Re: Pratchett on Rowling, again, sort of
Terry Pratchett
Sirius Kase <Siriu...@gmail.com> writes
>
>>
>> -------------
>
>He was posed a question, "Did Rowling copy you?", that he honestly does
>nt know the anwer to, only Rowling knows for sure. So he said his
>thing about cake ingredients, where he describes the says Rowlling's
>book are related to his books in a similar way to his books being
>related to Tolkein. They build on ideas of the previous author. Then
>the reporter asks almost the same question again, which Pratchett
>refuses to answer. The helpful reporter tells us he "squeaks", which
>apparently means "Yes" in the context of the article. My question, is
>that what Pratchett meant to communicate? i wonder if he has reacted to
>this interview?
>
with annoyance. And that was one of the more subtle leading questions
I've had in the past month or so. One was particularly open in
attempting to start a row (with the implication that they'd hold my
towel, of course.) They would love a fight
Ye gods, we've all been though this before. In a genre, it all comes
out of the same big pot, yadda, yadda, And that's true. As a writer
you can dip it and pull out 'Magic school' or 'dragon riders' or
whatever, and you understand that someone else might do exactly the
same thing and that's okay provided everyone understands that they
should put their own skin on the idea. I have never accused JKR of
plagiarism, although I get the impression that some of her fans think I
do so all the time
Why clam up in that interview? Because I'd said my piece. It's the
only way to be sure. A wrong phrasing, the wrong tone of voice and
there's trouble. Silence, of course, can be misinterpreted, but at
least it's silence.
I've been getting stuff like this:
Did you get the name Hogswatch from Hogwarts?
No, I made it up in The Colour of Magic, out of Hogmanay and Watch
night.
When was that?
1983.
Ah, so you're saying she stole it from you?
Silence or changing the subject are the only safe ways out, and not that
safe, at that.
--
Terry Pratchett
Thomas Zahr
... who plagiarised who - or why do they think so
> Silence or changing the subject are the only safe ways out,
> and not that safe, at that.
You're probably right there. AND, since there's no
controversy in silence, they'll sell less copies (or adds or
whatever), which serves them exactly right.
Anyway, hang in there and Happy Hogswatch ...
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<To sig or not to sig, that is the question?>
Eric Jarvis
<Xns989CDEBBFE178T...@ID-179574.user.uni-berlin.de>:
> Terry Pratchett posted:
>
> ... who plagiarised who - or why do they think so
>
> > Silence or changing the subject are the only safe ways out,
> > and not that safe, at that.
>
> You're probably right there. AND, since there's no
> controversy in silence, they'll sell less copies (or adds or
> whatever), which serves them exactly right.
>
My experience is that you have to be careful with silence too when it
comes to print journalists. At least with broadcast media they can't
simply print the answer they wanted you to give even when you've refused
to answer the question.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
GaryN
news:MPG.1fefcebdc...@www.motzarella.org:
Unfortunately we live in a world where "No Comment" in any context is
taken to mean either "Yes I did but I'm not going to tell you" or "Yes
they did but I'll look bad if I slag them off" according to the
questioner's preconceptions.
The preconceived attitude is what will appear in the printed media.
I do not mean this to apply only to this particular instance - it's a
general phenomenom.
gary (Who has before now been selectively quoted by the local rag)
--
"If Americans had longer attention spans, who knows the follies they
could have wrought?"
Jack Womak
Richard Eney
Eric Jarvis <use...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
>Thomas Zahr ThomasZ...@zahr-mail.de wrote
>>
>> ... who plagiarised who - or why do they think so
>>
>> > Silence or changing the subject are the only safe ways out,
>> > and not that safe, at that.
>>
>> You're probably right there. AND, since there's no
>> controversy in silence, they'll sell less copies (or adds or
>> whatever), which serves them exactly right.
>
>My experience is that you have to be careful with silence too when it
>comes to print journalists. At least with broadcast media they can't
>simply print the answer they wanted you to give even when you've
>refused to answer the question.
But virtually every tv "interview" is done by filming the answers and
later on, filming the presenter asking "the" questions, which have been
manufactured to make the presenter sound brilliant to have "elicited"
the answers. The camera can lie just as much as print media can.
Since this now has no specific relevance to Harry Potter, I have
set Followups to alt.fan.pratchett.
=Tamar
Pip R. Lagenta
<tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>I've been getting stuff like this:
>
>Did you get the name Hogswatch from Hogwarts?
>
>No, I made it up in The Colour of Magic, out of Hogmanay and Watch
>night.
>
>When was that?
>
>1983.
>
>Ah, so you're saying she stole it from you?
>
>Silence or changing the subject are the only safe ways out, and not that
>safe, at that.
Heh! Indeed, not all that safe! People with an agenda can get a lot
of mileage out of just silence.
I am reminded of when some creationists accosted Richard Dawkins in
his own home. The creationists got a *huge* propaganda victory out of
just the silence that resulted when Dawkins realized that he had been
had.
Details:
<http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm>
>
--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
Ed
Not to mention that "Hogwart" shows up in "The Labrynth" as one of the
names the Goblin King manages to mangle out of "Hoggle." Doesn't mean a
thing in the real world unless you're trying to start a fight.
I have a short story from a collection Isaac Asimov compiled. The story
is from the 50s and is called "The Wall Around The World." It deals
with a young man whose father has disappeared (no mention of what
happened to his mother) and who is forced to live with an overbearing
uncle and a bullying nephew (again, the aunt is there, but a
non-entity) while attending a school for wizards! Being that it
appeared in a science fiction magazine, technology is given as the
savior of the story when the boy develops a glider to lift his
underpowered broom over the mysterious wall that runs around their
entire village (the "world" of the title).
I doubt very much that Rowling "stole" anything from this story any
more than she "stole" anything from you. (Or you from her for that
matter!) The tapestry just has things that run along similar threads.
eirde...@yahoo.se
Silly journalists - don't they know that Terry Pratchett and Jo
Rowling *both* stole the idea of a wizarding school from Ursula K
LeGuin? :-P
Richard Eney
Wizard school in fiction goes back to the 14th century.
