Yikes, I was sitting on the board, composing (better than decomposing anyday) and missed the change of subject. So if you want, just ignore what I had to say last post anyway...
I'll start out by saying, thank you all... Because it is only in the heat of discussion that I can truely test and refine my point of view....
Peter: ROTFLOL
Two - The ALA page in question is as follows:
http://www.ala.org/teenhoopla/health.html
If you want the detailed trace, it follows: You start at the ALA home page and follow a graphical link on the right that says Kids, Parents and The Public, follow the next link: Read! Learn! Connect!, Then: Teen Hoopla: Internet Guide For Teens (The mythical Teen site), follow the links, Enter, Links, Life, Health in that order - viola!
Finder: The unanswered question is thus: Yes, I first heard of this on Dr. Laura's show. I followed up and what she stated was accurate. There are highly detailed answers to sexual questions on this site. The link is in an area that is intended for 12 year olds and up. I will shield my early teens and toddlers (I have two girls, 12, and 2 respectively... hey, Darryl maybe we can get the chilluns to meet... :) ) from that particular reality, and if I am asked - by way of direct question or by indirect petition to help remove "objectional material" from the kids section of a local library, I will consider each case individually, and respond according to my personal beliefs and values. I will not assume that any particular individual will agree with even a majority of what I have to say, but when I find common ground I will fight the battle alongside them.
My point about libraries and "majority rules" is that this is the basic tenet of our society. I feel if a majority of parents don't want a title filed in the children's area, right or wrong, it shouldn't go there. This is the way our society works, or at least should work. That it is abused and folk tend to shrink before overwhelming economic force, even if it is wielded by a minority, is perhaps an unfortunate side effect of capitalism. As far as asking libraries to help protect our progeny, I don't think this is particularly out of order here either. We ask almost every public institution to take special care of children.... That society might ask for some segment of access to the internet to be restricted from children is not a particularly grand leap of logic. (I will pause to remind all that I have not once advocated restricting access for adults, even for pornographic sites.) My ultimate goal is to have my own say in how I raise my own kids, and to let others, including public institutions, know when I feel they are going too far. (Mine is only one voice, and raised alone will make no changes. But when added to other voices we can Rock the Casbah....)
DTS (Jump right in, the argument is fine....!), Chris and Darryl: You arguments are excellent, especially Darryl's (Perhaps you're not a know-it-all, but you are a know-alot.) (In fact, I will ponder Darryl's #1 and #2 arguments further - they will shape my future thinking on this subject...) (This is to take nothing away from DTS or Chris...) Your assertions that because homosexual behaviour takes place in nature, it represents normal behaviour will need more evidence... Because all the relevant examples you brought up show that animals will resort to homosexual behaviour when sexual release is needed and no easy alternative exists, but no evidence that they will naturally form long-term homosexual relationships in place of available heterosexual ones. Only humans bond that way in significant numbers - and I again assert that such a bond is not species survival oriented, and will thus be selected against. (My thinking in this area has been quite interestingly shaped by Richard Dawkins'-The Selfish Gene) (I think both massive extinctions and gradual changes are important factors in evolution... but I will read some Gould on this subject. )
And lastly, some general thoughts. One - Dr. Laura has the degree - A PhD in Physiology earned at, of all places, Columbia University (Talk about amusing irony), so lay off the "".
Two I listen to people I mostly don't agree with for one very important reason... keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. You cannot have adequate knowledge of what the other side is thinking if you don't know what they're actually saying. My only criteria for talk show hosts is that they be moderately entertaining and they make me think. (I like Dr. Laura's philosophy of personal responsibility, but I laugh at her pie-in -the-sky attitude about interpersonal relationships, and I sometimes cring at her apparent unknowing rude edge.) (Rush Limbaugh almost uniquely makes me yell at the radio, he gets so much just _this_ wrong - but he is an amusing personality, and he makes me reevaluate my postions, especially when I find myself nodding in agreement.) (Dr. Dean Edell - I like this guy's attitude and matter of fact presentation...) Edell is the only talk show host I find myself nodded along with on a regular basis. (Others. like Stern or Liddy just so annoy me with their presentation, that I have yet to determine if they have anything useful to say.)
...phew... this has been a long and heavy discussion, and most enlightening.... I am enjoying it
Maggie: Your point about violence/sex is an interesting one, this will likely be a further topic of discussion....
Maybe we aren't being good Netizens by not being rude enough but let's adopt a good old fashioned Net standard: natural drift in a thread.
I'd like to discuss the topic that's been touched on a couple of times about the violence vs. sex messages in our culture.
We seem to have an almost universally accepted standard that it is simply wrong for children to be exposed to sexual content of any kind. Indeed, not just sexual content, but nudity of almost any sort. Outside of the occasional shot of Dennis Franz's butt, nudity is almost a guaranteed R rating.
Shooting a bunch of people. Hitting a bunch of people. Killing a bunch of people. As long as there isn't "too much" of it and it isn't too graphic, that can stll get you a PG-13.
I have to wonder why we think it's much more acceptable for kids to view people performing acts of violence on one another but are horrified at the thought of kids seeing people perform acts of love or passion with one another.
So what I'd like to know is, exactly why is it "wrong" for a kid to see a naked body? And I'd really like you to try to ignore the fact that it's just a standard we've all grown up with. Pretend you're an alien visitor to this planet trying to understand this phenomenon. Why do we think a child will be hurt by the sight of nudity or sex?
By no means am I saying it's OK for kids to watch sexual activity in films or anything like that. I'm just asking you to answer why, outside of the fact that it's "just the way things are", we are so horrified at the threat of young people seeing a naked body.
This kind of got me to thinking. When I got to see my first Playboy when I was about 10 or 11, well, it answered a whole lot of questions for me. And I certainly consider a very positive experience, not one that left any scars. Maybe some stains... oops, I'm getting gross now so I'll stop.
-chris
CHARLIE/FINDER: the March 1993 issue of "SF Age" (vol.1 , number 3) is the one containing "Toiling In the Dreamtime" and a small excerpt from "Pet," an unfinished story by Ellison. As for where you left yours finder, check in the far corner of the closet, second box from the bottom. Out Here, Go...er, DTS.
The following satirical comment in no way reflects the view or attitude of the author, and is merely an attempt to insert mirth into a civil, yet decidedly heavy discussion...
_______________________________________
Now folks, we must stop this civil discourse at once. What kind of message are we sending to the rest of the world if we actually use the internet to debate and discuss issues in a polite and civil manner? What kind of prescedent are we setting for our children? As one who is contrary in thought and in deed, I must therefore interject by saying that you are all big ol' meany poopy heads.
---------------------------------------
thank you. We now return to our regularly scheduled discussion.
---Peter (thanks to all for being the exception to the rule)
DTS - I must have misspoke back there; I've been to Go Ask Alice - ferreted it right out on a Yahoo search. What I'm having trouble verifying is that the American Library Association web pages have an encouraging link to GAA in an area targeted for pre- and young teens. The yellow brick road on that little chestnut has so far eluded me - and I suspect it will continue to. But thanks anyway. Y'know, I'm not doing such a hot job finding my issue of SF Age with "Pet" for the assist to Charlie. Now if you could tell me which box I packed it in - THAT would be razzle-dazzle...
Hey, the company that I work for moved and we now have stupid broken internet access and we've had our internet access strictly restricted until such time as the company does whatever it has to, correct the problem - 3 to 5 really long weeks. UGH! However, Shane, bless his heart, has kindly been copying and forwarding the postings to me (I'm just on tonight because I'm waiting for a ride - long story). This conversation on censorship has been wonderful. So many well thought out arguments and all phrased from one adult to another. Boy do I love civil discourse!
As to my comments on the topic - well they've pretty much all been said, and beautifully too. I would like to say that I have a hard time with descriptions of same gender pairings as aberrant or unnatural, when any farmer will tell you the behavior is anything but unnatural. Heck, even masturbation is a natural behavior no matter what your parents told you - ask any person who works with profoundly retarded people. Personally I find pretty much anything to do with sex more natural and normal than say, smoking - ever stood at a bus stop? Looks like an ash tray.
Here's a thing along the censor ship thread that bugs me a lot - how is that, as a culture, we are so tolerant of violence, but not of sex? Movies rarely, if ever, receive an NC-17 (or the old X) for violence, but nudity? Sure, you bet. Why is it more acceptable to violently and graphicly murder a person than it is to have sex with them? It seems like the most wretched inconsistency to me. Personally I would far rather watch a couple of people going at it in bed than watch a couple of grown men pound on each other until one of them falls down and can't get back up any more - and that's boxing, real life, permanent brain damage, possibly death, and not rated anything at all!
Probably a good thing that I'm not a parent. I'm certain that I'd raise a lot hackles down at the local PTA! :-)
Well, here I go, sneaking back off into purgatory. Keep up all this lovely civil discourse!
Xanadu:
I will (and have, as an active-duty military person in a previous life) defend your right to say what you have said, but I believe that you should consider the below comments.
1. I _do_ subscribe to a scintilla (actually, more than a scintilla) of evolutionary theory. And, looking at societal conditions combined with that theory, I find that your statement ‘…homosexuality ‘genes’ will not be passed on in any meaningful numbers…’ to be incorrect. In most societies, homosexuality has been treated as ‘aberrant’ and worse. In that case, if one were homosexual, one had to perform sexual acts in private, and needed a ‘beard’, that is, a wife or husband and preferably children. That way, few people could know that you had ‘aberrant’ tendencies. If one accepts that argument, the genes _would_ be passed on in relatively significant numbers.
2. I _do not_ assume that the current ‘surge’ in gayness is a function of environment. I submit that the current increase in numbers of people willing to be publicly homosexual is a function of a more tolerant society. Face it, if you aren’t going to be stoned, hung, shot or shunned for being gay, more people will willingly share with you that they are gay.
3. As a parent, I wholeheartedly agree with you on the subject of having a stricter standard for what children can see, or read. As long as I am a parent (of a child, not an adult), I will be a willing participant in controlling what they see and/or read. Having said that, I must agree with finder. If I find that my library has unfettered internet access, I will be with my child to help him (not sexist, I have two boys) make good decisions about access.
4. Again as a parent myself, I agree with your not accepting the sexualizing of children, but you have to accept that it is happening. Shield your children from it, yes, but you’ll find (as my friends with older kids have found) that it will happen anyway. I hope that it doesn’t happen with my children, but I will prepare them as if it will happen. As my kids are naturally curious, better that they get good information from me than bad (or harmful) information from the ‘street’.
5. As for 'Dr.' Laura, morally certain people are usually neither.
6. As a humorous aside, I’ve been in a few heterosexual relationships that were far less ‘normal’ than some homosexual relationships I am acquainted with!
I hope that I don’t come off as a know-it-all, because that definitely ain’t true.
Can I just mention that I think it's *GREAT* how everyone has been so civilized during all the discussion, discourse, and disagreement? Go ahead, re-read all the posts. Not a hard-hearted flaming insult in site. (Rick must have upgraded the board with Flamer repellant, or is using advanced web programming to cause undetectable subliminal calming screen flickers ....) Cheers, Peg
FINDER: (odd me telling YOU this with that moniker of yours), the Go Ask ALice website is at: www.columbia.alice.edu/
I found the site address at the Library Journal online site. As for the extremely bone-headed "Dr." Laura, why does ANYONE listen to her (or Rush Limbaugh, or Howard Stern) or any other of the hard-right, conservative Neanderthal-radio mouths-with-no-brains? I've accidentally (my truck only has A.M.) tuned into her show once or twice, and found myself turning the radion off in disgust. It's beyond me why anyone (arch conservative or note, bible-thumper or atheist) would think any of these idiots contain an iota of wisdom. More often than not, where the human condition is concerned, the lot of them are dumber than a pile of bricks. Out here, DTS.
