking without setting his VCR timer [can you say carbomb, Kenny?] and the Psi-Factor either didn't air around here or wasn't listed in my Channel Choices so this week I am shamefacedly Ellison Lite. If anybody can hook me up I'll give them some Snyder or Sci-Fi buzz or something. I did like the story in Partners in Wonder and really enjoyed the Dove audio version but as I recall I was water-sealing a basement with an industrial version of Lok-tite and the fumes would have made "Princess Daisy" sound profound [poet don't know it]. I did think the text piece by A.E. Van Vogt was either one of the funniest or one of the scariest pieces I have ever read. Some people, it's better if we don't know what they really think. Gotta go shovel.
Barney::: is that translation of Dante any good? I keep getting these dry, torturous, academic translations fobbed off on me, so I never give Dante the attention his work deserves. The imagery is wonderful, but it loses its power when the translation is bad.
---Peter
keegan - Woody Allen wrote some great short humor early in his career. Read 'Side Effects' and 'Without Feathers' for more, including some literate homages to Raymond Chandler, and the oft-anthologized 'Kugelmass Episode'. BTW, the Amazing Grace / Gilligan connection cracked me up!
Mitch
BARNEY: I understand your chagrin (I've done the "spoiler" thing myself, once). Glad to hear that you enjoyed KALI as much as I. RICK: Forgot to tape Outer Limits (damnit), so I'll have to catch the rerun. CHRIS: I still think you should try CARRION COMFORT or SUMMER OF NIGHT. (currently reading DANTE'S INFERNO -- RObert Pinsky translation-- CRYPTOMNOMICON, THE 100 BEST AMERICAN SHORT STORIES OF THE CENTURY, MR. X by PEter STraub, THE GIRL WHO LOVED TOM GORDON and THE GIRL'S GUIDE TO HUNTING AND FISHING... Oh, yeah, and SHELL GAME). Recently read and highly recommended: THE CROOK FACTORY by Dan Simmons, LIBERTY FALLING by Nevada Barr, HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER'S STONE, and BEAST OF THE HEARTLAND by Lucius Shepard (just reread that last, another nearly perfect collection of stories by one of the best short story craftsman in America -- his other collections, for those who are interested, are THE JAGUAR HUNTER and THE ENDS OF THE EARTH...his novels and British publications are probably available through Bibliofind or somesuch). Out here, DTS.
Unfortunately, as evidenced by my previous post, I read the story after I saw the show. My first impression is that the story is much better. Some of the changes to the show I liked. I liked how some of the exposition was transplaneted into dialog. I thought that it made a good translation. (actually some of the dialog was directly taken from bits of the narrator's exposition.) I didn't think the nudity was completely necessary (hey, I have absolutely nothing against seeing a little naked female flesh, its just that I thought it could have been done a little more tastefully. Only, the network has a reputation for being SHOWtime.) and the ending seemed to lose a little of the wonder that the story had and was way too wordy. Also, the use of the scrap of magazine was way too obvious and dumbed the story down considerably. There were several other ways, including what is actually in the story, to have done that. On the whole I'd say it is a fairly loyal adaptation where not all of the changes work. At least for me. The effects were nice, the acting was halfway decent (McDowell was good, but he's done better), and the ending left a saccharine taste in my mouth.
---Peter(a brief impression. For my next impression...)
Hey gang - just got off the horn with Harlan (if you read the alt.fan newsgroup you'll learn this was probably so I could "brag to him about defending him" or some rot) and he was interested in feedback on THE HUMAN OPERATORS episode of Outer Limits on SHOWTIME this weekend. I'm posting on the newsgroup, but figured I might get a better (and more enlightened) response here. What did you guys think? Was the adaptation good? Was it true to the original story?
Also, if anyone keeps trying to fax HE and is having problems, please e-mail me -- his fax machine has been going nuts lately and he'd much rather just talk to whoever needs to contact him.
***DTS*** Moby Dick has a crazy guy trying to catch a whale? Now that I know what it's about, I'll never read it! Removing tongue from cheek - sorry about the spoiler. I got stuck on countering Chris without mentioning that little plot point and I'm afraid I took the easy way out. I am wrapping my virtual knuckles with a virtual ruler even as I type.
The other horrifying aspect of that book [to me] is that I seem to recall the finale was not an original idea of Simmons, but rather, something that had actually been done in real life.
And while Simmons gives it up for Poppy Z. Brite I think he's still got her beat. But she's young.
[currently reading "Shadows" by Osvaldo Soriano and "The Fratricides" by Nikos Kazantzakis]
Thanks for an interesting discussion. It's nice to be able to talk to folks with similar reading interests.
I guess the difference in Song of Kali is whether you found the description of Calcutta compelling or not. I didn't. I don't think Simmons did much to make it come to life for me or to make it even the slightest bit disturbing.