Do a Google search for "wizard schools".
=Tamar
FrancoGroenewald
Funny thing is these journalist never ask JKR anything about Pratchett
or the Discworld.
David Chapman
Yes, Tamar, but it is rather more difficult for them to *film* you saying
something you never said.
Richard Heathfield
Those who know where Terry really got the idea for UU will also know why,
one day, it may well become KC.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.
Richard Heathfield
<snip>
>
> I am reminded of when some creationists accosted Richard Dawkins in
> his own home. The creationists got a *huge* propaganda victory out of
> just the silence that resulted when Dawkins realized that he had been
> had.
>
> Details:
> <http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm>
This is very saddening, if true (about which I am sceptical). It seems some
people don't understand that truth is way more important than religion.
After all, God didn't say "You shall know lies, and lies shall set you
free." Quite the opposite, in fact.
Tiny Bulcher
Ed wrote:
>
> Not to mention that "Hogwart" shows up in "The Labrynth" as one of the
> names the Goblin King manages to mangle out of "Hoggle." Doesn't mean a
> thing in the real world unless you're trying to start a fight.
There's a 'hoggwarts skool' in nigel molesworth, too. (One of the
skools that beat st.custards at foopball, iirc).
--
tiny
Ed
I don't know what "nigel molesworth" is.
And while I'm responding, in my post, I obviously ment "overbearing
uncle and bullying <cousin>" not nephew!
mrslant
Ed wrote:
> Tiny Bulcher wrote:
> > Ed wrote:
> > >
> > > Not to mention that "Hogwart" shows up in "The Labrynth" as one of the
> > > names the Goblin King manages to mangle out of "Hoggle." Doesn't mean a
> > > thing in the real world unless you're trying to start a fight.
> >
> > There's a 'hoggwarts skool' in nigel molesworth, too. (One of the
> > skools that beat st.custards at foopball, iirc).
> >
> > --
> > tiny
>
> I don't know what "nigel molesworth" is.
>
The Nigel Molesworth books ("Down With Skool!", "How To Be Topp",
"Whizz For Atomms" and "Back In The Jug Agane") by Geoffrey Willans and
Ronald Searle - fictitious 1950s schoolboy diaries with cartoon
illustrations. Highly recommended, if somewhat dated. Now available in
an omnibus edition entitled "Molesworth".
It seems to have slipped Terry's mind above that he made up "Hogswatch"
some time before TCOM - it's mentioned in "The Dark Side of the Sun"
too. ;-)
Colin
Deevo
news:1166441441.1...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> The Nigel Molesworth books ("Down With Skool!", "How To Be Topp",
> "Whizz For Atomms" and "Back In The Jug Agane") by Geoffrey Willans and
> Ronald Searle - fictitious 1950s schoolboy diaries with cartoon
> illustrations. Highly recommended, if somewhat dated. Now available in
> an omnibus edition entitled "Molesworth".
That wasn't related to the 80s stage play 'Diarys of Adrian Mole' by any
chance? Just curious.
--
Deevo
Geraldton Western Australia
http://members.westnet.com.au/mckenzie/index.htm
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: "David Chapman" <jedit_...@hotmail.com>
I don't know if it's ever been done, but it occurs to me you
can, for instance, find an example in your interview footage
of Pterry saying "Oh, yes, absolutely", and making the post-
production question "So, did Rowling rip all her stuff from
you or what?"
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://sesoc.eusa.ed.ac.uk/
"The need to compile lists is a personality disorder,
as is the need to assert the superiority of some things
over other things."
-Jeremy Hardy
Tiny Bulcher
Deevo wrote:
> "mrslant" <Co...@unfortu.net> wrote in message
> news:1166441441.1...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> <snip>
> > The Nigel Molesworth books ("Down With Skool!", "How To Be Topp",
> > "Whizz For Atomms" and "Back In The Jug Agane") by Geoffrey Willans and
> > Ronald Searle - fictitious 1950s schoolboy diaries with cartoon
> > illustrations. Highly recommended, if somewhat dated. Now available in
> > an omnibus edition entitled "Molesworth".
>
> That wasn't related to the 80s stage play 'Diarys of Adrian Mole' by any
> chance? Just curious.
Not even slightly. Here, have a look at some molesworth:
http://www.stcustards.free-online.co.uk/
--
Tiny
Eric Jarvis
<Xns989D7E2A...@130.133.1.4>:
> The time: 18 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: "David Chapman" <jedit_...@hotmail.com>
>
> > From the Collected Witterings of Richard Eney, volume 23:
> >> In article
> >> <MPG.1fefcebdc...@www.motzarella.org>, Eric
> >> Jarvis <use...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>> My experience is that you have to be careful with silence
> >>> too when it comes to print journalists. At least with
> >>> broadcast media they can't simply print the answer they
> >>> wanted you to give even when you've refused to answer the
> >>> question.
> >>
> >> But virtually every tv "interview" is done by filming the
> >> answers and later on, filming the presenter asking "the"
> >> questions, which have been manufactured to make the
> >> presenter sound brilliant to have "elicited" the answers.
> >> The camera can lie just as much as print media can.
> >
> > Yes, Tamar, but it is rather more difficult for them to
> > *film* you saying something you never said.
>
> I don't know if it's ever been done, but it occurs to me you
> can, for instance, find an example in your interview footage
> of Pterry saying "Oh, yes, absolutely", and making the post-
> production question "So, did Rowling rip all her stuff from
> you or what?"
>
Where it's that blatant you'd have no difficulty making a complaint and
having it upheld by the wossname that deals with broadcasting standards.
You might also be able to force a retraction from a newspaper if you had
your own record of the interview, however you'd need to be able to prove
the recording covered the entire interview.
Les
Pip R. Lagenta wrote:
(stuff deleted)
> I am reminded of when some creationists accosted Richard Dawkins in
> his own home. The creationists got a *huge* propaganda victory out of
> just the silence that resulted when Dawkins realized that he had been
> had.
It was slimier than that. By making sure the presenter and Richard
were being filmed seperately, they edited Richards's moment of silence,
followed by an answer to a question *after* the presenter asking him a
completly different question, making it look as though he was trying to
change the subject. Michael Moore would have been proud.