Xanadu: I guess you can call homosexuality "aberrant" if you want to but I don't see what the use in doing so is. Is any behavior practiced by 49% or less of the people in the world considered aberrant? Why bother describing it that way?
But your Darwin/genes argument just doesn't wash. The problem is there is a lot of misunderstanding out there about exactly what evolution is. Read some Stephen Jay Gould books to learn a little more about it. It is much more a process of change through fits and starts, by means of massive extinction caused by radical change sin the environment, rather than the sense of "gradual improvement" that a lot of people have.
Why is a certain percentage of the population born sterile? That's not something that would get passed down to the next generation yet the condition still exists. There are plenty of maladaptive traits which consistently appear in the population even though you'd think evolution would have "taken care of it."
Also, as has been mentioned, homosexual behavior is very commonplace in the animal kingdom which certainly casts some doubt on the notion of whether homosexuality is "unnatural." It is no more unnatural than humans having protected sex, sex without the goal of procreation.
-chris
Xanadu - I don't know - I've bounced the entire text of your initial post (gotta give the correct context) off three different individuals, and all three came away with the impression you were painting Go Ask Alice as a site of a pornographic nature. Sorry, old chum. Wanted to make sure it wasn't a me thing... And I'll note that you never did answer my initial question... to which I'll add another: do you know where on the ALA page the link to GAA is supposed to be? Because for something the ALA is supposedly actively promoting, I'm having a hell of a time finding the offending link, and they don't seem to have a specific pre- and young teen area on their site. As for shielding children, it's perfectly within your rights to look after the protection of yours, and I applaud that; I applaud any involved, conscientious parent - but in professing to help shield other children, are you not pre-supposing your values system is correct for other people's children? Slip the shoe on the other foot - would you want someone to assume their values system was right for your children, and to make decisions for them based on that belief? And one final point, going back to your initial post: why should librarians be tasked with policing other people's children? Much like schools, libraries aren't there to babysit children - I think they have a right to be a little indignant when a parent sends along a letter saying "Please don't let Mikey look at Internet sites that might be bad for him." And THAT's part of the ALA's position: that the library shouldn't be put in the position of regulating anything for anyone, that under the First Amendment it doesn't have the right to limit anyone's access, that the individual needs to be responsible for themselves and their children. That's an important distinction. If the ALA is going to be dinged for not wanting to filter anything for anyone, their reasoning is a big part of a fair portrait of them.
Chris - I've done quite a bit of reading on censorship and the banning of books, and I know the Planet Comics case. Ultimately, we live in continual peril of someone screaming "I'm offended" - but I disagree with Xanadu that it's a "majority rules" environment - when was the last time a mob got together to ban a book? In two extensive school systems here in Maryland, it wasn't a majority that got "I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings" pulled from reading lists - it was a handful of disgruntled parents who didn't like the way whites were portrayed in the book, a handful that imposed their value system on a school community of 4,000 students. It's the squeaky wheel that gets greased, and it always has been. The problem is when the squeaky wheel is simply ignorant, intolerant and uninformed. In a land where people would challenge the dictionary and "Little Red Riding Hood" because of their content, there's nothing above attack. True, there needs to be some kind of yardstick to measure by, but we're back to the Gordion knot of who determines the measure. And you're right. If it were easy, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
(oops, bone headed mistake) -- the magazine title below should read "Scientific American" -- Out here, DTS.
XANADU: I know jumping into the middle of a debate isn't advisable, but I had to mention something about your comment concerning homosexuality and it being an aberation (especially when you used survival of the species as the foundation for your argument). I don't have quotes, page numbers or periodical names with me at the moment, but in recent years (the past 5 or six) I've been reading interesting stuff in SF American and other layman-oriented science magazines. One is that among wild families of chimpanzees, homosexual relationships between males are practiced when there aren't enough females to go around. It seems they are simply satisfying a sexual urge, not promoting species survival (and I'm pretty sure that these guys didn't learn it from humans). Also read about a fish that changes its gender (that's right, even swaps out its sexual organs) whenever necessary. (I also once read about another animal -- it's early, and I haven't quite awakened yet -- the female pig, I believe, which experiences orgasms that last as long as 30 minutes -- that would seem to have little to do with species survival, since the male's sex drive usually). So it seems as if sexual "normalcy" or "aberrant behavior" is not so much a law of nature as a social invention of mankind. Stemming, I believe, from the days when we humans didn't last much longer than 30 or 40 years, and didn't quite crowd the Earth as much as we do now. But since that teaching is rooted in religions that promise undying punishment to all who don't heed the warnings (much like an angry parent spanks a child he or she can't control), I doubt if those beliefs will fade away from our collective psyche anytime soon. Oh, well. Old habits (prejudices, and superstitions) die hard, don't they? Cie la vie! Out here, DTS.
Quick note, before work.
Finder, if you will note - at no point in my argument did I describe the GAA site as porn. What I did say is that it contained explicit information. (Though I will publicly apologize for the modifier "especially", and hereby substitute "including") And frankly, I don't give a hoot in hell if kids are having sex at younger and younger ages, I, in my role as parent, cannot accept the sexualizing of children - I will shield my own children from such, and if I can - I will help shield other children from such. (But, hey, that's just me.) As as to the question about "Why not Loveline?" partially because it's on late enough at night, and partially because the GAA site is aimed specifically at pre- and young teens. (Though I would not doubt that Loveline will eventually come under the gun as well, because frankly - Dr. Laura has been on longer than MTV and she ain't afraid of them having her for lunch...)
Peter - Homosexuality IS an aberration. Individual acts of sex are not functions of species survival. My use of Darwin was simply to point out that homosexuality "genes" are a facetious argument. But, again I point out - the use of the word aberration is in the sense "not normal or typical". I myself participate in aberrant behaviour - in public even...! (Just ask Finder)
Peg - Thank you for noticing. There is a HUGE difference in tolerating and celebrating.
Chris - Yes, if enough parents have a problem with something, it should be moved to the adult section. Period. That is not a condemnation, nor is it censorship, because any adult can get it, and can then hand it to their own children. We live in a society predicated on, right or wrong, "majority rules". I truly do not see a problem with limiting children's access to material. It is a parental responsibility. Can it be abused? As we have seen in nearly every deep discussion on this board... Yes, it can.
Gotta run. More later.
finder,
Problem is the Internet is, quite simply, different. It is somewhat analagous to a library, yes, but not entirely.
If a library has adult books or magazines, they can put them in a separate section and assure that kids don't get them. It's not nearly as easy to do that with the Internet even with programs like NetNanny and the life. Do you filter out all sites which have the key term "breast" in their search info? You're going to eliminate a lot of sites.
But even if the Net was completely analagous to the library environment, you still run into the same old problems. OK, so the library shouldn't give kids a copy of Hustler. Should "Heather Has Two Mommies" be similarly prohibited? Plenty of parents think so. But if you do that, you are quite clearly taking the moral position that homosexuality is wrong or, if not wrong, then at least something more illicit and less acceptable than heterosexuality (Heather has Two Mommies is not a pornogaphic book - it is a book geared towards kids and is about lesbian parents.)
So if you accept that book as off-limits, then what do you do when a group of parents gets together and decides that they don't want their kids reading non-Christian religious texts? Do you have to stick the Qu'ran in the adult section too?
Does "A Wrinkle in Time" have to get shelved in the adult section too? You may laugh but it shows up as one of the ten most banned books int he country year after year. A lot of people don't like the idea of the book having witches as characters - they probably are even more annoyed that the witches are depicted in a positive light.
I certainly agree that there is plenty of material out there not appropriate for kids. And I also agree that parents have every right to decide what is or isn't appropriate for their kids. I also understand that parents need help in doing this.
However, I am not necessarily comfortable with letting some amorphous "communal" sense of morality become the standard by which public facilities conduct their censorship.
Do yourself a favor and go over to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund website at www.cbldf.org and read the story of the Planet Comics case. You can probably find eithe rby clicking on the censorship bibliography link or by clicking on the resources link near the top of the page.
Who do you want to set up as your moral arbiters? It's not an easy issue.
-chris
Hmmm...I still think there's similarities between the internet and other media. Let's continue with using pornography as an example.
Is it legal for children to go into an adult bookstore and purchase pornographic magazines or books? How about renting an adult video? Or, for that matter, even an "R" rated video? Now, it's been a while since I checked, but as far as I know these activities are illegal (if they weren't people would be selling and renting to kids left and right). So why should accessing an adult pornographic site on the intranet be different?
We seem to be in agreement that this raises gray areas. But I'm not sure why this is so difficult and different than any other form of media. Schools have guidelines as to what material children are shown. And yes, even TV, as questionable as that set may be. But parents have the responsibility, and far more ability, to control what their kids watch at home. When kids are in school, the school and the teacher have that control . It's the parents responsibility to either ensure they approve of a school's curriculum or to home school their kids. But while a child is at school, it's the *responsibility* of that school to teach that curriculum, part of which is monitoring the content.
No one on this board has yet suggested making pornographic (or other questionable sites) illegal, nor that we limit access to sites on history, world culture, art, or any of the other examples posted (all very good examples of how extremists or people whose strong personal beliefs *without tolerance* could have too conservative an interpretation for the general populace). The question of content has as much to do with the maturity of the person receiving the content as well. If the child in question has the maturity to appreciate that Hindu Art, or look at the breat cancer site objectively, great for them (heck, they're probably better off than many adults). Teachers and parents make judgments on the maturity of a child all the time - it's their job.
So maybe the teacher or the parent has to give the student a pass to access the material. That takes the onus off the library and librarian, but still ensures that a student can see what they need to see as judged by someone who -should- know them well. The idea of an automated prinout is fine, too, thought I would suggest the library email or postal mail it to the parents/teacher directly.
On a personal note, I don't think the human body is something of which to be ashamed (though mine is definitely not getting public display for another 15 pounds!). My personal belief is the naked body is something to share in private with your spouse (and doctors as needed), but I'm tolerant that other's have different viewpoints. I would still argue there's a large difference between Michaelangelo's David vs the HOT XXX TEEN SLUTS spam I get in my email., between sex as portayed in common pornography vs an educational site (or even Kuma Satra site) providing still pics of different methods and positions. If a child is being responsible and doing their art report, they are going to go to visit David, not hot teen girls. But the fact is that, psychology and reverse psychology aside, if HOT XXX TEEN SLUTS is available, some kids (not all) are going to visit.
I'm sure by now I've alienated everyone, so here's one more for the fire. I totally agree that it's the parent's responsibility to raise their child. But, without absolving that, it might just be a little easier, and the child might grow into a better person, if we in the community lend the occasional hand. Takes a village to raise a child and all that.
Okay, I'm sure to be flamed now. *sigh* Oh when will I EVER learn.
Peg
okay, while I'm logy and wonky enough to put my foot into my mouth...
Alright, leaving religion on the doorstep and keeping darwin as the template... Homosexuality is no more abberent then heterosexual sex for pleasure, sex with contraception, sex whose sole purpose is intimacy between two partners. I certainly never aim to have children with any woman I'm seeing. I guess, from a darwinian standpoint, that makes me an abberation, since my procreative impulses are being used in a manner not condusive with the continuation of the species... something to consider. Never mind masturbation. That must be another darwinian no no. See, Darwin and the bible have more in common than people think. Wow.