As an atmospheric piece, I don't think it matches up with something like _Ghost Story_ to use my previous example.
It is possible the book would have more effect on me if I had a child but I don't think that's a central issue. To me, the book was a one-trick pony with a long setup for what was supposed to be a killer punchline. That can work in a short story but not in a novel, IMHO.
This was one HE recommendation I didn't dig. But later I read some effusive praise from HE regarding Stephen King's _The Green Mile_ and I agree completely. That's one of the most horrifying books I've ever read.
-chris
CHRIS: One last thing. Can't speak for the women, but as a man, I was even more "horrified" by the "dead baby" development AFTER I became a father (I read the book when I was single and childless, and after I was married and had a kid). I think that development is horrifying in and of itself, but having a child lends it even more emotional depth (for the reader). I know this is likely to be attacked as simplistic thinking, but, on the whole, I've found that people who aren't parents are less likely to be affected by events involving children (whether the events are fictional or not). (Of course, there is a whole groupl of the male gender out there who never quite grow out of the ME stage in thier lives, which are not affected by anything outside of their personal circles, but we'll exclude them when talking about those of us who fall into fairly normal parameters). Just wanted to add that thought. (You may fire when ready Grisley). Out here, DTS.
CHRIS: Having read SONG OF KALI and then perused your summation, I gotta say that you are the kind of reader who would sum up MOBY DICK as this book about a guy who's crazy and only wants to catch this big white whale. (If I'm hitting below the belt, it's because your encapsulation of Simmons' book was on par with something like that). SONG OF KALI is about the unending circle of violence which has gripped humankind since we first formed tribes and started agriculturual communities (for another, more plot driven take on that theme -- and half-a-dozen other themes -- check out CARRION COMFORT). And Simmons' ending, which refuses to bow to pro forma expectations, is absolutely perfect. Yes, there is a dead baby and smuggling involved (by the way, and this goes for others as well, it's definitely NOT a nice thing to throw out "spoilers" about book plots when dicussing them -- out of consideration for those who might not have read the book yet), and yes the plot is not horribly complicated. But it dosesn't have to be. Simmons evokes dread by painting an accurate picture of Calcutta, arguably one of the most disease-ridden and crime infested BIG cities in the third world. Calcutta, as evoked by Simmons, becomes another major character in the novel. I know when I visit the place I never shake many of the images he conjured up. And by conjuring those images, Simmons created a novel of sheer terror -- not horror. There IS a difference. Novels of terror and suspense go more for mood and psychological twists. Horror involves physical acts. Anyway, the point is that SONG OF KALI is not as simplistic as you describe it, leading me to believe that you are not its intended audience (a few of Simmons' books, like that one, and THE HOLLOW MAN, and PHASES OF GRAVITY) are not for audiences seeking mostly plot. Perhaps you would do better to pick up CARRION COMFORT which deals with modern-day violence (and I like the fictional explanation Simmons comes up with to explaine all the random violence in our society)plus "class wars" in society. It's the first Simmons novel that I read. After that, I was able to read SONG OF KALI and all the HYPERION/ENDYMION books with more appreciation for the subtexts and themes. Also, for more straight-forward, supernatural horror, check out SUMMER OF NIGHT (which, along with CHILDREN OF THE NIGHT -- a horror-thriller with a "medical" explanation for vampires -- and FIRES OF EDEN -- an historical/horror novel laced with comedy -- is part of Simmons' "Elmhaven triptych"). Then again, maybe Simmons just isn't your cup of tea. Out here, DTS.
Barney: Thanks for the response. I guess the answer is no, I don't find that horrifying, at least not in and of itself. I felt like Simmons was just so convinced that the basic idea he had was so darn scary, he didn't bother to do anything else with the book.
I mean, murder is a horrifying thing but if I watch a brainless slasher flick, the murders don't exactly pierce me to the core of my being. A movie like _Seven_ can give me nightmares. A movie like _Friday the 13th_ has no lasting impact on me.
I guess I didn't feel there was any buildup. The dead baby was the entire purpose of the book. Nothing else happened. It's just "Hey, we're in this city, geez it stinks here. Damn, they killed our baby. The End."
Compare that to something like Peter Straub's _Ghost Story_ where there is no single event nearly as nasty yet, IMHO, the book is vastly more terrifying due to the incredibley subtle, yet tense buildup.
Better yet, take what I consider possibly the most perfect work in the English language, _Jeffty Is Five_. That story has left a deep impact on me but it's not really because of what Jeffty's mom does at the end. Far more horrifying is the way they treat Jeffty and the way the world winds up destroying Jeffty before his mom simply finishes things off.
In other words, I felt that "dead baby" was the entire raison d'etre for Song of Kali. And, to me, that just doesn't make for a scary story.