> Details:
> <http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm>
(rest of post deleted)
Les
FrancoGroenewald wrote:
> Funny thing is these journalist never ask JKR anything about Pratchett
> or the Discworld.
That would ruin the entire theme: Established and well-read author
(Pratchett) gets overshadowed by a newcomer(JKR), and starts a feud out
of jealousy. Since JKR is making more millions than Pratchett at the
moment, it would be "obvious" Pratchett would be more jealous of her
than vice versa.
As Pratchett has already said, repeatedly denying this can be used
against him, particularly if his answers start conveying the irritation
of being asked such questions repeatedly.
This isn't the first time select members of the media have tried to
create a rivalry between celebrities. Some actors like Jack Benny
managed to make it work for them. Pratchett doesn't have Benny's
options, IMHO, so about the best he can do is try to make light of such
questions (like joking about how his lawyer would have him refuse to
answer the question), and keep silent. Hopefully, JKR is aware of how
anything Pratchett says or doesn't say is going to be used against them
in the court of gossip, and can laugh off such attempts.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>I have a short story from a collection Isaac Asimov compiled. The story
>is from the 50s and is called "The Wall Around The World." It deals
>with a young man whose father has disappeared (no mention of what
>happened to his mother) and who is forced to live with an overbearing
>uncle and a bullying nephew (again, the aunt is there, but a
>non-entity) while attending a school for wizards! Being that it
>appeared in a science fiction magazine, technology is given as the
>savior of the story when the boy develops a glider to lift his
>underpowered broom over the mysterious wall that runs around their
>entire village (the "world" of the title).
Nota bene: It's by Theodore Cogswell.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
The second issue of Helix is at http://www.helixsf.com
A new Ethshar novel is being serialized at http://www.ethshar.com/thevondishambassador1.html
Richard Heathfield
> On 17 Dec 2006 20:00:11 -0800, "Ed" <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I have a short story from a collection Isaac Asimov compiled. The story
>>is from the 50s and is called "The Wall Around The World." It deals
>>with a young man whose father has disappeared (no mention of what
>>happened to his mother) and who is forced to live with an overbearing
>>uncle and a bullying nephew (again, the aunt is there, but a
>>non-entity) while attending a school for wizards! Being that it
>>appeared in a science fiction magazine, technology is given as the
>>savior of the story when the boy develops a glider to lift his
>>underpowered broom over the mysterious wall that runs around their
>>entire village (the "world" of the title).
>
> Nota bene: It's by Theodore Cogswell.
Nota molta bene: It's a great story.
I'm fairly sure the collection is entitled "Tomorrow's Children", but I
haven't checked.
Alan Williams
I've also read an attempt to create a feud between JKR and Philip
Pullman where his answer to a question about the "greater depth" in his
books (Northern Lights etc.) was slanted to read as an attack on JKR.
Alan
Lesley Weston
This whole attempt on the part of the media at manufacturing a feud where
none exists is bizarre. I suppose it makes good press or something, but it
obviously has no connection in reality with you or JKR. When discussing this
here (afp) before, you said something about "the consensus", which I took to
mean the underlying body of myths and legends and the established fiction
based on them, all using the same concepts that are generally accepted as
being part of the genre. This makes sense, but apparently not to the media.
Perhaps this new round of annoyances is caused by the success of the
dramatisation of Hogfather, so it's actually a Good Thing, but it would be
even better if they could get it right.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Lesley Weston
r...@see.sig.invalid wrote on 18/12/2006 1:24 AM:
> eirde...@yahoo.se said:
>
>>
>> Silly journalists - don't they know that Terry Pratchett and Jo
>> Rowling *both* stole the idea of a wizarding school from Ursula K
>> LeGuin? :-P
>
> Those who know where Terry really got the idea for UU will also know why,
> one day, it may well become KC.
Kansas City? Kentucky Creature? Katherine Christ?
Lesley Weston
wrote on 18/12/2006 4:08 AM:
> "mrslant" <Co...@unfortu.net> wrote in message
> news:1166441441.1...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> <snip>
>> The Nigel Molesworth books ("Down With Skool!", "How To Be Topp",
>> "Whizz For Atomms" and "Back In The Jug Agane") by Geoffrey Willans and
>> Ronald Searle - fictitious 1950s schoolboy diaries with cartoon
>> illustrations. Highly recommended, if somewhat dated. Now available in
>> an omnibus edition entitled "Molesworth".
>
> That wasn't related to the 80s stage play 'Diarys of Adrian Mole' by any
> chance? Just curious.
In much the same way that Discworld is related to Harry Potter - IOW not at
all, except that both are purported to be the diaries of schoolboys, and
neither being derived from the other. However, I think Molesworth is at prep
school, which makes him somewhat younger than Adrian Mole and perhaps
explains his spelling. And "The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole, Aged 13 and
3/4" by Sue Townsend is an excellent book as well as a play.
eirde...@yahoo.se
Richard Eney skrev:
Don't try to convince me, try to convince journalists interviewing
Terry Pratchett. :-)
Richard Heathfield
> in article 8vSdnck5kou6wxvY...@bt.com, Richard Heathfield at
> r...@see.sig.invalid wrote on 18/12/2006 1:24 AM:
>
>> eirde...@yahoo.se said:
>>
>>>
>>> Silly journalists - don't they know that Terry Pratchett and Jo
>>> Rowling *both* stole the idea of a wizarding school from Ursula K
>>> LeGuin? :-P
>>
>> Those who know where Terry really got the idea for UU will also know why,
>> one day, it may well become KC.
>
> Kansas City? Kentucky Creature? Katherine Christ?
No to all of those. Care to try again? :-) (Here's a hint: IC -> RS)
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> Lesley Weston said:
>
>> in article 8vSdnck5kou6wxvY...@bt.com,
>> Richard Heathfield at r...@see.sig.invalid wrote on
>> 18/12/2006 1:24 AM:
>>> Those who know where Terry really got the idea for UU
>>> will also know why, one day, it may well become KC.
>>
>> Kansas City? Kentucky Creature? Katherine Christ?