---Peter
Okay, I slashed out my long winded rant. I'm too hot and too sick right now to be coherent. But I will say, who's morality would you want to protect your children? Who do you want deciding what is wholesome information and what is filth? A man penetrating a woman from behind would certainly be characterized as filth, right? Except, what if I'm describing a graphic from the Kama Sutra and the child (of say twelve) is doing a report on hindu art? Or there is a picture of breasts, huge swelling mammaries filling the screen. Only, it is a site on breast cancer and its treatments. How about a pale man with curly hair standing in a relaxed pose, his phallus hanging out for all the world to see. David, by Michaelangelo. Definitions on this level are too fuzzy to give an adequate answer, so to punish instutions for applying what they see as, currently, the most approprate system given the sheer unreliabilty of every other system, is ludicrous. And right now, I'm going to sleep, and hopefully getting over this cold.
---Peter
If we approach the Internet as an information resource, then the same common sense rules we apply to the rest of information access should apply. If a library made Hustler accessible to to eight year old children, the law would slam dunk them. Why should the same standards not apply to what the library supplies via the net?
Peg - I think your thinking is right on, and I'll go one further: if the parent sets the guidelines for their own home, and accepts the reasonable guidelines for a school, then I think the library should, within the framework of the law (local, state or federal), be the ones to set the standards of conduct. Even as a public institution, the library has to find the middle ground that will satisfy the majority of its users. And I think it might also be a moot point without some kind of meaningful statistic on just how many people actually use a library to access sites that may be of a dubious nature.
Xanadu - My question is, does your information on Go Ask Alice come from Dr. Laura, or did you pay a visit to the site yourself? I ask because the description you provide sounds very slanted to make GAA sound like the very root of pornographic internet evil being peddled by the ALA - when Go Ask Alice is in actuality the question/answer site for Columbia University's Health Education Program. Yes, it contains questions and reponses of a frank nature regarding sexuality - no more concentrating on abberant sexuality than on any other kind, mind you - but also contains Q and A in multiple topics under the headings of relationships; emotional health; fitness and nutrition; alcohol, nicotine and other drugs; and general health. A dangerous porn site? Hardly. Perhaps some of the discussion is too frank for young teens; but a good deal more of it is practical, straightforward and clinical advice that can actually be helpful, especially in an age where children are becoming more sexually active at an early age, and less willing to talk to their parents. And why would Dr. Laura go after a clinical web site and not MTV's "Loveline", which is almost exclusively rooted in discussion of sex AND absolutely free weeknights on MTV (or on the radio, for cryin' out loud)? Because MTV would eat her for lunch, and she knows it. A hearty "Tsk tsk" if you took Dr. Laura's description of GAA at face value - and a confused stare if you came away from checking GAA with that kind of analysis.
Charlie - I'll see if I can find the magazine - I've narrowed it down to some twenty boxes...shouldn't be but another week or so...
Shane, Doc - Just finished watching "Curse of the Blair Witch" on Sci Fi - a well manufactured documentary-style teaser (not a making-of, but an entire framing segment for the film) that, seen widely enough, will really pull people in - creepy stuff for sitting here alone in the dead of night, and I can hardly wait.
OK, interesting and polite discussion going on here. Don't you people know that's not allowed on the Net? :)
To Xanadu: You're right. Parents have the responsibility to control their children. Not the libraries. If the parents are that worried about their kids accessing certain websites, they should monitor their web use. It's not my job to raise your kid - it's your job.
To Peg: The idea of computer stations for kids and for adults separately is a fine idea but it still has the same inherent problem as with filtering in general. Who decides what's appropriate and what isn't?
Let's take a slight tangent here. You've expressed several times a personal objection to pornography. That's certainly up to you to decide. Me, though, I don't have any problem with it, as long as everyone is a willing participant.
I don't believe the human body is dirty and something to be ashamed of. Well, OK, my body might be something to be ashamed of but at least it's clean. I also don't think sex is evil.
So I have to wonder what's the message sent in blocking access to a site which contains sexually explicit material but allowing access, let's say, to a web site devoted to a very violent movie like Reservoir Dogs? Are we saying that gun violence is more appropriate than sex?
Now that's just one question. Think of all the other questions and all the other gray areas that can come up.
Do we try to take an easy way out and, say, just adopt the same standards as network TV on the assumption that these are acceptable community standards? I guess that's an option but not one I am terribly comfortable with ethically.
Should access to this web site be denied because foul language might be used? How about access to any site which discusses HE's writings since some of it could be deemed profane or offensive?
I think the potential abuses involved in censorship are just far, far greater than those for a kid looking at a naked woman.
How about a compromise? Set the computer up to print out a record of all the web sites a user has visited once they are finished with their session. Kids have to show this list to mom and dad. If the kids are doing things mom and dad don't want, they lose their Net privileges except in a more closely monitored environment.
-chris
Xanadu, you said it much better than I!
On a side note, I appreciate your distinction between tolerating alternative viewpoints and lifestyles but not *celebrating* them. I often feel resentful when accusations of intolerance arise if someone doesn't wholeheartedly embrace a philosophy or lifestyle or activity. There is a difference between the tolerance and advocacy, but these P.C. days, the two are often assumed to be the same.
(I think that was the sound of another can of worms being opened. I really gotta shaddup now!)
Peg
Chris, you really were nice about that. Flamers take note!
Yes, I agree, it's a thin line to walk, and it is *really* easy to allow things to go too far. [supposedly in a democracy we could all vote and decide, but I don't know that I trust all of America - me included - to make an informed decision]. But one also has to consider *who* is accessing the information as well. Of course this raises the question of who decides who has access, who says you're responsible enough. But there can be some simple boundaries; it doesn't have to be all or nothing.
For me, first there's the question of the privacy of your home vs a public (both in location and funding) place. I'm not talking about internet cafes, college campuses (since most users are adults), your home, your friends home, etc. But that's on your buck and your time. My tax dollars (hopefully) don't go to fund pornography movie houses; why should they go to fund unlimited internet access to those sites? Or to pick another topic, it doesn't go to fund Satanists, or people who advocate animal abuse, or yadda yadda yadda. Now, I'm sure there are situations where someone has a legitimate need to access this internet material. It's just the unlimited access that I don't advocate.
Secondly, it's about children (I know I have gall to talk about this without having any of my own, but then it is my tax bucks at work here). I'm assuming (bad thing) the fact that it is public service means *anyone* can go in there and use it, if you are registered with the library. (Since I surf from work/home, I don't know how libraries control the internet access. Otto, what's the procedure where you work?).
Kids at home, I expect their parents to be the controllers, the ones who set the guidelines. Frankly if parents want their children to see pornography or racist sites or whatever on their own time, well that's their right. Not my place to say.
But when kids are away from home, their parents can't necessarily look over their shoulder. In this particular situation - the bounds of a public library - I would say it's common for kids to be there without their parents. Heck, I expect kids to be able to do that. Same goes for K-12 schools. But in school it's the teacher who controls the access, and we as the public or parents accept that teachers judgement if we want our kids in that school.
In these environments I think there needs to be some thought of who the audience may or may not be, and the reason/need for access. It could be so simple as having adult stations which can access anything, and stations for minors that can't. If a student really is doing research, the librarian can give them temporary access as needed to adult/all access station, so they can research. I'm sure there's a number of ways to handle it, and it may already be a moot point since I don't know how it works now.
Obviously there's no perfect answer here. It's always a delicate balance between freedom vs. control, public judgment vs. personal responsibility. As has been discussed before on this board, any tool can be abused. It's the ease of use that makes public internet access easy to abuse. In a publically tax-funded forum, it ought to be held to the same informational standards as other forms of media.
Well, I gotta stop before I dig so deep I'll never get out!
Peg
The sound you hear is the can of worms opening.
Otto, Sorry, but Dr. Laura's stance is is not censorship, and it's not even particularly reprehensible. It is, in fact, how our society thrashes out ideas and settles on a common ground.
Now, to begin with, here are my biases - I am whole-heartedly for the right of freedom of speech. But I am also whole-heartedly against being force fed crap and being asked to celebrate it. Two, I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality and people's right to practice it. But I also believe it's abberant behaviour, and I don't wish to be forced to celebrate it's wholesomeness, and place it on an equal par with normal, heterosexual relationships. (Now, before the inevitable flood of horror at my position, let me say this - homosexuality ain't normal - in no sense of the word. I attach no moral judgment to the description - but if you subscribe to even a scintilla of evolutionary theory, homosexuality "genes" will not be passed on in any meaningful numbers - they will die out as evolutionary dead ends. We must assume then, that the current surge in "gayness" is a function of environment or "nurture", not "nature". While I am not particularly religious, I also don't subscribe to the idea that homosexuality will provide any particular enlightenment.) Now, to end this particular thread in my argument, I have no problem at all with people participating in whatever particular abberrant behaviour they care to, as long as it involves consenting adults and is not harmful to non-participants.
Two, as a listener of Dr. Laura - I find her maddening at times - irritating, and overly righteous. But, she operates from a clear and morally unambiguous position. She applies the morals and values she has accepted (biblical) to her life and exhorts others to do the same. What is particularly reprehensible in that? Aren't we all supposed to at least tolerate alternate points of view? And isn't she allowed to try to convince others of her correctness? Isn't that what we all do? That said - I'll clear up one particular misunderstanding. Dr. Laura has never preached for the wholesale filtering of content at libraries. What she has found alarming is one particular facet of the American Library Association (ALA from here on) Freedom of Information policy. They suggest that there be NO FILTERING AT ALL - FOR ANYONE, REGARDLESS OF AGE. What she further found out, is that the ALA has also provided a link to a site called Ask Alice, or Go Ask Alice - with discusses sexuality, especially abberant sexuality in extraordinarily frank and graphic terms - often suggesting methods and "tools". The kicker is that the link is found in an area specifically aimed at pre-to-young teens. So, not only does the ALA say you can't prevent children from looking at such material, BUT THEY ACTIVELY PROMOTE IT ON THEIR SITE. She brought up several letters from listeners which showed that when some libraries were presented with a parental request that they limit content or access FOR THEIR OWN CHILDREN, they were met with hostilty, disregard and sometimes just plain refusal. This, my friends, is what has the good Dr. in a tizzy. She postulates who, if not parents, should be charged with controlling what concepts and philosophies children are exposed to?
It comes down to this... For adults, we should have as much freedom to publish, and peruse whatever particular bias we want to. But we must have a far stricter standard for children. They should not be exposed to concepts they are just plainly not equipped, mentally or physically, to understand. We prevent children from signing contracts, because we want to protect them from their own lack of knowledge and sophistication. We need also protect them from other, more subtle persuasions. That is the job of parents. Dr. Laura is fighting for the rights of parents to warp their own kids in their own particular manner.
There is another, related argument that I'll save for a later time, but it involves the idea that forming a negative judgment about an idea or agenda and actively opposing it is wrong. 'Till then, I'll be ducking for cover too.
Peg, I know you said you were ducking for cover but I promise I'll be nice.
But I do think your attitude is a dangerous one. You don't want certain things to be seen at the library and you feel that's your right since it's paid for by your tax dollars.