-chris
***Chris*** If transporting contraband inside stolen dead babies isn't a little horrifying to you, well... I dunno. I did think "Carrion Comfort" was too long for it's ultimate effect but what the hell.
Wait a minute - hollowed out dead babies and the worst public health conditions in the world don't creep you out. Damn homey, you must see some scary shit. Don't bother with Shirley Jackson. Public stoning and multi-generational poisoning probably won't float your boat either.
What scares me? Regency romance readers and ceramic dinner bell collectors. Brrrrrrrrrrrrr.
"The first thing you notice about Hell is how many poodles there are." - Matt Groening
On an odd note-- I watched The Human Operators last night, never having read the story. So today, I go to a used book store that I hadn't been to in about four months, and I find a paperback edition of Partners in Wonder along with a paperback Dangerous Visions. Just one of those strange universal coincidences that make things interesting.
---Peter
I hope it's not sacrilege but I have to admit I just don't get Dan Simmons' popularity among the HE crowd. I had Song of Kali recommended to me so many times,including by HE himself in print, that I naturally read it. I finished it and just thought "Yeah, and...?" I cannot see any point to the book or what was supposed to be so horrifying about it. It was just, well, boring. What was so frightening about the book?
I've found myself generally not liking too much of what HE himself seems to recommend, esp in the world of films. If I ever meet him, I will have to exert every effort to not discuss film because he would undoubtedly thrash me royally.
And yet I consider HE the finest writer I have ever read. Strange.
Jim: As far as getting authors more coverage, it seems nigh impossible. Unless they want to sink to a certain level and have Oprah endorse their book (and I doubt Oprah would put her stamp on people like Harlan or Dan Simmons). I work at a chain bookstore, and it seems that whatever you really push at people will sell at least decently. My staff reccomendation last month was Angry Candy, and about six copies sold, compared to a total of one copy all of last year. If the publisher sets up a display for the writer, then they sell more books because people will buy it on impulse. Also, the front end racks in our store are rented by publishers. I'm not allowed to put whatever I want there, which leads me to believe that publishers pay to get certain books placed there. It all seems to boil down to advertising and visibility. Most people who come into the store don't even know the names of the books or authors that they want. "Do you have that Henry Smith and the Wizards?" "You mean, Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone?" "Yeah, that's it." They've heard about it in the paper, or on the radio, it's a big seller, everyone's reading it, Oprah blessed it, they gotta have it. At least half of the people looking for Oprah books think that she is the author, or they don't care enough to even know what book it is. They just need Oprah's new book, as if she wrote it and owns the rights to it. Sometimes I wonder what people would do if Oprah picked something like Greg Egan's Diaspora. I bet they'd swallow it and say they loved it, or have a stroke. Diaspora, by the way, was mind-blowing, fo those who have not yet discovered the most original SF novel I've ever read (I haven't read too widely). But back to the topic at hand; maybe being a big seller is not the most desirable thing for posterity. Certainly 95% of all the best-sellers are forgotten in no time at all. But then again, who wants to live hand-to-mouth all their life. There the rub.
Rick: Just popped in and saw your note about Hemingway. Um...have you been reading Dan Simmon's latest, THE CROOK FACTORY, which is about Hemingway? Curious. Given the history Harlan Ellison and Simmons have I wonder if this is how you came around to Hemingway's writing. Incidentally, speaking of Simmons I attended a reading and signing he did recently for the aforementioned book and I hafta say the turn-out for it was, well, to call it 'pathetic' was to have paid it an undue compliment. Given the small number who showed (which Simmons took quite well, I thought) everyone was allowed to ask all sorta questions of Simmons about his writing and life and his connections to Stephen King and, of course, Harlan Ellison and the conversation, what there was, came around to how to get writers (not 'authors') more coverage. I had a roaring argument going with a so-called objective mainstream journalist a few months back about the lack of coverage her newspaper gives to writers like Simmons and she replied with a snotty, blue-nosed reply: Well, we only report things that are newsworthy. John Elway picking his ass is, according to this twinkie, 'newsworthy'. Dan Simmons writing a book that is nothing less than ass-ripping scary isn't, apparently. Which brings me to a question and request for all those reading this: How do writers get a fair shake? How can they get the news media to cover their books? (And, with no offense intended, I exlcude King from this generalization because, as we all know, he can crap on two-ply TP and a hundred thousand lemmings will pay anything for it.) Folks, we are, as Harlan says so well, in the twilight of the written word. Fewer and fewer people are buying books, which means fewer and fewer legitimate writers can make a solid living from writing. How do we (as in the whole #@!% planet) get more people to read and buy books and support these wonderful and oh-so talented sorts like Dan Simmons and Harlan Ellison? Come on, the future needs the answer and I'm game to just about anything, given that the first whore, Monica (I'll-do-anything) Lewinsky, is on the bestsellers list and Harlan and Dan ain't. Rant mode off.