>
> No to all of those. Care to try again? :-) (Here's a hint:
> IC -> RS)
Well, I know Unseen University is a play on Invisible College,
and I know the Invisible College was the percursor to the
Royal Society, but I'm afraid I still can't work out KC 8-(...
Richard Heathfield
> The time: 18 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid>
>
>> Lesley Weston said:
>>
>>> in article 8vSdnck5kou6wxvY...@bt.com,
>>> Richard Heathfield at r...@see.sig.invalid wrote on
>>> 18/12/2006 1:24 AM:
>
>>>> Those who know where Terry really got the idea for UU
>>>> will also know why, one day, it may well become KC.
>>>
>>> Kansas City? Kentucky Creature? Katherine Christ?
>>
>> No to all of those. Care to try again? :-) (Here's a hint:
>> IC -> RS)
>
> Well, I know Unseen University is a play on Invisible College,
> and I know the Invisible College was the percursor to the
> Royal Society, but I'm afraid I still can't work out KC 8-(...
"Kings' Club" was what I had in mind. Too obscure? Well, that's me all over.
Alec Cawley
> The time: 18 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: "David Chapman" <jedit_...@hotmail.com>
>
>> From the Collected Witterings of Richard Eney, volume 23:
>>> In article
>>> <MPG.1fefcebdc...@www.motzarella.org>, Eric
>>> Jarvis <use...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> My experience is that you have to be careful with silence
>>>> too when it comes to print journalists. At least with
>>>> broadcast media they can't simply print the answer they
>>>> wanted you to give even when you've refused to answer the
>>>> question.
>>> But virtually every tv "interview" is done by filming the
>>> answers and later on, filming the presenter asking "the"
>>> questions, which have been manufactured to make the
>>> presenter sound brilliant to have "elicited" the answers.
>>> The camera can lie just as much as print media can.
>> Yes, Tamar, but it is rather more difficult for them to
>> *film* you saying something you never said.
>
> I don't know if it's ever been done, but it occurs to me you
> can, for instance, find an example in your interview footage
> of Pterry saying "Oh, yes, absolutely", and making the post-
> production question "So, did Rowling rip all her stuff from
> you or what?"
One of the things I found out recently is that in these interviews they
are very careful with the timecode on these interviews. If the timecode
goes backwards, it can be seen that they are taking things out of order,
But if the timecode goes forward, albeit with holes, then they are only
editing, which is allowed. So they would have to find a an answer,
before the next question they wanted to keep, which suited their needs.
Quite a hard task, which probably keeps them honest in thei particular
circumstance.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk>
> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>> The time: 18 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
>> speaker: "David Chapman" <jedit_...@hotmail.com>
>>
>>> From the Collected Witterings of Richard Eney, volume 23:
>>>> But virtually every tv "interview" is done by filming
>>>> the answers and later on, filming the presenter asking
>>>> "the" questions, which have been manufactured to make
>>>> the presenter sound brilliant to have "elicited" the
>>>> answers. The camera can lie just as much as print media
>>>> can.
>>> Yes, Tamar, but it is rather more difficult for them to
>>> *film* you saying something you never said.
>>
>> I don't know if it's ever been done, but it occurs to me
>> you can, for instance, find an example in your interview
>> footage of Pterry saying "Oh, yes, absolutely", and making
>> the post- production question "So, did Rowling rip all her
>> stuff from you or what?"
>
> One of the things I found out recently is that in these
> interviews they are very careful with the timecode on these
> interviews. If the timecode goes backwards, it can be seen
> that they are taking things out of order, But if the
> timecode goes forward, albeit with holes, then they are
> only editing, which is allowed. So they would have to find
> a an answer, before the next question they wanted to keep,
> which suited their needs. Quite a hard task, which probably
> keeps them honest in thei particular circumstance.
If I understand Tamar correctly though, the interview
questions are being dubbed in in the studio, after the answers
have been recorded. Why they do it this way, I don't know, but
it does seem to give them the oppertunity to make the
questions anything they like that the answer fits.
Alec Cawley
The reason to do it that way is to use only one camera and cameraman.
During the interview it is kept pointing at the interviewee, then
afterwards they record the interviewer. However, they have the full
sound track with the interviewer off-camera, so they have to keep to that.
Ed
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Lawrence Watt-Evans said:
>
> > On 17 Dec 2006 20:00:11 -0800, "Ed" <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I have a short story from a collection Isaac Asimov compiled. The story
> >>is from the 50s and is called "The Wall Around The World." It deals
> >>with a young man whose father has disappeared (no mention of what
> >>happened to his mother) and who is forced to live with an overbearing
> >>uncle and a bullying nephew (again, the aunt is there, but a
> >>non-entity) while attending a school for wizards! Being that it
> >>appeared in a science fiction magazine, technology is given as the
> >>savior of the story when the boy develops a glider to lift his
> >>underpowered broom over the mysterious wall that runs around their
> >>entire village (the "world" of the title).
> >
> > Nota bene: It's by Theodore Cogswell.
>
> Nota molta bene: It's a great story.
>
> I'm fairly sure the collection is entitled "Tomorrow's Children", but I
> haven't checked.
That's probably the first anthology. The one I was thinking of was
Asimov's "The Best SF" followed by the year. I think it was volume 13.
Elin
>In message <1166365523.6...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>Sirius Kase <Siriu...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>>>
>>> -------------
>>
>>He was posed a question, "Did Rowling copy you?", that he honestly does
>>nt know the anwer to, only Rowling knows for sure. So he said his
>>thing about cake ingredients, where he describes the says Rowlling's
>>book are related to his books in a similar way to his books being
>>related to Tolkein. They build on ideas of the previous author. Then
>>the reporter asks almost the same question again, which Pratchett
>>refuses to answer. The helpful reporter tells us he "squeaks", which
>>apparently means "Yes" in the context of the article. My question, is
>>that what Pratchett meant to communicate? i wonder if he has reacted to
>>this interview?