But how many other people have a whole different list of things they don't want their tax dollars to be paying for at the library. How about no links to sites with gay or lesbian content? Some people consider that pornographic.
Do you block links to white supremacist sites? What if you're doing research on that issue?
Who makes up the definition of pornography? Is it "I know it when I see it?" Do libraries ban access to sites with loaded images of nude paintings by some of the great artists of history?
How about links to sites with sexually explicit content that's meant to be informative? Anatomy, safe sex advice, etc.
It's not just a slippery slope. It's a sheer drop. IMHO, of course.
-chris
On the Dr. Laura issue: Not to say that I agree with her tactics, but I think censorship is a harsh term, and not really the case here. What she is doing is using her personal and public influence (but not as a government official) to effect political or social response and/or change. I'd have to agree with some of the other comments here to the effect that she has the right as a citizen to do that. Actually, there are folks that would argue citizens have a *responsibility* to use their personal influence to effect positive social and political changes. Whether there is a more positive, constructive way for Dr. Laura to effect her change is a better question.
My thoughts on the subject of filters at the library vs censorship: censorship would be making it illegal to even create a particular site. Having filters at a public library which block that site is merely saying go access it from somewhere else.
To be honest, IMO I don't want my tax dollars to go to someone being able to surf porno sites at the library. Research, information, Personal contacts, ok sure. It doesn't have to be all business and no fun. Porno, sorry, gotta draw the line; same goes for sites advocating gang violence (if there are any, I'm just picking something I wouldn't want folks to access from a publically funded terminal).
All for now,
Peg (running and ducking for cover)
Otto -- Dr. Laura is a pill. That's pretty obvious (even my sister swears by the woman). However, in my own ever so humble opinion, she is also on par with his dookiness the Rev(iled) Jerry Falwell. She's a woman with a soapbox and a lot of her own ideas. The fact that she has influence is as frightening as the press that Falwell is able to garner (come on, has anyone taken him seriously since Tinky Winky? What was his last cause? Lilith fair -- a ritual of pagan lesbianism set to corrupt the young girls of america? Gimme a break.) And while it isn't censorship per se, it is still just as revolting. The fact that she mentioned Toys R Us by name (she did right?)scared them into bending to her will because of the fact that many corporations are invertebrate. It's disgusting, but it's as protected by the constitution as me ranting against her.
But just as Dr. Laura attempts to raise the "public consciousness" it sometimes becomes incumbent upon us to fight back. Start by not listening to her show. Then continue by getting other people not to listen to her show. Then go on by not patronizing Toys R Us. Then ask others not to patronize Toys R. Us. I think the time of complaining about the injustices of the world has long since passed. Discuss the issue with whomever is in charge at the library. See if you cannot start a leaflet campaign, you know, make some kind of small pamphlet available at the circulation desk, that sort of thing. If it's part of a library system, see if other branches can't carry the information as well. Then research and find out if the libraries affected are interested in joining in. Like a rash, the fight to correct an injustice begins with a single itch. Okay, I'm done planning the revolution, I relinquish the soapbox to the next fanatic.
---Peter
Finder, thanks. The subscription literature IS recent (just rec'd it). Yeah, that bugs me that they're promoting the "Pet" story as if it's coming next issue. What's the background of the story, if you recall?
DOC, the following is from the SciFi Channel's website about their upcoming show:
CURSE OF THE BLAIR WITCH
In October 1994, three student
filmmakers disappeared in the Black
Hills forest of Western Maryland while shooting
a documentary film about the myth of the Blair
Witch. They have never been found. Their
recoverd footage has been reconstructed into
the theatrical film The Blair Witch Project.
This exclusive Sci Fi special takes a closer
look at the horrible legend they set out to
document, and the aftermath of their
unexplained disappearance.
Airs Monday, July 12 at 10PM & 1AM ET*
Sunday, July 18 at 8PM & 1AM ET*
Thursday, July 22 at 11PM ET*
Friday, July 30 at 3AM ET*
Saturday, July 31 at 1PM ET*
Thursday, August 5 at 3AM ET*
Otto - Is what Dr. Laura did censorship? It's certainly a questionable tactic: if you perceive the library is a problem, approach the library. If the library isn't in any kind of violation of law, then Dr. Laura can disagree all she wants, can raise public awareness, can picket the place - but to go to a major financial supporter and blindside the library, and take it upon oneself to hurt EVERYONE who utilizes the services it provides because of her decision of what's right or wrong is simply incorrect, IMO. It smacks of grandstanding and trying to make a bigger name for herself, at whoever's expense. I'm reminded of Ted Turner and his attempts to keep the recent film version of "Lolita" from being distributed in America because it conflicted with HIS moral sense, which was a blatant attempt at censorship. This is more a matter of dirty pool and politcal maneuvering because of how she went about it than it is censorship - at least that's how I look at it. it still doesn't make it any less wrong.
Chris - I've kept a journal at four different times in my life, and every time I did, the quality of my life went spiraling downhill not long after I started keeping notes. Conversely, when I don't keep one, life has much more goodness to it. This is, I'm sure, merely coincidence - however, I've got several journals with nothing but random misery to show for the effort - so I just don't do it any more. A writing journal is another matter all together...
Latest from the trenches:
As a proud and constantly irritated employee of the public library system, I tend to be involved directly or in- with things like banned books, blocked websites, etc. (And yes, I'm the subversive force that keeps putting "Heather Has Two Mommies" and "Daddy's Roommate" on display in the childrens' section, through sheer perversity.) The most recent development has me gnawing on my knuckles. (I've given up tearing out my hair.)
You might know of a certain radio personality, a Dr. Laura Schlesinger (I'm sure I spelled that wrong), who hurls invective against people who leave their kids and/or spouses, people who do stupid things and mess up the lives of those around them, etc. Well, recently, she became particularly charged about the fact that many public libraries have no kind of filter system on the computers used to access the internet. She turned to Toys 'R' Us, a huge supporter of public libraries, and said that if they were a responsible corporation, they would withdraw their funding. They did.
One of the things I find disturbing about this is that there hasn't been more of a public outcry. Isn't this censorship? I thought censorship was bad, one of those no-no's in the constitution. But I could be wrong.
PS - Doc, I could kiss you for finding that quote, but it would probably make both of us really uncomfortable. I e-mailed the full citation to the professor who was the recipient of the essay that contained the semi-accurate quote. Thanks again.
A couple different points:
1) Blair Witch Project. It's already been described but I wanted to add one comment. It has the BEST, CLASSIEST trailer I have ever seen. It starts with a little intro and then they just run black leader as a girl, voice trembling, talks about how she's so sorry this happened, how everything went wrong, etc. Then the ONLY footage you see is at the end as they show an extreme closeup of part of her face, just the eyes, nose, part of the mouth as she finishes her speech: "I am so scared." And then they're out. It's beautiful. Doesn't give away anything, just provides you an emotional tone and engages your imagination and curiousity. And it's just downright creepy. So much creepier than it could possibly be by showing extended clips from the film. Just the way a trailer should be. There is a website for it which is, I believe, www.blairwitchproject.com
I also saw a trailer for Sleepy Hollow (by Tim Burton, starring Johnny Depp) which looked very interesting as well.
2) I also have my most productive hours between midnight and four. Is this a theme? Of course, I should say I "had" my most productive hours as I have not written for a while now.
However, I have recently started keeping a daily journal. So far, I just use it to write down a page or so of my thoughts for the day, whatever catches my fancy. I hope to add bits of creative writing to the journal soon.
My question to the writers out there is do you keep a daily journal? If so, do you find it useful?
So far, I have found it a therapeutic experience.
-chris
DOC: to kick off the discussion about good ghost stories (without getting into the "what makes a" part, cause it's late here and time to bed down), I'd like to say that, for me, the definition was realized in the following: GHOST STORY by Peter Straub, BAG OF BONES by Stephen King, several tales by Shirley Jackson (including HILL HOUSE), "The Jolly Corner" by Henry James and (for comedy) "Mom" by Harlan Ellison. (I also believe that, around Spring of 2000, I'll be able to add THE HOUNDS OF WINTER by Dan Simmons, which is currently a work-in-progress, to that short list). There are probably a few others but it's late, and they escape me. Out here, DTS.
and that is F&SF... this damned summer cold is squeezing at my brain.
---Peter
Wow, finder, you just described my high school dating career. Not that three years of college has actually changed that very much...
Doc, I sometimes have problems with some of the stories in S&SF. I canna remember the last time I actually made it all the way through an issue. But then again, I'm also a little peeved at them. You may have gotten the big envelope, but I sent my last story to them almost two months ago with no word. Usually Van Gelder is good at bouncing things back to me, so I'm going on the supposition that either he's sitting on it, or it got lost in the mail. Either case I think I might try some smaller markets for a while. I'm tired of receiving letters that say "A very (interesting, well told, vivid, disturbing) story. Alas, I'll have to pass on it." Then I have two other stories I sent out at the same time to a couple of other magazines. One probably got lost because the week after I sent it I got word that the magazine moved their offices. Another was to a small press which admits to taking anything from eight weeks to a year to respond. Ah, Well. That is the price of things I guess.
Oh yeah, finder. I too have the productive hours between midnight and four. Only, I have to be extremely careful about proofreading after one of those sessions. I've come up with some interesting grammatical constructs in the wee hours of the morning.
---Peter (who would be happy to see a rejection slip)
Charlie - I seem to recall SF Age has already published the fragment of "Pet", a couple years back (and not in the premiere issue, either); I have a copy, though I'm not sure where it is (many boxes from the move are still, well, boxed). Interesting story opening with an essay by HE talking about the tale. Why it would appear in their literatue for subscribers now is curious, unless they sent out some old marketing materials.
Doc - What do you want to know about "The Blair Witch Project"? It's a curious indie horror film in the form of a documentary - the hook is that the film is supposed to be footage shot by three students who went looking for the Blair Witch and vanished in the Maryland wilds. Their film (found a year later) tells the tale of what happened to them. There's a good buzz on it, with some hyperbole at the extreme end comparing its horror quotent to that of "The Exorcist". We'll see - but it looks interesting in a raw, low budget way.
Well, back to the keyboard - midnight to 4 am are my peak creative hours, and with my latest dating prospect having spent most of our hour on the phone telling me about the great guy she met, I've got some issues to write out...
Okay, two things, now that the travellogue is done:
First, I recently caught a sneak preview of Kevin Bacon's new movie, "Stir of Echoes." Check it out -- pretty slick little ghost story, from the book by Richard Christian Matheson, screenplayed and directed by David Koepp. If anyone's up for a discussion of what makes a good ghost story, I'm ready. And if anyone knows anything about "The Blair Witch Project," let me in on it, okay?
Second: Is it me, or does F&SF, in recent issues, seem to be maintaining a fine balance of the Good, the Bad and the Extremely Pookie? Check the August issue, if you don't get what I mean. I might be prejudiced, since I recently receeived the big envelope instead of the small (check-sized) envelope on my submission (with cursory note, and astonishingly quick turn-around time).
Yours in Sour Grapes,
Doc
Hi-ho, Old Gang o' Mine! Yes, the visit with Sue, Joe and Wylie (in no particular order) was an unparalleled delight! My only disappointment was its brevity. Okay, it was several hours -- still, you know how it is when you're visiting people you like lots: Goodbyes come so soon...