Until next time. . .
Jim
Rick: Just popped in and saw your note about Hemingway. Um...have you been reading Dan Simmon's latest, THE CROOK FACTORY, which is about Hemingway? Curious. Given the history Harlan Ellison and Simmons have I wonder if this is how you came around to Hemingway's writing. Incidentally, speaking of Simmons I attended a reading and signing he did recently for the aforementioned book and I hafta say the turn-out for it was, well, to call it 'pathetic' was to have paid it an undue compliment. Given the small number who showed (which Simmons took quite well, I thought) everyone was allowed to ask all sorta questions of Simmons about his writing and life and his connections to Stephen King and, of course, Harlan Ellison and the conversation, what there was, came around to how to get writers (not 'authors') more coverage. I had a roaring argument going with a so-called objective mainstream journalist a few months back about the lack of coverage her newspaper gives to writers like Simmons and she replied with a snotty, blue-nosed reply: Well, we only report things that are newsworthy. John Elway picking his ass is, according to this twinkie, 'newsworthy'. Dan Simmons writing a book that is nothing less than ass-ripping scary isn't, apparently. Which brings me to a question and request for all those reading this: How do writers get a fair shake? How can they get the news media to cover their books? (And, with no offense intended, I exlcude King from this generalization because, as we all know, he can crap on two-ply TP and a hundred thousand lemmings will pay anything for it.) Folks, we are, as Harlan says so well, in the twilight of the written word. Fewer and fewer people are buying books, which means fewer and fewer legitimate writers can make a solid living from writing. How do we (as in the whole #@!% planet) get more people to read and buy books and support these wonderful and oh-so talented sorts like Dan Simmons and Harlan Ellison? Come on, the future needs the answer and I'm game to just about anything, given that the first whore, Monica (I'll-do-anything) Lewinsky, is on the bestsellers list and Harlan and Dan ain't. Rant mode off.
Until next time. . .
Jim
Charlie: I was underwhelmed by the acting, the plot raised questions that were never dealt with, the division between aliens and humans was nebulous at best, and I'm still not sure if this is a dramatic version of true events or if this is a completely fictional creation.
Just a reminder, all, about the Human Operators on the Outer Limits @12:15 a.m., Sat. Morning, on the Showtime network.Also, I'm hitting a Book Show today at 5:30 p with dealers from around the world- anyone have any suggestions re: books I should check out? Not necessarily HE stuff (I think I have all his books in one form or another), but other spec. fic. authors. Charlie
*hums tune of Battle Hym of the Republic*
sings: Because I could not stop for Death, he kindly stopped for me...
get back to you guys - busy... hee hee
keegan: I laughed, but I got so busy trying to take your musical suggestion that I forgot to post my response. You killed nothing, we all just seem to be sitting back a little. Preparing my taxes is keeping me from sayin' much, maybe lots of us are up to our eyeballs in itemizing deductions . . .
Happy Trails. Wylie
Awww, man! Don't tell me I killed it! I was just jivin', honest.
Mitch:HAHAHA! What's that from? Great! Peter: Really wanna piss off some conservative Christians? Sing "Amazing Grace" to the tune of "Gilligan's Island". Conversely, appropriate the traditional melody of "Amazing Grace" as a vehicle for the words of "Gilligan's Island". Either way, you'll get yer kix!
I got bored last night and looked up a Dickinson poem online. I don't remember which poem it was, but it seemed to fit remarkably well to the theme music from Gilligan's Island.
I'm now re-reading Candide by Voltaire and am going to start the Sound and the Fury by Faulkner soon after.
---Peter (humming the death march as I go to workshop my latest story)
"Dickinson had it wrong. Hope is not 'the thing with feathers'. The thing with feathers is my nephew. I must take him to a specialist in Zurich." - Woody Allen
Ohmigod! I just tried it with "Because I could not stop for Death he kindly stopped for me" and "I'm nobody! Who are you?". I had doubts it would work with the latter, but, by God, I made it fit and it worked!
I cannot do it to "Hope is the thing with feathers" though. Just can't do it. For some reason, that little snippet of English gets to me.
Finder: "Yellow Rose of Texas"??!!!! Yikes! I hadn't heard of that one. I dare not even audiate it let alone sing it lest it get stuck there.
No, my tune's original. I only sing it for myself though. Too chicken to put it in front of the public. Doesn't really fit in my normal bag.
You know, it's been a long time since I read Walt Whitman. I think I'll visit the local library soon. Feel the need to get back in touch. Thanks for whetting my appetite.
It ain't no myth. I've got a Dickinson collection on the 2nd floor in a case in the hall and for a couple of weeks after reading that I'd pull it down and open to a random page whenever I'd think of it and damned if they didn't ALL fit. She could've found gainful employment with Bill Gaines writing MAD musicals with an ear like that.