>>
>with annoyance. And that was one of the more subtle leading questions
>I've had in the past month or so. One was particularly open in
>attempting to start a row (with the implication that they'd hold my
>towel, of course.) They would love a fight
I don't get this whole thing at all, it must be just britain. I
haven't heard anything about accusations of plagiarism, copying,
allusions etc etc etc between JKR and Pratchett anywhere except on
afp.
It's a non-discussion in Sweden as far as I'm aware.
--
Elin
The world makes perfect sense, as a black comedy
Gideon
> Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <1166365523.6...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>Sirius Kase <Siriu...@gmail.com> writes
>>>
>>>
<snip>
> I don't get this whole thing at all, it must be just britain.
It's the old Highlander attitude: "There can be only one!"
In this case, there's a bizarre assumption that there is only
*one* 'best-selling fantasy author' (BSFA) out there; and anyone who writes
fantasy wants to be that person; which (according to this frankly idiotic
assumption) means that all the other *non*-BSFAs out there are really
horribly jealous and secretly looking for opportunities to put the boot in.
It's not just limited to journalists, of course; pretty much any fandom
contains those who will worship the Creator's toenail clippings, simply
because of their origin.
(Batshit insane loony 'fen, in other words.)
To such people, anything that might *possibly* somehow be seen as a slur on
their idol (in the right light, if you stand on your head and squint hard
enough) is ipso facto evil and wrong and to be condemned by all and
sundry - without reservation or restraint.
Not everyone in any fandom is a loony fan; but all fandoms are prone to the
occasional outburst of such behaviour; go and read Fandom Wank[1] for many
fine examples.
cheers,
Gideon.
Deevo
news:1166444819.0...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
Cheers for that, not really my style though. :)
Arthur Hagen
> It's not just limited to journalists, of course; pretty much any fandom
> contains those who will worship the Creator's toenail clippings, simply
> because of their origin.
>
> (Batshit insane loony 'fen, in other words.)
Unfortunately, Terry Pratchett isn't immune to insane worship either,
and I'm quite certain we have at least a few of these sad people here on
afp too. (If you're willing to travel for hours and queue up for even
more hours just to get a book signed, you might want to analyse how
healthy your fandom is -- it might be fine, but it might also be
approaching The Edge. If you'd be willing to keep something he
discarded, like a paper napkin or chewing gum, you're over the edge and
need help quickly. I'm not joking.)
Because extreme hero worshipping seems to transcend cultures, I wonder
whether this behaviour originally served a biological purpose, and
whether the inclination towards it is inheritable?
Regards,
--
*Art
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 11:39 +0000, Gideon wrote:
>
>> It's not just limited to journalists, of course; pretty
>> much any fandom contains those who will worship the
>> Creator's toenail clippings, simply because of their
>> origin.
>>
>> (Batshit insane loony 'fen, in other words.)
>
> Unfortunately, Terry Pratchett isn't immune to insane
> worship either, and I'm quite certain we have at least a
> few of these sad people here on afp too.
I don't view it as a binary state; either you're a Loony
Obsessive Fan or you aren't. I'm well aware that *sometimes*
I'm a Loony Obsessive Fan, but I'm pretty sure that most of
the time I'm a normal one.
> Because extreme hero worshipping seems to transcend
> cultures, I wonder whether this behaviour originally served
> a biological purpose
It's just the old "pack leader" instinct, innit?
Gideon
> On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 11:39 +0000, Gideon wrote:
>
>> It's not just limited to journalists, of course; pretty much any fandom
>> contains those who will worship the Creator's toenail clippings, simply
>> because of their origin.
>>
>> (Batshit insane loony 'fen, in other words.)
>
> Unfortunately, Terry Pratchett isn't immune to insane worship either,
Hence my generalisation in the previous post; I know of AFP posters and
people elsewhere in Pratchett fandom who have expressed the opinion that
Terry /can't/ write a book that is anything other than shining and
brilliant.
(I don't think that this is the case, obviously.)
> (If you're willing to travel for hours and queue up for even
> more hours just to get a book signed, you might want to analyse how
> healthy your fandom is.
Fandom isn't merely personal; it is also a community thing.
So while I might well have gone to one signing on my own (the Maskerade
signing in Dillons in Gower St, back in 1995); all of the other signings
I've been to have /primarily/ been to see friends; of course it was good to
get the books signed, but the major reason for going was to head to the pub
with a bunch of mates and AFPers.
Once you've got a critical mass of regular fans, then the RL community
itself starts to happen; as everyone lives somewhere, and people inevitably
end up bumping into other people or arranging RL meets; and someone
suggests a big party over a weekend.
(...and the rest is history.)
> -- it might be fine, but it might also be
> approaching The Edge. If you'd be willing to keep something he
> discarded, like a paper napkin or chewing gum, you're over the edge and
> need help quickly. I'm not joking.)
And if the napkin should, say contain a doodle by Graham Higgins (like the
great one he did of Kim at a CCDE once); or be the memento of a public
joke?
Hard and fast rules on what is 'over the edge' tend to be flimsy and to
depend on the situation; and, in my experience, the only really useful
rules of thumb are:
1) Don't annoy or freak out Terry.
2) Don't make Colin's life difficult.
3) Don't be obnoxious to various other people; especially guests and so
forth.
One other thing to consider; what is viewed as odd in one place would be
viewed as explicable or even admirable in another; even among the same
community of people.
A couple of weeks ago, in Wincanton, I spent *mumble* on a prop from the set
of Hogfather; not because I viewed it as holy or special (or valuable!);
but because it was a charity auction, and because it was the right thing to
do at the time according to the unwritten dynamics of the situation.
(Another case in point: pickled onions; available to the occasional lucky
Wincanton auction bidder at ~£35 per jar, IIRC.)
There's far more I could say on this, but I really don't have the time or
energy at the moment, and work is pressing.
cheers,
Gideon.
Lesley Weston
daibhidc...@aol.com wrote on 19/12/2006 7:39 AM:
> The time: 19 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: Arthur Hagen <a...@broomstick.com>
>
>> On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 11:39 +0000, Gideon wrote:
>>
>>> It's not just limited to journalists, of course; pretty
>>> much any fandom contains those who will worship the
>>> Creator's toenail clippings, simply because of their
>>> origin.