Anyhoo, we did lunch at Chow, then hit J.D. for mortal combat with cakes and oceans of coffee and assorted what not, then did a lap at Marina Green, pointed at Green's (where I had a delightful face-a-face with the Dennises), a glimpse of the Palace of Fine Arts, then into the Darkest Fillmore in search of the 2nd best barbeque in San Francisco -- only to discover that that branch of Leon's has closed. Ended up getting pizza at Pizza Inferno, where the decor is as vivid as the food. All the while using MUNI for our transport (MUNI is sort of like the Jungle Tour at Disneyland, but with real animals).
And incase you were wondering, the BEST barbeque in SF is, without question, Pittman's, on Fillmore. Hot links for which it is to die! Unfortunately, they're closed on Sunday.
Still, there are further adventures awaiting Wylie, should she ever risk the local traffic in future.
Oscar Wilde once noted that, if you stand long enough on a San Francisco streetcorner, you will eventually meet everyone you ever knew. Let me know when you're coming, okay? The room's a mess....
Cheers, Doc
sorry, that's "babbling"
ok, I'm confused. Rec'd one of those adverts to sign up for Sci. Fiction Age magazine. It states you'll receive the annual subsc. plus the out of print premier issue. It goes on to promise an unfinished story by HE entitled "Pet". However, it doesn't state whether the story is (1) upcoming, (2) in the premier issue, or (3) already published in a previous issue. Plus it mentions an "exclusive journey through his innermost psyche". Anyone have a clue what the publisher is babling on about?
Wylie - sent you an email from my other account with an explanation. Hopefully you'll get it before your computer goes away (me, I'd hide it and claim it was stolen.....). Peg
Peg? My email to you came back. Wanna email me first and we'll go from there?
Hello Peg and everyone! Meeting Sue and Doc and Sue's husband was marvelous. Yummy talk and interesting food and vice versa. Hoping to get down to the city again soon to take in a movie and cake from Just Desserts with Doc. I'm also trying to figure out how to visit Sue and Joe next summer when my beau and I go to Nebraska for a family picnic. I hear Joe is quite a cook and he sure knows good food! Sue is a force of nature and intelligence--just like I figured :) It was a delightful day altogether. Wooooooooooo!
Peg--would love to see you in September (isn't that a song?) and I live smack in the middle of Sonoma County. San Francisco is only 45 min to an hour away, and depending on when you arrive we could get together and have some fun. I'll email with my phone, etc, as my former spouse gets custody of the computer tomorrow (natch) and my on-line fun will grind down to a depressing only-once-in-a-while. Snail mail and the phone may be the only timely ways to stay in touch until I manage to get another computer. My email will remain intact, I'm just not sure when I'll get to check it. Do judges ever grant visitation rights regarding possessions?
Goodnight to you all--I'll join in when I can. Take care.
Wylie
Doc, Wylie, Sue.... I'm anxiously awaiting news of all the fun you folks had!! How was it??
Peg
Everybody duck - I'm well rested.
Y'know, I think part of the misunderstanding with regards to Harlan and forthcoming works is that whereas most writers keep their "work" cards close to their vest, HE isn't shy about his writing ambitions. If he has six books in the offing, be they writing themselves in his head or coming off the carriage of the Olympia, he's going to mention them. He's a writer. Writers talk up their ideas. It's part and parcel of the creative process, and every writer I've met does it. It's just that Harlan does it publicly. And so when an idea falls out of favor (and for those of you who don't write, believe me - they can fall from grace like rain from the gray), or it goes to the back burner, or the deal falls through, or it gets mangled beyond recognition by editor/publisher/studio/circumstance, with most authors you never know it happened.
Maybe a project surfaces down the road (a la the Hornbook), maybe HE loses interest (which I had heard happened to the "Demon With A Glass Hand" novel), and maybe work continues, albeit slowly (I was encouraged to read in an introduction - and if anyone remembers where HE wrote it, an assist would be appreciated - that HE still spoke to himself in Vic and Blood voices; it's there, somewhere, in the mix). Ultimately, it doesn't matter. Until a book is published, it isn't actually a book, and there's no sense in even worrying about the book until you're reading the actual jacket copy. That's what I've done with Douglas Adams' twice-announced "Salmon Of A Doubt", the third Dirk Gently novel. Hasn't arrived. I hope it does, but with everything else worth reading, I'll cross that bridge when and if it arrives.
Yeah, there are a number of catchy titles that have been spoken aloud - "Dial '9' To Get Out" and "The Sound of a Scythe" and "The Dark Forces: The Salamander Enchantment" and yes, "The Last Dangerous Visions", and over a dozen more that have been listed, mentioned, pre-publication promoted and even solicited. But they're only titles. And titles without text beneath them are ghosts, and should be given as much time and effort. As HE has said, he's dancing as fast as he can. With all the written work so far, the causes he's taken up and championed (usually without personal consideration or compensation), the personal appearances, the seemingly endless autograph lines, personal appearances and new mediums he's tried in the last few years (with a regular television commentary and the number of audio books he's done of late), I think he's entitled to dance at whatever tempo he chooses - it's part of the respect he's earned and deserves.
Joe - I doubt HE would want to punch you in the nose. I think it'd be more of a bored "And?" Ultimately, he writes for himself. The sum total of the words he's obligated to deliver to readers is approximately nil. But I sometimes wonder if the endless carping by people (and I'm not directing this at you, Joe - I understood your question on the glassware story was curiosity driven, and your like of the man's work seems sincere) for this book or that story or such and such collection actually dampens enthusiasm on Harlan's part for those projects. I know creatively I'm less inclined to do something the more I'm badgered about it. Any thoughts anybody?
All - Anyone going to Readercon, having seen the schedule, I wish you all a grand time - HE is going to be hopping, but I'm sure there are numerous treats in store - and if the State of Virginia sees its way clear to send my long-overdue refund, I may just drive up for Saturday/Sunday (everyone clap and perhaps the Tax Tinkerbell will live long enough to deliver the goods.)
HEY PEG (and anyone else listening), no sweat. It's an easy mistake on your part, and I didn't take offense to it for a second. So back to business:
I remember hearing from Rick (a.k.a. Webderland) that Harlan had agreed to write a short story for some collectable-glassware magazine. I even emailed the publisher who told me how I could get a copy of the specific issue for a certain price. But I was sort of broke at that time, and I couldn't afford such luxuries. And I more or less forgot about it. And that's why I asked about it here. I thought someone here might know how it turned out.
I'm sorry to say that I have become rather pessimistic when it comes to "forthcoming" things by HE. Most of the time it isn't his fault (e.g., the Corridor comic books; oops, I meant to say "graphic novels"), but in a recent interview with The Onion (whatever the hell that is) Harlan seemed to be very honest about this fact (thanks to the unusually insightful question of the interviewer), the fact that he can be a pain in the ass to work with, and that sometimes, despite the integrity underlying that aspect of his persoanlty, it does get in the way of things working out for the best. That is to say, projects get going, but they never get finished. It kinda happens a lot with Harlan.
(Note that, nonetheless, I admire the hell out of Harlan. I don't know if I'd want to have three meals a day with him like Susan, but I have more admiration and respect for Harlan than any other person I know but have never met. And I'll bet he wakes up every morning and thanks his pagan gods that he has someone like Susan in his life. I would.)
I don't expect to see the EDGEWORKS series to reach completion. I don't expect to see BLOOD'S A ROVER or THE LAST DANGEROUS VISIONS during my lifetime. And I don't expect to see MEFISTO IN ONYX to make it to the silver screen any time within the next 20 years either.
If Harlan read this, he'd probably want to punch me in the nose. But I'm not saying I don't believe in Harlan. I'm just saying that I don't expect these things to happen. (So when these things *do* happen, I can't tell you how great it makes me feel to be wrong. I think Harlan's the best.)
Anyhow, I didn't mean to trash Harlan with this posting. I was just explaining my previous question about the glassware story. I'm guessing nothing ever came of it.
I look forward to be proven wrong.
(P.S., Rick has my address if anyone feels the need to send me a private message. I don't mind if he gives it out to anyone who requests it.)
By the way, what else has Chad Oliver written besides "Blood's a Rover"? I don't read much SF, so the name is new to me.
ost. We've been whacked so many times before. I took your
comment about the story for the "magazine about collectable glassware" to mean Ellison Under Glass, which was
discussed only days ago; and as Barney correctly surmise, your comment about Blood's a Rover to refer to the
something that's incorrectly associated with Harlan Ellison, also in previous posts just this week.
Again, truly I'm sorry. I hope you won't take my post as a reason to stay away, I'm sure folks will enjoy what you
have to offer.
Joe,
My sincere apologies about misinterpreting your post. We've been whacked so many times before. I took your comment about the story for the "magazine about collectable glassware" to mean Ellison Under Glass, which was discussed only days ago; and as Barney correctly surmise, your comment about Blood's a Rover to refer to the something that's incorrectly associated with Harlan Ellison, also in previous posts just this week.
Again, truly I'm sorry. I hope you won't take my post as a reason to stay away, I'm sure folks will enjoy what you have to offer.
Thanks,
Peg
***JOE***
crap crap crap
sloppy reading on my part - I'll check out the Hartwell anthology.
stupid from the heat...
***JOE***
Your comments pissed Peg off for a couple of different reasons which you may or may not come to understand. Recently Rick Wyatt [Head Pool Cleaner of the Watering Hole That Is Webderland] has asked that people posting here leave their e-mails at least once. I believe this can also be privately to Rick. The reason for this is that this board invites sniping like a bunch of troops crossing an open field in a bunch wearing orange khaki. Why us and not Bruce Sterling - I dunno. I post my real name and e-mail everywhere on the net and this has so far [4 years now] gotten me about 2 pieces of SPAM a day, on average. I'm out about 5 seconds of delete key time and people trust my intentions when I post. A fair trade off in my book.
Regarding Chad Oliver's "Blood's A Rover" - It seemed more likely that your question was a reaction to my previous post [3 posts down] regarding late or unfinished work than to a rather obscure short story from the early 1950's. If memory serves, I have some Chad Oliver upstairs. If it's not in those I'd appreciate it if you could name an anthology it's in so that I might read it.
Until then I remain, guardedly,
Barney Dannelke
Yo Peg,
(1) I'm not trying to waste anyone's time by asking if anyone has read "Blood's a Rover." (I'll get to that in a minute.)
(2) I don't leave my email address on bulletin boards. I've done it before, with the results of receiving junkmail. There are Internet companies who scan boards such as this for email addresses, and then they send these people junkmail, and it's almost impossible to get take off their lists once you're on. I recently got a new email address and I *ain't* putting it out there for anyone to grab. That's just a policy of mine. I'm not trying to hide.
(3) I *haven't* been reading this board lately. If "Blood's a Rover" has come up as a topic of discussion, I wouldn't know about it. Also, I'm not referring to BLOOD'S A ROVER, the unpublished novel by Harlan Ellison...
(4) "Blood's a Rover" is a short story by Chad Oliver published in 1952. I quote: "Oliver tends to focus on motivations and values, rather than violence or action, in his fiction. "I was strongly influenced by writers outside the science fiction field, notably Hemingway and Steinbeck," he said."
(5) That quote is from THE SCIENCE FICITON CENTURY (a Tor book), edited by David G. Hartwell, 1997, in which the story "Blood's a Rover," by Chad Oliver (not Harlan Ellison) appears on page 961.
(6) It's a nice little story (a little over 30 pages), and I thought I'd tell you all about it incase you didn't know.
Yo Joe,
Your comments indicate you'd been reading the board lately (inferred from your subject matter, which was recently mentioned or discussed in several posts). And doubtless, you realize the questions you ask have no good answers. I'm sure your just a little misguided. Or not.