Alejandro - Thanks for the info. For anyone interested, several of Casares' translated works (and a few untranslated) are available via Amazon.com, and a number of used titles (including some out of print translations) can be found at abebooks.com. Peter - "A Rose For Emily" is an old favorite. It reminds me at times of the kind of tales Ambrose Bierce is remembered for, especially that killer last line. Keegan - Sappy for liking Whitman? "I dote on myself, there is that lot of me and all so luscious,/Each moment and whatever happens thrills me with joy,/I cannot tell how my ankles bend, nor whence the cause of my faintest wish,/Nor the cause of the friendship I emit, nor the cause of the friendship I take again." "Song of Myself" should be issued to every individual as they set out to find their place in the world, 'cause it opens all kinds of doors of introspection. Oh, and you didn't set that Dickinson poem to the tune of "The Yellow Rose of Texas", did you? Thought maybe you were responsible for that particular rumor/legend/myth.
Kids:
Not only did we loose one of the greatest filmmakers the silver screen has seen these past few days. Last night, we lost a great literary voice. Adolfo Bioy Casares, a longtime friend and writing partner of Jorge Luis Borges, died at the age of 84 in his native Buenos Aires. Along with Borges, Casares wrote a series of detective short stories (under the seudonym of Bustos Domecq) as well as prologues to several anthologies of detective fiction. He was one of the most important practitioners of the fantasy genre in Latin American literature. Alas, his work is very rarely translated to English. Given his connection to Borges, figured I would pass these sad news along.
PS: BILLY BUDD makes a fine opera. I dig Britten more than Melville, tho.
Speaking of which, I've always thought it would be a hoot to write a series of short opera based on Ellison stories. I'd love to do "Along the Scenic Route" as a rock opera. I'd do it using multimedia to give the audience the illusion of "being there"---it would have to employ film, but not *be* film.
I'm not sure I'd ever have the cajones to call up and even approach da man wit' a crazy idea like that one! Better left to better composers.
Didn't somebody used to lurk around here who wrote a ballet based on MIND FIELDS?
Anyway, good to read all the civil discourse. Carry on!
Sue: I've always dug D.H. Lawrence. Pretty risque stuff for somebody from the boonies.
Emily Dickinson is probably my favorite poet. She was some kind of beautiful weirdo! I actually set one of her poems to music: "Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul,/And sings the tune without the words,/
And never stops at all,/ And sweetest in the gale is heard;/and sore must be the storm/ That could abash the little bird/ that kept so many warm./ I've heard it in the chillest land and on the strangest sea/But never in eternity it asked a crumb of me." Don't know *exactly* why I like that one so much, but I do.
Is it sappy to like Walt Whitman anymore? I don't care. "I sing the body electric....."
Shane: I agree about the director's cut. So was Grifter an alien who was left behind or the only human who was part of that hood? On a similar note, last week's X-Files was about a similar theme-restricted neighborhood, hush-hush activity, and strange happenings. Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I agree with HE that there ain't no aliens visiting us or UFO's buzzing around. However, I did see a strange object in the sky about 14 years ago when I was in law school down in Miami, which I can't explain-but am convinced it was NOT a UFO. Sue- I too am hooked on Bester after reading Stars My Destination. Charlie.
An addendum: PSI FACTOR was not nearly so bad as the DIAGNOSIS: MURDER episode which stared George Takei, Walter Koenig, and Bill Mumy. Wretched.
Well, I've spared you folks long enough. I'm going to indulge in a minor gloat: In four hours I'll be picking up Harlan and Susan at the airport.
On another note, my wife and I watched PSI FACTOR: "The Observer Effect" last night. I enjoyed Harlan's acting, which I found natural and without affectation. However, I can't say the same for The directors use of Grifter's "lurking." This is the first time I've seen the show and unless Harlan as Grifter returns, it will be the last time.
That last was a congratulatory note and a long delayed welcome to Syzygy. It was in no way intended to be a response to any messages which may or may not have appeared on this board.
Oh yeah. I forgot. I just read "A Rose for Emily" by Faulkner. I'd never read Faulkner before. I like what I've seen. Of course, now I'm trying to read "That Evening Sun"
---Peter
Actually, I care a lot about what Syz says (I'm gonna have to go with Sue on this one.) He has proven that when he drops his defensive posturing, he can be extremely intelligent and insightful. Anyhoo, onto a different, more satisfying thread.
Actually, Rick, I'll do it for you. Billy Budd was one of the most torturous and mindnumbingly difficult reads I have ever encountered. And I blame that on the fact that the first two hours of reading are nothing but backstory and nautical exposition. It wasn't until halfway through that I was able to discover a story. But then again, that's my opinion. Once I got past the opening (long opening) I was able to appreciate the rest of the text. I think of Billy Budd as a wonderful story but a serious case of unneccesary front loading.