>>>
>>> (Batshit insane loony 'fen, in other words.)
>>
>> Unfortunately, Terry Pratchett isn't immune to insane
>> worship either, and I'm quite certain we have at least a
>> few of these sad people here on afp too.
>
> I don't view it as a binary state; either you're a Loony
> Obsessive Fan or you aren't. I'm well aware that *sometimes*
> I'm a Loony Obsessive Fan, but I'm pretty sure that most of
> the time I'm a normal one.
I prefer not to think of myself as a fan - of TP or anyone else. I like his
books, as I like those of many other authors, but that's it. If afp really
were a fan group, I wouldn't be part of it; whenever afpers start behaving
like the fans in "Cruise of the Gods" or "Galaxy Quest" (which does happen
from time to time), I become uncomfortable and embarrassed. But I do enjoy
TP's books, there's no doubt of that, so I guess technically I am a fan,
same as everybody else here.
>
>> Because extreme hero worshipping seems to transcend
>> cultures, I wonder whether this behaviour originally served
>> a biological purpose
>
> It's just the old "pack leader" instinct, innit?
To cross threads for a moment, I've never seen how the alpha-pair system can
be advantageous to a species, so I wonder how pack-leader worship in humans,
which undoubtedly exists, benefits mankind. And if it doesn't, how come it's
still around?
Lesley Weston
r...@see.sig.invalid wrote on 18/12/2006 3:28 PM:
> Lesley Weston said:
>
>> in article 8vSdnck5kou6wxvY...@bt.com, Richard Heathfield at
>> r...@see.sig.invalid wrote on 18/12/2006 1:24 AM:
>>
>>> eirde...@yahoo.se said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Silly journalists - don't they know that Terry Pratchett and Jo
>>>> Rowling *both* stole the idea of a wizarding school from Ursula K
>>>> LeGuin? :-P
>>>
>>> Those who know where Terry really got the idea for UU will also know why,
>>> one day, it may well become KC.
>>
>> Kansas City? Kentucky Creature? Katherine Christ?
>
> No to all of those. Care to try again? :-) (Here's a hint: IC -> RS)
I give in - you'll have to tell us.
Lesley Weston
r...@see.sig.invalid wrote on 18/12/2006 3:51 PM:
> Daibhid Ceanaideach said:
>
>> The time: 18 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
>> speaker: Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid>
>>
>>> Lesley Weston said:
>>>
>>>> in article 8vSdnck5kou6wxvY...@bt.com,
>>>> Richard Heathfield at r...@see.sig.invalid wrote on
>>>> 18/12/2006 1:24 AM:
>>
>>>>> Those who know where Terry really got the idea for UU
>>>>> will also know why, one day, it may well become KC.
>>>>
>>>> Kansas City? Kentucky Creature? Katherine Christ?
>>>
>>> No to all of those. Care to try again? :-) (Here's a hint:
>>> IC -> RS)
>>
>> Well, I know Unseen University is a play on Invisible College,
>> and I know the Invisible College was the percursor to the
>> Royal Society, but I'm afraid I still can't work out KC 8-(...
>
> "Kings' Club" was what I had in mind. Too obscure? Well, that's me all over.
Ignore my previous post, in that case. So you meant the Royal Society?
That's valid as an analogue of the faculty members of UU, along with those
of any other university (scientists do tend to be rather... odd. There's the
story of an Oxford don who was so eccentric that even the other dons
noticed), but Ankh-Morpork is slightly fervent about not having a king; I
can't see Carrot in the persona of Charles II.
Lesley Weston
That does go along with the concept of "noddies": Interviews outside a
studio often use just one camera focused at all times on the interviewee,
yet from time to time we see the interviewer nodding, smiling, frowning or
whatever in response to things the interviewee has said. These are filmed in
the same location but after the interviewee has left. The interviewer
provides a whole range of possible responses and the editor picks the ones
to be used and the points at which to use them.
Kieran Sanders
> To cross threads for a moment, I've never seen how the alpha-pair system can
> be advantageous to a species, so I wonder how pack-leader worship in humans,
> which undoubtedly exists, benefits mankind. And if it doesn't, how come it's
> still around?
I'd guess that hanging around the group and being subservient (at least
until you get the chance to hit the boss over the head with a rock one
dark night and take his place) gives you better odds of passing on your
genes than simply saying "sod this for a game of soldiers" and taking
off on your own.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily have to benefit the *species*, just
the individual gene's odds get reproduced, depending on where you stand
on Group Selection vs Individual Selection vs the "Selfish Gene".
--
Kieran Sanders
Richard Heathfield
> in article qMCdnZoatK9KvhrY...@bt.com, Richard Heathfield at
> r...@see.sig.invalid wrote on 18/12/2006 3:28 PM:
>
>> Lesley Weston said:
>>
>>> in article 8vSdnck5kou6wxvY...@bt.com, Richard Heathfield
>>> at r...@see.sig.invalid wrote on 18/12/2006 1:24 AM:
>>>
>>>> eirde...@yahoo.se said:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Silly journalists - don't they know that Terry Pratchett and Jo
>>>>> Rowling *both* stole the idea of a wizarding school from Ursula K
>>>>> LeGuin? :-P
>>>>
>>>> Those who know where Terry really got the idea for UU will also know
>>>> why, one day, it may well become KC.
>>>
>>> Kansas City? Kentucky Creature? Katherine Christ?
>>
>> No to all of those. Care to try again? :-) (Here's a hint: IC -> RS)
>
> I give in - you'll have to tell us.
Well, I did, but I'll repeat it here. UU is drawn from the Invisible
College, which became the Royal Society. So I thought UU might one day
become "Kings' Club". Yeah, okay, my coat's over there...
Sofia
> In this case, there's a bizarre assumption that there is only *one*
> 'best-selling fantasy author' (BSFA) out there; and anyone who writes
> fantasy wants to be that person; which (according to this frankly
> idiotic assumption) means that all the other *non*-BSFAs out there are
> really horribly jealous and secretly looking for opportunities to put
> the boot in.