Since I'm generally a polite person, let me bring you up to speed on the board netiquette. First, we generally prefer civil, though not always agreeable, posts with a reason to be here. Not posts whose intent is plainly to cause ire and waste time.
Second, please include an email when posting. We all do by request of the web-meister hereabouts. That way, when someone puts insulting, provocative, or obviously-meant-to-irritate remarks, we can respond in private about the apparent excess of time on one's hands since one has already done everything else that is better to do with one's time and have worked one's way down the list to posting insulting, proocative, or obviously-meant-to-irritate posts on the webderland bulletin board.
Thanks kindly, and I'm sure we'll enjoy your company much better now.
Peg
Anyone ever read "Blood's a Rover?"
In Defense of Harlan Ellison - An essay by Barney Dannelke [Prompted by the fact that it's just too damned hot to go out and play.] Part of what follows is a reposting of a response to some charges made against Harlan on alt.fan.Ellison awhile back. The poster (who shall remain nameless here) went out of his way to insult Susan and then went on to imply that Harlan had done virtually nothing during the period 1989 -1993. Now, anybody who knows Harlan at all, knows that he is seldom, if ever, "doing nothing". So, I went to consult one of my notebooks and came across this...
With regard to your question of Harlan's output from 1989-1993......
My outline indicates this was a relatively slow period;
1 Gauntlet app.
1 Harpers app.
3 stories published in Omni
5 app.'s in Fantasy and Science Fiction
1 chapbook
2 poster stories
2 new stories published elsewhere
6 anthology app.'s
5 interviews of some length including the Winokur piece.
3 writers conferences
4 large science fiction conventions
3 smaller ones
a dozen or so tv app.'s
6 long essays
5 short essays
4 new introductions to his own work
1 lawsuit
14 new introductions or afterwords to the works of others
1st season work on Babylon 5
preliminary work on Mind Fields
the re-issueing of
A) Deathbird
B) Spider Kiss
C) No Doors, No Windows
D) Run For the Stars [as a TOR double]
E) Ensavark [the Swedish retrospective]
F] Dreams With Sharp Teeth [a QPB trade ed.]
G] 3 different editions of Mefisto in Onyx
H] Vic and Blood [w. Rich Corben/2 editions]
I realize A thru H represent no new material, but I would assert that these books don't spring from the foreheads of publishers without a little work on the part of the author.
Oh, and also;
The Essential Ellison
The Harlan Ellison Hornbook
Harlan Ellison Watching
Which, taken together, represent about 1500 pages of previously uncollected material. I realize this isn't quite the productive period it could have been but for a guy in his late 50's with Epstein-Barr and 85-90% blockage in a couple of arteries trying to enjoy the salad days of his fifth marriage it's not a bad slump.
And that was my response. Now I realize that defending Harlan is about as necessary a task as defending Jet Li . But lately I keep hearing a lot of "whatever happened to?", "did he ever finish?",
why didn't this come out when it was supposed to?". Man, give it a freakin' rest already. THINK about what's in the Glass Teats, and then imagine writing footnotes useful enough to bring a culture this stupid up to speed and concise enough to not have it run into a 3 volume set. Think about the way the bottom has fallen out of the comic book market [despite what Geppi/Diamond would have you believe] and ask yourself what the point would be in doing more Dream Corridor issues when Dark Horse is still WAY in the hole on the previous issues. And finally, regarding new works, although it's been said about a thousand times already, do you want it GOOD or do you want it next Thursday. Sheesh.
PS. Doc, Nicole, DTS, Xanadu, send me your current snail mails as I'll have something for you next week.
PSS. who all's goin to RedaerCon 11. Say hello. Later folks.
PSSS. Hey Rick, thanks for the bandwidth, especially since you've said all this before. And better.
Speaking of things written by The Man, does anyone know if HE ever got around to writing that short story for that magazine that specializes in collectable glass-ware?
Well, I haven't seen Wild Wild West yet. I'll probably go see it with my family, though I don't expect much. I do, however, have a movie recommendation of my own. While I won't deny that the movie is unsuitable for children, I highly encourage any free thinking adult in the mood for intelligent satire disguised as low-brow potty humor to go see South Park. I'm not a fan of the show (I watch it once in a blue moon) but I think this movie really layered itself well. Yes it's crass. Yes it's crude. Yes there are some rather unfortuate scenes that even caused me to cringe. However, I really enjoyed the movie because, all in all, it really said things that needed to be said. But, maybe that's just me.
As for Neverwhere. I loved the BBC mini, even recorded it, and the book is wonderful. I highly recommend it.
---Peter (typing sloppily)
Sue! Excellent! Hug Doc and Wylie for me!
Ah-hah. Okay. Now it all makes sense. Speaking of EDGEWORKS. . .Whatever became of Edgeworks Five? (The Glass Teat and The Other Glass Teat). Just curious. And, yes, I will be looking for the book this series is based on. Until next time. . .
*On the Road Again* will be in the SF area day after tomorrow - be warned Doc and Wylie :-) Anyone with bail mone..err... who wants to join in the fun, e-mail wylie or Doc and let us know :-)
Be home, and posting again in another 2 weeks or so..
Jim - You mean "Neverwhere", based on NG's novel - which is a fine read, if you haven't part-taken. And yes, HE has a collaboration in the works with NG, earmarked for the Edgeworks 6 reprinting of "Partners In Wonder". All - for those of you on the road this weekend, have a safe and sane trip, steer clear of cheap fireworks, and if you see a metallic aqua blur zip past in the Carolinas, that would be your Friendly Neighborhood Finder on a mission to sand, sun and surf.
Sorry, folks. Haven't been around much. Too much fun to have. Anyhoo, the reason I came by here is actually two-fold. First up, on the subject of THE MATRIX (hey, I told you: I haven't been around much, so this may be the makings of a twice-chewed meal; lay off, huh?) I picked up this show on PBS called something like NEVERSCAPE (or something like that). A lotta similiarities between it and THE MATRIX. Neil Gamian (Gamien?) is listed in the credits. Didn't Harlan work with him? Second point here, where IS Harlan Ellison anyway? I was thinking of something he had read in the workshop he did almost a year ago and I will be screwed to cheese to remember the name. I remember part of the passage he read was built on the repetitious emphasis of the sun. If he's lurking Out There, pop up and offer forth the name of this novel. I would call, but, well, that isn't proper and I don't want my chops busted for trivia. Until next time. . .
Hmm. Interesting to hear that someone actually received an ELLISON UNDER GLASS refund. I gave up after two years of trying, a few phone calls to ol' DWS, and a half a dozen letters. Figured I'd run into him at a convention sometime and find $75 sliding from his wallet to mine. Unfortunately, I've been to one convention in my life. Still have that damned credit card receipt somewhere. Maybe it's time to start badgering Smith again.
ALL: Anyone had a chance to see "The Wild, Wild West" movie yet? If not, my recommendation is -- don't bother. I took my daughter to it today. She's nine. She liked it. I suppose kids might like it. But it's bad in the way that "Batman & Robin" was bad. Before it came out, I told my wife that I thought they'd mess up the movie by doing the same thing the guys who made all those "Roger Moore" James Bond movies: instead of taking a far-out premise and treating it seriously (the way Sean Connery did, or Pierce Brosnan does), and letting comedic moments slip in naturally, they set the whole thing up as farce from the beginning, having their actors play the roles like stooges and throwing too many sight gags (not to mention horrid writing). The old t.v. show treated the "Jim West," SF/western premise with the same respect that Connery did his James Bond role. The big screen version of "Wild, Wild West" does a "Roger Moore" on what is, essentially, an unbeatable formula -- and manages to trash a terrific opportunity in the process. What a waste. On the plus side, I rented "The Faculty" last night, thinking I'd be watching a no-brainer, B+ horror flick (even though Kevin Williamson wrote it), and was pleasantly surprised. Williamson knows his old SF flicks (and novels) as well as the slice and dice horror genre. What's more, this film had less graphic violence than his others. And a lot of smart references to Heinlein, Finney and "The Thing" (both film versions). Very cool. Not to mention some clever twists (saving the world by abusing substances; and an alien species that offers a world where no one is picked on because of their differences -- as long as one doesn't mind being a mindless slave). And there's a pretty neat ending to boot. Out here, DTS.
jeff: I had the same problem regarding ELLISON UNDER GLASS. Except, through persistence, I kept in touch with D.W. Smith, (tracking down his new phone number and address via articles about Pulphouse and by calling information -- in Washington). At first, Smith told me that the publication had been canceled, and that he had to pay off several other major creditors, so I agreed to wait patiently. Then, after nearly two years of calling (every few months or so) and/or writing about the status of my refund and getting no answer, I finally got in touch with him by sending a no-nonsense message via email to his wife (Kristine Katherine Rusch, who has a website -- I would've been happy with a letter from Dean saying he had gotten so far in debt that he might never get to me, or a note now and then saying he had forgotten, or even a return phone call -- after the money I'd spent -- but totally ignoring the situation, after I'd been a loyal, paying supporter of the Hardback magazine -- bought about 12 or 14 of those suckers at $20 a pop -- and other of their admittedly fine products...well, let's just say it really ticked me off). And suffice it to say that my note (with a return, regular mailing address) got results. I got a response from Dean and a check only one week later. Just another avenue of answers for anyone else (like myself or "jeff") who have found themselves on the short end of the stick regarding monetary recompense and good old fashioned courtesy and manners. Out here, DTS. (P.S. In the end, after all the money spent on long distance phone calls, I think I ended up about $20.00 short on my $75 refund).
Mike, Pulphouse quietly went out of business a few years ago and ELLISON UNDER GLASS was never published.
I, too, ordered a copy at a pre-publication rate and wound up getting the Sheckley book and an unsolicited subscription to Tomorrow magazine. I wrote a letter to the only address I had for Pulphouse requesting a refund (I had paid for a signed, limited edition) but got no response.
I mentioned this to Harlan at a signing he did here, expecting him to say "Gee, that's tough luck," but he immediately offered to try to get the money back for me. I wound up sending Harlan a letter (to Pulphouse) at his HERC address (which is available elsewhere on this website) with as much documentation as I had, including a copy of the cancelled check and the unanswered letter. Within a few weeks I got a full refund from Dean Wesley Smith, former proprietor of Pulphouse and now an occasional Star Trek novelist.
(I sent Harlan a thank-you note and promised him I would spend the proceeds on EDGEWORKS volumes!)
Give it a shot; you got nothing to lose at this point.
Finder, thanks for the assist.
Hello, there.
Does anyone out there have any info on an Ellison collection from about 1990 or 1991, called, "Ellison Under Glass"? It was supposed to come from Pulphouse Publishing. I ordered a copy in May of '90. Sometime after that, I received from Pulphouse a paperback collection (FIVE volumes) of the short fiction of Robert Sheckley. Pulphouse sent it as,"...our way of saying thanks for hanging on and believing in the ELLISON UNDER GLASS project." That is the last I have heard of it. Anyone out there know what happened to it, or, for that matter, Pulphouse?
Charlie - I found a web site (and have since lost it) that identified HE was doing the Forward to "Pot Stories for the Soul". Makes sense in a way, as HE has historical ties to the counter-culture, a niche Paul Krassner (who is assembling "Pot Stories...") inhabits. Krassner also appears to have been tied to "Growing Medical Marijuana Organically" by Amazon - I would guess in the case of the latter, unless HE is also doing some king of introductory material there as well, it's just an odd cross-pollination by the brainchildren at Amazon, who still insist that "Blood's Rover" is an out of print Ellison title.