Short story recommendations-- "Rappacini's Daughter," by Nathaniel Hawthorne, and "Everything That Rises Must Converge" by Flannery O'Connor.
---Peter
Okay, I've seen a few people mention Hemingway and I have a question. I'm working my way through his work by re-reading some old books of mine and picking up some new ones I've never read before. First of all, I'd forgotten how goddamn DEPRESSING the endings of nearly all his books are...jeez! Second, can someone tell me what the big deal about THE SUN ALSO RISES is? Is it interesting only in showing Hemingway's sparse style and his development as a writer or is there something just really really cool I'm missing? While I did think the character development and the portrayal of a sort of lost generation was interesting, I didn't see what else the book had to offer me - especially when compared to something like FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS.
Also, Syzygy, a pet peeve - save the signatures. Your name is in the heading and sometimes you're adding an awful lot of whitespace. If you need to sign the posts just a single carriage return will suffice. I just put the ability to do line spacings back into the comments board - I took it out because people were abusing it. BTW, I couldn't agree more about Gardner. However, on the subject of other authors I won't talk about how difficult a read I found "BillyBud"...
[A moment of shameless tribute, paid to a master]
My all time favorite literary visionary, without a doubt, has to be Herman Melville. Like Poe, he anticipated a wide range of literary forms. He anticipated the Kafkaesque in "Bartleby"; he gave us "The Paradise of Bachelors and the Tarturus of Maids" long before the 'woman's plight' story was commonplace; he produced works like "The Lightning Rod Man", which read like any story produced by Stephen King, Charles Beumont, or Ray Bradbury; he gave us adventure in the form of "Typee"; he gave us comic realism in "The Confidence Man"; he was one of the first men to challenge accepted political doctrine in "Benito Cereno"; and despite his ongoing struggle with the darkly existential questions concerning life (which he answered with stark honesty---and lyrical finesse---in "Moby Dick"), he never lost sight of that unique humanness that is created when the heart is in conflict with itself (as depicted in "Billy Budd").
No matter how often I hear the age old criticisms that are often levelled against good ol' Herman, he will forever remain, for me, one of the truest, and most genuine, visionaries that ever graced our planet. To me, it was Melville---not Kafka, or Camus, or Musil, or Sartre, or Proust, or Joyce, or Faulkner, or Miller, et. al.---who sounded in the arrival of the so-called modern age. He saw its coming nearly 100 years before anyone else. So, in that sense, it might be argued that the writers of the 20s and 30s were simply picking up where Melville had left off. Who knows? One thing is for certain, however: it is nice to know that writers such as Harlan Ellison are carrying on a tradition that this poor father of five dedicated his life to, without fame and without remuneration.
Syzygy Namirran
Sue - By no means are your affinities strange; I just find it hard to list all of the authors who bring me enjoyment. I liked Faulkner so much, I took his as one of my major authors in school. And while he can be daunting (I've attempted "Absolom, Absolom" three times - maybe some mountains can't be climbed after all), I think he's also very rich (personal fave? "Light In August"). And Alfred Bester is a wonder. I cringe every time I hear someone is contemplating "The Demolished Man" as a film (and that's been kicked around at least twice I know of). --Finder
Barney, Keegan, Finder, Peter, Finder, Alejandro, Chris, wylie (welcome back!), Otto, Gary, Shane, Charlie, Syz (notice the subtle use of a "familiar" form - to differentiate between Syzygy the Troll, whom I won't talk to, and Syz the webderhead, whom I will talk to... It's a Mom thing - we all call our kids by their full name when they are misbehaving.. whoa!! paragraph long aside, here..)...
Now *THIS* is what Webderland is about! :-)
I've taken down enough titles and authors, CD albums and peformers to keep me busy for another year (just *finding* some of them, so I _can_ read/listen may take that long - but the quest is as thrilling as the achievement - and once in hand, the enjoyement never ends..). Lots of brainfood and new perspectives to explore..
Good work everyone! *cracks the whip* Keep it coming! You guys may just succeed in making me an 'ever-so' classy literatti... OK, maybe only an upper-crust biker, slighty crisp around the edges.. *shrug* hey, it's still a step up.. And I *like* the stuff you are turning me on to..
Am I the only one who has strange affinities for Alfred Bester, D.H. Lawrence, Wallace Simpson, William Faulkner, Emily Dickinson, and C.S.Lewis? And can't spell the names of favorite authors? *sigh* (Dear Santa: I wanna a SpellChecker with AUTHORS NAMES!!) I didn't see those names mentioned on anyone's list - and I do appreciate that any list is seriously abridged to fit on a BBoard post..