Hi Gideon, it's funny you say this as I was saying once on afp how I've
been several times to buy Pterry's books from WHSmiths, and each time the
cashier saw the name PRATCETT on the cover, she immediatley offered me a
J.K.Rowling "Harry Potter" book at a special price.
I then began getting my books from a Amazon, and Ottakers, and I've still
had Harry Potter books offered to me occasionally as an accompanyment. No
less to say, I always refuse of course!
BTW. While I'm here, can I answer Pterry's last question, that as for
me, then *yes*, I've alway's called your "Hogfather" book "HOGSWATCH"
inside my head, it's really confusing sometimes! I even went to my
sister's house to watch the movie as I don't have sky television, and told
her the RT had gotten the name wrong. It wasn't till I got back home
afterwards and found the book, that I realised how stupid I was. We
watched the second half of the movie together the night afterwards, and I
brought the Hogfather book along for her to read your own version of it to
apologise!
Sofie
--
Please visit my deviantART page: http://sofen.deviantart.com/
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> I then began getting my books from a Amazon, and Ottakers,
> and I've still had Harry Potter books offered to me
> occasionally as an accompanyment. No less to say, I always
> refuse of course!
Why "no less to say"? They're fairly good books, as these
things go.
Arthur Hagen
>
> Hi Gideon, it's funny you say this as I was saying once on afp how
> I've been several times to buy Pterry's books from WHSmiths, and each
> time the cashier saw the name PRATCETT on the cover, she immediatley
> offered me a J.K.Rowling "Harry Potter" book at a special price.
Well, she had to find a substitute, cause the books with PRATCETT on them
are obviously misprints...
--
*Art
CCA
> The time: 19 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: Sofia <pinkmonste...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com>
> > I then began getting my books from a Amazon, and Ottakers,
> > and I've still had Harry Potter books offered to me
> > occasionally as an accompanyment. No less to say, I always
> > refuse of course!
> Why "no less to say"? They're fairly good books, as these
> things go.
I enjoyed them.
I think the reason for offering a Rowling along with a Pratchett is
that they're two of Britain's best known authors, and both write in
(pretty much) the same genre. People are more likely to say yes when
offered (for instance) twenty per cent off a HP book when they buy a
Discworld one, than they would be if offered one by a lesser known
author.
CCA
Sofia
> The reason to do it that way is to use only one camera and cameraman.
> During the interview it is kept pointing at the interviewee, then
> afterwards they record the interviewer. However, they have the full
> sound track with the interviewer off-camera, so they have to keep to that.
I've seen this a lot on these news reports, when a news reader interviews
politicians and he/she practically hounds them to death with these really
killjoy questions - the camera remaining on the interviewee, and they get
outwitted, made fools of and caught on film a lot by these trained
reporters - Jeremy Paxpan's a great example of this. It's strange though,
I never really thought about it till you just said it!
Len Oil
> Unfortunately, Terry Pratchett isn't immune to insane worship either,
> and I'm quite certain we have at least a few of these sad people here on
> afp too.
How dare you suggest that!
Burn the heretic! Then throw him off the edge!
Paul Harman
news:em92ur$9kd$1...@mud.stack.nl...
> I know of AFP posters and
> people elsewhere in Pratchett fandom who have expressed the opinion that
> Terry /can't/ write a book that is anything other than shining and
> brilliant.
They have obviously not read "Dark Side of the Sun".
Paul
Gideon
> in article Xns989E9F7F...@130.133.1.4, Daibhid Ceanaideach at
> daibhidc...@aol.com wrote on 19/12/2006 7:39 AM:
>
>> The time: 19 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
>> speaker: Arthur Hagen <a...@broomstick.com>
>>
>>> On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 11:39 +0000, Gideon wrote:
<snip>
> I prefer not to think of myself as a fan - of TP or anyone else. I like
> his books, as I like those of many other authors, but that's it. If afp
> really were a fan group, I wouldn't be part of it
Why?
Not only is AFP a fan group, but many of the people who've been on AFP over
the years have been unashamed members of SF&F fandom in general.
Lest you forget, Terry was an active member of SF fandom well before the
Discworld series was written; I remember seeing a picture of him sometime
during the 1970s at some sort of fandom event in London.
(Possibly a Tun meeting; the London Group SF Fan meetings have been going on
on the first Thursday of every month since 1946 - the first generation of
Tun-goers included ACC, John Wyndham and John Christopher; and I'm sure
Terry's been to a few.[1])
Charlie Stross, who also invented the footnote on AFP[2], is now a
Hugo-winning author as well as being a convention regular.
Pete Morwood? Diane Duane? Dave Langford? Juliet McKenna? - all of them
die-hard fans, generally found at cons propping up panels[3] or chatting in
the bar.
(It might be reasonable to posit that the majority of current SF&F authors
have become authors after being fans.)
> ; whenever afpers start
> behaving like the fans in "Cruise of the Gods" or "Galaxy Quest" (which
> does happen from time to time), I become uncomfortable and embarrassed.
If it happened in a public space, I might agree with you to a small degree;
I occasionally look at some of the sillier fandom activities and wince
slightly.
However; we're talking about people engaging in something that a) they enjoy
and b) something that doesn't harm anyone else (often quite the reverse).
Where's the beef?
If you want to dress up like Butcher[5] and wander around the streets of
Wincanton, well, that's *your* business and it doesn't directly affect *me*
(and Butcher is in fact a nice bloke, for all that he wears a slightly odd
costume).
If such activities were exclusive, then I'd disagree strongly with them; but
they're not: everyone I've met in Pratchett fandom is entirely free to
express their fandom in whichever way and to whatever degree they want; and
(generally speaking) all the branches of the fandom tend to co-exist
peacefully (notwithstanding occasional ructions like the Hogfather extras
snafu).
Consider this also: if you're dressed in normal clothes, and in the same
room as those wearing costume, you might feel embarrassed; but do you think
people are really going to be looking at *you* - as opposed to the people
in costume?
(Galaxy Quest is a great film, FWIW.)
Yes, people in fandom do things that appear somewhat odd to the non-fans;
and fans can sometimes express themselves in disturbing or harmful ways;
but is being part of a fandom ultimately any more silly or pointless than,
say, going to church or a football match or an opera?