I did an amazon search on HE, and it shows 2 books, not yet published, that associates his name. The titles of the books are "Pot Stories for the Soul" and "Growing Medical Marijuana Organically". Does anyone have info. on these items, as amazon doesn't. There is mention of the Outer Limits book, due October.
charlie:
It's A Canadian publishing(see below).
shipping is "no charge surface mail" 3 day delivery.
publisher: HarperCollins Canada, Limited
publication date: October 1998
isbn: 0732259177
Thanks for the info Shane, I cruised the site and got some other NASFiC info on email. Problem is they don't have a program yet (not even preliminary). The stuff that is currently on the website - art show, dance, costume/masque - is nice but not my cup-o-tea. I'm really interested in attending for the panels and other bits, so I gotta hold my breath and turn blue till they can give some more detail. I will definitely let you know if I'm gonna go so we can meet up.
(I suppose, in the grand scheme, if I donated $500 to have a phone call, I could spend at least that much to meet HE in person. Then again the cash ain't going to charity here....)
Thanks again,
Peg
Also, I should clarify the book was $24.95 (Aussie $) and the S&H (airmail) was $20. I suppose if you wanted surface rate, the S&H are cheaper.
Al, that certainly would be a savings. Is the book a Canadian publication or an Aussie import?
charlie & other interested parties:
"Dreaming Down Under" is available from Indigo Books.
It's the Canadian version of Amazon.com
**www.indigo.ca**
At $19.95 Canadian it's a bargain.(unless the Aussie buck is
worth a lot less than I think it is).
aw
Hey All- I finally located and received a copy of "Dreaming Down Under", which Locus has touted as the Australian Dangerous Visions. (a couple of the stories have been reprinted in the latest Dozois Best Of anthology) It even has 33 stories, and an intro. and afterword to each story. It's edited by Jack Dann & Janeen Webb. It even has a nice 2 page introduction by HE, who mentions that he wanted to do an Aussie anthology in the early 80s. I've tried locating the book in the US, but to no avail. Even many Aussie book stores were out and the book has not been re-printed, yet. ANYWAY, for those who may wish to purchase a copy, contact Slow Glass Books, by phone/fax at 011-61-39-6391511. The store is located in Melbourne, and last I spoke to them they had loads of copies. Oh yeah, the price, well I was charged $45 Aussie dollars. You do the conversion;I've already done the hard work locating the book.
1st time poster, been lurking awhile and got curious about y'all.
If I'm going to come up with a reason to escape my evil boss and attend the convention in Anaheim, how do I find out which day HE will be holding forth? I do not wish to escape in vain, only to find myself lured across the street from the convention center to you know where.....
Thank you all for your thoughts and condolences. It was a difficult week. School ended yesterday and my final act as a teacher (before taking my leave of absence for a year) was to sing our school song with a bunch of the kids at this lady's memorial service. The service was an odd combination of tears and rejoicing. There was much music, which in this situation, is about the only thing I found comforting. I let the tears out. Tears are the sweat of a soul working hard to detoxify. It helped somewhat. Again, thanks for your kindnesses here.
Keegan, and, even more belatedly, Gary from Canada--sorry to read of your losses.
Sue--Yes, a healthy skepticism is a useful thing. I gathered my info from four years as a Borders employee, from pre K-mart, through K-Mart, to Borders, Inc. Two of those years as an Office Manager. My store, #29, was built and in operation for more than a year before the K-Mart buyout.
PEG: NASFIC can be found at www.99.nasfic.org
To answer a few of your questions:
NASFIC's in L.A. (actually, Anahiem and across the street from Disneyland) are LARGE. 5,000 attending members would not surprise me. However, size means variety. There is always something to see, someone to listen to, someplace to go to.
I'm planning on attending because Harlan is scheduled to talk/sign autographs for three hours. Joe Straczynski (B5 / CRUSADE is also supposed to be there and I enjoy his talks nearly as much as I enjoy Harlan speaking. No offense to Joe, Harlan has been speaking for decades longer then Joe.
that would be..."to see Harlan *and* meet some..." geez
Are any webderfolks planning to go to NASFIC in LA in August? I'm debating on going (am seeing some cheap airfares at the moment) but have a couple of strikes against me...
a) I've never been to a con (hangs head in shame)
b) Obligatory relative visitation if I hit the LA area
c) My only reason for attending would be to see Harland meet some of you kind people (okay, that's not a strike per se, but it's a pretty limited reason to go and spend up to $1000 for tickets, planes, car rental, etc.)
Has anyone here been to NASFIC before? Is it huge and overwhelming? Do they have a website (none's listed in the appearances section here - already checked)?
Cheers,
Peg
Since finder asked...
I attended HeroesCon and thought some of you might be interested in the HE portion of a "con report" I sent to a mailing list I'm on...
========
I spent a nice chunk of Friday upstairs with Harlan Ellison. When I entered the room, there were less than a dozen people in line for autographs but it still took me an hour to reach him. He talked to everyone and would frequently stop to tell stories and answer questions (and how he gets the "grouchy" image, I'll never know. He might've intimidated a few people, but he was more than pleasant during the time I spent there.) When his listed time for a reading came, he cut the signing line and asked if the audience would rather have a reading or stories. We got both.
He started telling stories that led into other stories (each time making sure to finish the one he started) and here're a few of the topics covered, all while he was eating a crappy tasting sandwich...
- Detective #567 is his favorite comic that he's written
- "Bill & Ted" movie is a guilty pleasure
- Roger Ebert has not asked him to fill in for Gene.
- To Michael Moore: "F*ck you, fatass." (re: a question about Moore's comments pertaining to directors getting or deserving more credit. I *think* this was the question. I *know* this was his answer.)
- Mind Fields is his favorite book of his (and he ended with a reading of "Base" from this book).
He then proceeded to sign autographs for those that missed out before the stories, so I went back downstairs. I would have loved to have attended the HE sessions the other two days, (especially when he said each day is "new material" and not repeated from a previous day), but I wanted to see some of the other guests as well.
==========
If anyone has reports from the other two days, I'd be interested in reading them.
By the way, HeroesCon is a *great* show and the only reason I'm not going back next year is because I'm planning a trip to San Diego for my "one con a year" visit. A trip to Charlotte for this con is not the worst thing you could do.
Greetings from a first-time poster.....
I attended HeroesCon in Charlotte, NC this past weekend and had a blast being entertained by Harlan's lectures and panel discussions and chatting with him briefly.
Can anyone else who was there tell me if the missing book situation was ever resolved?
And if Barney is listening, it was nice meeting you (albeit briefly). Thanks for showing me the George Carlson book too.
KEEGAN, Alex, Gary - *HUG* :-( It sucks. And nuthin I can do about it, except try to keep the torches going that others lit for me.
Todd and jeff - I checked it out, and you are right. DANG!! Seems my little trip down Memory Lane shoulda been called Gullible's Travels! I was remembering the months and months worth of weekly "Grand Opening" Sales Border's had after the K-Mart buy-out.. Seems that K-Mart was just publicizing the pre-existing stores they bought, that Border's never mentioned... SHEESH!! Well, at least it explains how K-Mart 'built' all those stores so fast.. We kinda wondered about it at the time.. Think I'm gonna give up having a "favorite" business of any variety, you just can't believe what business tells you..
Al - I will inform the security guards at K-mart that I am spitting as your proxy.. ;-)
Nicole -- alas, the presence of Harlan and Susan on the board was a fun but fleeting hiccup in the normal order of things. True to form, AOL made the time an ordeal and a half for them both. Still, if you scroll down to the bottom of the board, you should still be able to read the results.
Rick, where ever you may be -- could you, er, archive? It's just that the board is getting awfully large (and we remember what happened last time).
---Peter
I used to post occasionally, quit for a while to enjoy the fruits of lurkdom, and now return....
Keegan: Twelve years ago I lost the best English teacher anyone ever had to a brain tumor. I visited her about a week before she died and she was so horribly changed physically that the vision still haunts me.
But her spirit was there, untouched by the ravages of chemotherapy, and it’s that spirit I hold in my heart. Besides the fact that this woman showed me I could write, believed I could write, she also thought I had the power to corral words and make them work for me, she showed me how Shakespeare lives in all literature, the difference between its and it’s, and how NEVER to use the word ‘snuck’ unless I wanted to end up as a television news anchor.
And she said it was o.k. to read everything Harlan Ellison every wrote as long as I took his suggestions about other stuff to read as well. Even then she saw I had in me the tiniest of voices and style, and knew it could be drowned if I didn’t take a look at the works of other writers. So I credit her with my introduction to the works of Ellison. Just as I credit HE with showing me worlds of literature I never dreamed existed.
Hardly a day goes by when I don’t think of her. And sometimes, when I’m having a rough time getting started on a story, I can hear her voice telling me to shut up and WRITE IT DOWN.
So I mourn for your loss, and your friend’s children’s loss, and the loss of her to students everywhere. But I know your friend has influenced hundreds of people, directly and indirectly, just as my teacher did. So she’ll live on in all of us.
Hello all! I've returned from the deep, dark, strangling grasp of the "real world", back to the sanctity of the boards...long time no see, all. Regulars- missed each and every one of yas, especially Rick and Barney. Just sticking my head out to let you all know I'm gonna be back in full swing again. I had heard a rumor a while back that Susan got a subscription for one free month of AOL not too long ago...what happened with that? Also, anyone got HE's latest appearance on PI that they could possibly copy and send to me, or perhaps would trade for something? ::mutters to herself "can't believe I missed it..." and thumps herself on the head::
Keegan, our hearts go out to you. The latest reason for my reading aloud to soothe my wife is because the chemotherapy fucks her up pretty badly. We¹re in our second bout with breast cancer in just under two years.
My wife and I were supposed to get married in July, next month. When her diagnosis came in February we decided to get married immediately, before all her treatments began. Best decision we ever made.
We fight back with life, as best we can. That is no platitude.
I have no other answers, and I had no other answers two years ago when she was first diagnosed and treated as we met and fell in love. For this disease to have taken so many, so much away from the world, THAT is monstrous. Our hearts go out to you.
KEEGAN: My thoughts are with you, with the two boys now bereft of a mother, and with the hundreds of schoolchildren deprived of the joy that having such a good teacher always is. The universe sucks, yes. But each death; each horrid happening, DOES help, in some small fashion, by bringing the rest of us closer together, and by imbuing those left behind to better emulate the shining light whose bright glow has forever dimmed.
Cold comfort, I know, but in a sucky universe, we have to take what we can get, make what we cannot, and deal with that which cannot be remade.
As for my current reading list--I just finished three Lawrence Blocks I bought at the Encore Books (another chain now in the last throes of death)--and I even just got an e-mail from Block himself (Peter, Finder, and anyone else here who wants to be a writer: Go seek out Block's books on writing, notably WRITING THE NOVEL, TELLING LIES FOR FUN AND PROFIT, and SPIDER, SPIN ME A WEB. Perhaps the best books on writing I've ever read.)! In addition, I'm reading THE ACTS OF KING ARTHUR AND HIS NOBLE KNIGHTS by Steinbeck, one of the old "Best of F & SF" books from the sixties, a few of Asimov's books of collected essays, THE DRAGONS OF EDEN by Carl Sagan, and FEAR AND LOATHING ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL by Hunter S. Thompson.