Re: The Handmaid's Tale/In The Barn thread.. It's an odd thing, but stories like those (The Color Purple also comes to mind in the "woman's plight" category) which tell devastating truths in impossible to ignore graphic detail tend to put me off my feed for leangthy periods of time, and not be re-read (or re-watched if they are movies), because they torture me with images of evils so huge I don't want to live in the same world with them (or even have in my memory) - and I can do nothing to right the wrong, or get them *out* of my mind once they burn their way in. I'm not talking about quality, here - I'm talking about themes and the use of graphic details - and what I'm wondering what everyone else's take is on it.. I know HE wrote at leangth about graphic gore in slasher-horror movies in his reviews (but I'm not aware that he ever applied that to anything other than movies). So whadda y'all think? Is the pychic trauma of graphic details necessary to "get the point across"?
Try High - Fly Straight - Drive Safe
Finder: There are only a handful of John Gardner websites at the moment, most of which are linked from The JG Appreciation Page (which, I think, is the best site of all of them). I'm glad that you were able to find some interesting information. Liz Rosenberg's reminiscence of John is a telling portrait, I think. All of the essays that can be found in the 'papers' section are surprisingly insightful. It's a great website and an excellent resource.
The Art of Fiction is a landmark achievement, as far as books on writing are concerned. (I guess that's why I have three copies of it, all of which were found in used book stores). Ordering it through Amazon.com would probably be your best bet if you're looking for a replacement copy.
Also, On Becoming a Novelist (also by John Gardner) and Becomimg a Novelist, by Dorothea Brande (with an intro by John Gardner) are two additional books on 'writing' that are well worth the read. Brande's unique approach to 'what' a writer does---as opposed to 'how' he does it---is something that is rarely seen in self-help books of this kind; it's a 'must own' for any writer, in my opinion.
Syzygy Namirran
Charlie - I heard the news last night. I think of all the things I found most surprising was that Kubrick's major body of work consists of a mere eight films (from "Spartacus" on). With only passing attention to such stats, I would have presumed it much more. But he did more with those eight than most directors could accomplish with five times as many. Peter - You do know what you're saying, and your take on the writer's responsibility in learning is dead-on accurate. It just took me several years before I found it in me to say "screw 'em" to the ones who were more ego than anything else and simply go in search of my voice. Syzygy - thanks for the links; I didn't know SUNY Geneseo had an appreciation society for JG; and you helped rip another shroud of ignorance from my person: Liz Rosenberg became my senior advisor at SUNY-B when John Vernon went on sabattical to finish "Peter Doyle"; I didn't know she was JG's ex-wife - it's not one of those things that came up, you know? Every time I turn around, the world gets a little smaller. It's past time, I think, to get myself another copy of "The Art of Fiction" (my undergrad copy long since loaned out, never to return...) and apply myself to this thing called writing that I have, so far, merely dabbled in. Finder
Gary - Fraid not. Wasn't that the story 'Screamers' was based on? I haven't seen it, so I can't make a judgment call.
Mitch
For those who haven't heard, Locus on-lines reports that Stanley Kubrick died on Sunday. Charlie
Finder::: going back several days. I think you hit upon the major problem with teaching creative writing. First of all, as with any college course, you are basically being fed someone's ego on a stick. Every writer, college professor, and critic has an idea about what fiction should and should not be. To find more than three like minded professors in a college is almost impossible. So whereas one professor will claim that the end all be all of fiction is found within the pages of the New Yorker, another will consided the New Yorker crap and say that the only way to go is Hemingway minimalism. The task of the creative writing student is as such. Either, accept one way of writing from one professor as the ultimate in literature and stick with that, or absorb all of the knowledge that they care to impart, sort through it, throw out anything you think is bullshit, and party on. I think what scares most people away from writing is the idea that there is only one "right" way to write. There isn't. Writing style is molded to the individual, and it is the individual's responsibility to discover that style through practice, practice, practice.
Wow, I sound like I know what I'm saying. But this is only what I have gleaned from the last three years of serious study.
---Peter
Toto: If you want a 'modern' representation of Nietzsche-fied drama, try reading Judge on Trial, by Ivan Klima. In addition (and while I'm on the subject), Michelsson's Ghosts, by John C. Gardner, also follows a Nietzschean plot structure similar to that of Crime and Punishment.
In truth, it can be argued (albeit with some imagination) that Nietzschean ideology is present in any S.F. book that deals with eugenics, the suppression of 'inferior people, or the manifestation of one's 'will to power' in the form of any number of S.F. devices (both literarily and literally). For instance, Herbert's Dune and Brin's Uplift Saga might be considered homages to the great idea of the Ubermench. Or what about that famous Star Trek episose where we meet Kahn Noonian Singh for the first time? (Space Seed). (We're stretching the tenets of Freddy's philosophy here, but work with me.) And what about Moorcock's infinite worlds construct, in which time and space fold in upon itself in an eternal battle between Law and Chaos, where warriors are condemened to repeat their acts of bravery and cowardice? Sounds very similar to Nietzsche's mystical doctrine of Eternal Recurrence to me.
Also, all of the nega-utopian modern classics display elements of Nietzschean ideology: Utopia (Moore), Brave New World (Huxley), and 1984 (Orwell). It can even be argued that Animal Farm (Orwell), though a satire of Stalinism, also depicts a harrowing interpretation of Nietzschean belief, but from a political perspective.
Syzygy Namirran
::: the HE board-trollin', super-postin' fool of Webderland :::
DTS: Additionally, you have to keep in mind that Gardner had been writing for well over 10 years before he published any of his novels. Books such as October Light and Freddy's Book were conceived during the late 60s and early 70s, and not during the early 80s, as you might construe by their publishing dates.
Syzygy Namirran
Mitch - Do you know P.K. Dick’s “Second Variety?” I was expecting an entirely different ending from Dick than the one he gave us - one that I think would have been more, well, Dickian - and I wonder how common my expectation is. But I don’t want to spoil it for the good citizens who haven’t yet read it…
The history of Bread Loaf can be viewed here:
http://www.middlebury.edu/~blwc/History/WWTA.html
Syzygy Namirran
DTS: Thanks for your comments regarding Ellison's perception of Gardner. I have never come across anything by Ellison (an aside or otherwise) that would suggest any kind of criticism of Gardner. I had always wondered how Ellison took that attack in On Becoming a Novelist.
I think Gardner chose that particular 'piece' (of Ellison's) to attack 'bad' writing in general, and was not making a personal attack upon Harlan himself, although Gardner does specifically name HE as the 'dis-pollyannaish' author. I think he selected that particular passage because it is such a glaring, poorly written jumble of words, and it illustrates so perfectly the idea that Garder was, during that section of the book, trying to illustrate. You will also notice that, immediately following his 'rant' on Ellison's shoddy 'typing', he praises writers like Heinlein, Asimov and other S.F. luminaries, if I'm not mistaken. So, who knows if there was any specific, mean-spirited motivation?
As far as the 'book within a book' form is concerned: you are quite right. It was hardly a 'new' form. However, with respect to the publishing industry as a whole, it can be argued that, at the time, such techniques were not a commonplace. It is also interesting to note that you mention the work of John Irving, especially when you consider the fact that Irving was a student of John C. Gardner for nearly two years at the Bread Loaf writers workshop. You think Gardner influenced him?
You bet he did.
Syzygy Namirran
Namirran: I read a brief aside (somewhere) by Ellison in which he referred to Gardner as (sometimes) mean-spirited (that may not be on the money, but close enough for an ex-government employee). (He also mentioned that Gardner was a talented writer in the same paragraph). I believe the reason Ellison called him mean-spritied (I don't know for a fact, so this is just speculation) was that reference to Ellison in Gardner's 1980ish book on writing. I remember Gardner took a sort of throwaway, flippant sentence from an introduction Ellison had written to a (then)out-of-print book of stories (either OVER THE EDGE or FROM THE LAND OF FEAR), which collected mostly written in the 50's, and used it as an example of bad writing (Though it was a dated piece, with colloquialisms and such, I sometimes wonder if it was because Ellison used the word fart and offended Gardner's New England old-fashioned sensibilities). Since Gardner chose to use that particular quotation, from that particular book (when dynamite material from Ellison's more mature period -- such as "Repent Harlequin!.." anything from DEATHBIRD STORIES, "Jeffty Is Five," and dozens of crackerjack essays, etc., etc-- was available, it would be safe to assume that Gardner was, indeed, a sometimes mean-spirited old man. By the way, I'm not sure the use of a "book within book" narrative device was all that avant-garde by the time OCTOBER LIGHT ('76) and (especially) FREDDY'S BOOK ('80) were published. AUNT JULIA AND THE SCRIPT WRITER by Mario Vargas Ilosa was published in South America in '77, and THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP by John Irving came out in '78 (since publication was so close, year wise, we know that the separate novels weren't influenced by each other). Also, John Irving wrote what, for me, will always be one of his best novels, using the book within a book narrative (not to mention a script within the book, plus-third and first person narrative interspersed with sequences that were out place, time-wise, thereby reflecting the main character's disorientation with the rest of the world), the very hilarious THE WATER-METHOD MAN (for the record, along with GARP and WATER-METHOD -- though I love all his novels -- I think his REALLY good novels are THE CIDER HOUSE RULES, A PRAYER FOR OWEN MEANEY, A SON OF THE CIRCUS and A WIDOW FOR ONE YEAR). In the words of the immortal Stan, 'Nuff said. Out here, DTS.
Finder: John Champlin Gardner was a genius without peer. (But, hey, you already know my opinion of the guy :) ) In every book that he wrote you