Next up: ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SOLITUDE by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, THE PAPERBOY by Pete Dexter, CONFESSIONS OF A MASK by Yukio Mishima, and THE MYSTERIOUS STRANGER AND OTHER CURIOuS TALES, a compendium of Mark Twain's more obscure stories, including his last novel.
(Oh; and leave us not forget the newly-purchased KAREN AMEN'S TIGHT BUNS, TRIM THIGHS--though I've been really happy with my progress at the gym these last few months, more needs to be done to firm up my Writer's Butt. Laugh if you like.)
Plus, I'm reading over my own novel, so I can better FINISH the farchachtah thing!
Third-time poster, long time lurker:
Sue: It would seem that you may have been in error for spitting on Kmart because of the Borders issue. I feel that the only way to correct this miscalculation is to spit on them again. After all, we're talking about Kmart. How tough can it be to come up with a perfectly legitimate reason.:)
I'd do it myself but I think cross border expectorating is an extraditable offence.
All: Despite some well presented theories regarding the Littleton tragedy I still have to conclude that it is called "senseless" violence for a reason.
The only answer I can come up with to respond to all the questions that arise is: "I don't know." There should be more to say, but anything else I might offer would just be speculation, no matter how sincere.
OK..... I'll play..........what am I readin'?
Just finished "The Lust Lizard of Melancholy Cove" by Christopher Moore. Another fine piece of work from one of the great wackos of our time.
........guaranteed to be mind alterring with no adverse side effects.
First-time poster; long-time lurker. Todd Mason is correct re the history of Borders. Borders already had 19 stores when it was acquired by Kmart; and Kmart can be blamed for nothing that has happened to this chain since they ditched it to raise cash in 1994. -- Jeff (also a native of Ann Arbor and friend of two-time Borders store manager).
Just an advance notice... The hubby and I will be heading south on vacation during late September. We'll be in the San Fran/Sonoma area for a few days, then to Ashland, Oregon for a few. If any of you fine webderfolks would like to get together please email me at the above and we can talk specifics.
Ciao....Peg
Finder -- F&SF has usually been very good about getting back to me with rejection letters. However I'm experiencing a new one here. I haven't heard word one about my last story, and I'm starting to believe that it, or the return were lost in the mail. Oh well, to borrow your battle cry, I too have not yet begun to write... maybe I should.
Keegan -- my condolences.
---Peter
Right now, I'm wrapping up Simmons' "Carrion Comfort", with King's "Hearts In Atlantis" (gotta love advanced reading copies), Kerouac's "Desolation Angels" and intermittant continued re-reading of "Stalking The Nightmare" - as I'm still working on my review - in the near future. Writing keeps poking up and my muse gets cranky when I don't listen. Oh, and in writing news, strike one from F&SF - my story hurried back to my box, but with an encouraging 'liked the storytelling, but the story was familiar' in the reject letter. C'est la vie. I have not yet begun to write...
Well, I'm here today because one of my colleagues died of cancer this weekend. I know this is one of the few places where I can express my anger at the universe over this. I'm pissed. This woman was a great teacher. She helped me get through some of the rougher aspects of school beaurocracy. She was an effective teacher who treated kids like people, not projects. She welcomed them not only into her classroom but into her life.
I went to see her the day before she died. The only comfort I have is that I got to tell her how much she meant to me and got to thank her for all she did for me and the kids.
Her own children, two of them very young boys (kindergartner and second grader)are left motherless. She was only 45. I railed at the universe in my car after seeing her and I'm railin' now. WHY?
She gave us all so much, it isn't fair and I am mad, mad, mad.
I'm also sad she's gone, glad she's not in the pain she was in when I last saw her, and happy I got to know her. I'm also exhausted from crying, because today, at school, it became real. This woman who fought so hard to get better so she could return to her classroom and see her youngest child graduate from high school never will. She was still joking and comforting me in the worst of her pain. You didn't know her, but education just lost another "good" one.
Thanks for listening.
I like the way these checks are prompted with some regularity. Dangerous Visions and A,DV here, finally. The Crossing, by Cormac McCarthy. And really and honestly on the nightstand is To Kill a Mockingbird, because intermittently I¹ve been reading aloud to my wife to help her sleep.
What¹s on the way? Hell¹s Angels, Hunter Thompson. Junky, William Burroughs. And I think some William Goldman. Temple of Gold, or Boys and Girls Together.
And with bated breath I¹m looking forward to seeing HE at ReaderCon.
Reading list check.
Simply because I like to know what everyone else is reading, here is my current nightstand (figuratively of course, my real nightstand runneth over with books). I'm currently read The Moon and Sixpence, by Somerset Maugham, The Silver Eggheads by Fritz Leiber, The Wastelands by Stephen King, The Wastelands by T.S. Eliot (must read the Eliot poem and King book at same time) And I attempted Wetbones by John Shirley, but I couldn't get into it.
---Peter
Anybody have any two-fisted tales from Harlan's appearance this weekend at the Heroes Con in Charlotte?
Todd - I have no idea what has gone on with Borders after the K-mart buyout, because Borders stopped being a matter of interest to me after that. I DO know that there was only ONE Border's store prior to that buy-out, which was located on State Street in Ann Arbor for almost 20 years, and moved one street down to the old Jacobson's Dept Store on the Liberty Block after that (and is still there). The second "Borders" was opened in the Towne Mall (Novi, MI) a few months later with a lot of ballyhoo. I know that, because I live here, patronized Borders all that time - and got to know the owners as a result (who have now started a new used bookstore called "Dave's Books" - and we have our fingers crossed). I don't know where you got that information from, but it's inaccurate.
In all the talk in various places about the school shootings, I find it curious that no one says: Hey, there's no real help for kids like these--or there is ... it's called "medication," which sure seemed to help Kip Kinkel, not to mention ... the list is growing every day. I speak as one who has had his birth family ruined by shrinks. Electroshock for my mom before I was born. When I was thirteen, she attempted suicide, showed up at a psych ward, and they let her out the next morning without (as they legally have to do in Canada) phoning my family. She committed suicide an hour later, leaving a note in which she said that my dad obviously didn't care or else he would have gone to the hospital--but they didn't phone!! I personally know dozens of people who have had their lives destroyed by shrinks. I knew a teenager who got in legal trouble and was sent for a "psychiatric evaluation," and, three months on Prozac later, he hanged himself. What passes for news is corporate news, and the corporate news is hiding the fact that modern-day psychiatry has destroyed more people's lives than Hitler--I say that in all seriousness. Those kids in Columbine needed help, and there was--and there is--nothing there for them. Except chemical warfare called psychiatry. Also, people saying that "it's fruitless to blame the parents," as Jan Wenner, editor of Rolling Stone, did in a essay in his mag, along with thousands of people saying the same thing, only shows how ignorant people are about parenting. Of course they didn't do their jobs as parents!!
Sue--K-mart doesn't own, and hasn't owned, Borders for over five years, and they began expanding well before Kresge bought into them. Borders Inc has been the driving force (of greed) behind the ever-blander selection of that chain...(the first, longer version of this message seems to have been eaten, electronically, so sorry if this appears and is redundant...)
SUE--Borders was significantly lessened by the K-Mart takeover, but K-mart spun Borders and Waldenbooks (and a few other little Walden subsidiary chains) off more than five years ago, now. Borders, Inc, has been a rapacious monster all by its lonesome for some time now, and even before K-mart bought in in 94, Borders was already expanding its store load and considering cutting back its title base. It surely wasn't K-Mart that fought the IWW unionization drive in Philadelphia tooth and nail, but the post-Kresge money-grubbers...when one of the IWW demands was a return to the fuller title-base.
Also, folks, not to minimize the ugliness of the insanity in Littleton, but have you all noticed a series of massacres, some small part of which was done in all we Americans' name (such as bombing a civilian bus and, as Beijing has spared no breath in consistently reminding us, the PRC embassy--like most nations, the PRC wants exclusive rights to mow down their own citizens), in Kosovo, to say nothing of less-well-covered points around the world and withing our borders, so to speak?
Best wishes to Stephen King.
If everything goes well for him, I'm sure we should see a book or twelve about this experience from him in about six months or so. :)
-chris
CNN is reporting that Steven King is recovering well from surgery after yesterday's car/pedestrian accident. Here's to a speedy recovery.
OK. In the order they arrived.
Peter - Personal responsibility has no geographic limit. I just argue with the "everyone is responsible" logic. I have had, up to this point, very little influence on the world as a whole. In fact I believe it is unimaginably hard for any individual to so influence the world. I did not know those people, so I could not act to stop them. To assign me some kind of "societal blame" is an empty no-answer. I have made it a point to be pro-active in my life. If I see a situation that is wrong or dangerous, I act. I have put myself into personal danger because of that compulsion. (With my daughter, now, I have been re-evaluating my position - since my responsibility to her is more apparent and immediate than my responsibility to my community.) I would not, could not have allowed Kitty Genovese to die, and I could not have stood by and let those "monsters" in Columbine do what they did. But I didn't know them...
Sue - I agree wholeheartedly, but I will add this. A public trial, even if it leads to the same result as a suicide, is closure. We are allowed to grieve, and we are allowed to speak those things publicly that now we can only say to each other in small groups.
Alex - Monsters. The definition is in their actions. That all of us have thought those things, replayed them over and over in our heads, destroyed the world in a fiery bloodbath, does not make us monsters. We can only judge monsters by their actions. I hold dear the right to think bad things, to say bad things, to imagine awful worlds where such bad things happen. It is called freedom of expression.
There is no right to actually do bad things. Those that do are judged by individuals and society. I will call them monsters because I am tired of the ceaseless notoriety someone gains by doing awful things. They have, by their actions, gained more world attention than I ever will in my lifetime of doing the simple things I do. Making them anonymous "monsters" is my answer to the psychological thrill they get imagining their names in the headlines.
I cannot agree with your statement that the act of securing a gun necessitates loading it, which then necessitates aiming it, which leads irrevocably to firing it at another human being. They are physical steps that require active participation by a human mind. I do agree that they lived in a fantasy world and their decisions were not those of a rational human being. What I was saying is that no "thing" can pull a trigger - only a human mind who wishes it pulled.
Ultimately, what I wanted to point out is that this search for a clue, cause, or answer will be a very unfulfilling one for all of us, because as soon as we have settled on the "answer", some new monster will come along and start everything over. We cannot legislate human nature, and we will always be surprised by the depravity and degeneracy our race is capable of inflicting on ourselves.
This is not to say we can't do anything, but let us all try to keep our goals reasonable. I have acknowledged that I will likely not change the world, but I will do my damndest to make my small part of it just a little better than I found it.
Couple points I want to address here.
We're looking for blame; for causal events or entities in the myriad school shootings so prevalent these days.
While I understand that that's the normal human impulse in these situations, especially for the victims and those close to them (my cousin is Nancy Spungen's mother, so I've seen this stretched to the extreme), it's wrong.
Dead wrong.
The problem with doing this is that there are just too many variables to consider, and we tend to focus on one or two, often ones that have no real bearing on what happened, but are tangible targets for our anger (witness the furor over videogames and movies as well as the demonization of the Colorado shooters' parents, who, from all accounts, really did try to raise their kids right).
It's not any one thing, sadly; it's not a disease that will respond easily to a simple societal vaccine.
And it sure as Sheboygan ain't "monsters".
We're all of us monsters, every one.
We've all s