> But I do enjoy TP's books, there's no doubt of that, so I guess
> technically I am a fan, same as everybody else here.
It's a wide and tolerant fandom; no-one insists that anyone dress funny, or
speak funny; or that anyone who doesn't conform is persona non grata.
I suspect that you're using the term 'fan' only for certain predefined
concepts of the extreme ends of fandom, rather than the whole spectrum.
Look at the guy in the middle of the photo:
http://www.lspace.org/art/carpet-people/bigheals1.html
- that'd look pretty similar to a lot of peoples' stereotype of a 'fan',
wouldn't it?
cheers,
Gideon.
[1] http://news.ansible.co.uk/london.html - as mentioned, ACC's 'Tales from
the White Hart' is a fictionalised account of the SF Circle meetings.
[2] Strange but true.
[3] Or, in Peter's case, usually waving real or imaginary swords around;
vide last P-Con[4], when we realised that the sword he was showing to
everyone in the room had fresh blood on it. His comment was 'Damn; that
hurt!"; he patched himself up, and went on with the demonstration.
[4] http://www.slovobooks.com/phoenix/ - one of the best little Cons around.
[5] See http://www.dwcon.org/gallery/Costumes/PICT0022-resized.jpg
Anery
> in article Xns989E9F7F...@130.133.1.4, Daibhid Ceanaideach at
> daibhidc...@aol.com wrote on 19/12/2006 7:39 AM:
>
> > The time: 19 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> > speaker: Arthur Hagen <a...@broomstick.com>
> >> cultures, I wonder whether this behaviour originally served
> >> a biological purpose
> >
> > It's just the old "pack leader" instinct, innit?
>
> To cross threads for a moment, I've never seen how the alpha-pair system can
> be advantageous to a species, so I wonder how pack-leader worship in humans,
> which undoubtedly exists, benefits mankind. And if it doesn't, how come it's
> still around?
>
The alfa-pair is usually strong and fit, and is more likely to have
healthy offspring. So it is more beneficial for the species, when the
younger or the weaker ones help raising the young of the alpha couple -
there is higher probability of survival.
Also, absolute devotion to the pack leader, who is mostly more skilled
and experienced than the average member of the pack, and probably more
intelligent, too, leads to quicker actions, for example during the
hunting.
Obviously, in humans it is more complicated, as genes which are not
exactly beneficial for the species are more likely to persist, with
modern healthcare and all.
Anery
mcv
Does WHSmith also offer Discworld books at a discount if you buy a
Harry Potter book?
mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
mcv
That's a brilliant book! And shining too.
Paul Harman
news:45892eff$0$321$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Paul Harman <chatt...@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:
>> They have obviously not read "Dark Side of the Sun".
>
> That's a brilliant book! And shining too.
Sorry, I can't agree. There are a few interesting ideas, granted, but it's a
pretty standard quest-based space adventure, with little to recommend it
that you haven't already come across in hundreds of other space adventures.
It has none of the trademark Pratchett satire or comedy.
It's well written, that's a given, just not particularly *good*.
Mind you, I found the TV adaptation of "Johnny and the Bomb" boring and
derivative, so what do I know? <grin>
Paul
mcv
> "mcv" <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:45892eff$0$321$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>> Paul Harman <chatt...@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:
>>> They have obviously not read "Dark Side of the Sun".
>>
>> That's a brilliant book! And shining too.
>
> Sorry, I can't agree. There are a few interesting ideas, granted, but it's a
> pretty standard quest-based space adventure, with little to recommend it
> that you haven't already come across in hundreds of other space adventures.
> It has none of the trademark Pratchett satire or comedy.
>
> It's well written, that's a given, just not particularly *good*.
It's been ages since I've read it, and I can't remember all the details,
but I do recall enjoying it a lot. Ofcourse it's not nearly as sophisticated
as Terry's later books, and Strata and Carpet People are better too, but
it's still a good book.
Okay, perhaps "brilliant" is a bit of an exaggeration, but it's definitely
not a bad book, and I'm glad to have it.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: Gideon <diog...@freeuk.com>
> Consider this also: if you're dressed in normal clothes,
> and in the same room as those wearing costume, you might
> feel embarrassed; but do you think people are really going
> to be looking at *you* - as opposed to the people in
> costume?
For some people that's the problem. It's the old complaint;
there's journalist reporting on a con, and you're expounding
to them on the serious impact of the Literature of Ideas, when
you suddenly realise there's a guy dressed as a Cyberised
Fourth Doctor behind you. What view of fandom do you think
(s)he'll come away with?
(Note that, as the guy who spent the '04 convention as a
Feegle, I'm certainly *not* saying there's anything wrong with
dressing up as a Cyberised Fourth Doctor.)
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> "mcv" <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:45892eff$0$321$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>> Paul Harman <chatt...@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:
>>> They have obviously not read "Dark Side of the Sun".
>>
>> That's a brilliant book! And shining too.
>
> Sorry, I can't agree. There are a few interesting ideas,
> granted, but it's a pretty standard quest-based space
> adventure, with little to recommend it that you haven't
> already come across in hundreds of other space adventures.
> It has none of the trademark Pratchett satire or comedy.
I wouldn't say "none". Very little perhaps, but elements like,
for instance, the traditional meal of the Chairman, show
definite signs of where Pratchett's muse is taking him.
Aidan Karley
wrote:
> Unfortunately we live in a world where "No Comment" in any context is
> taken to mean either "Yes I did but I'm not going to tell you" or "Yes
> they did but I'll look bad if I slag them off" according to the
> questioner's preconceptions.
>
I tend to return such questioning with questions about when the
questioner stopped beating his wife. Most people understand the
reference and understand that they've been rumbled and they aren't going
to get the answer they're looking for. And the ones who don't understand
it are already sidetracked.
--
Aidan Karley, FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland
Don't go towards the sandwiches!
Aidan Karley
wrote:
> You might also be able to force a retraction from a newspaper if you had
> your own record of the interview, however you'd need to be able to prove
> the recording covered the entire interview.
>
Which is why, whenever you see a PR face making a statement, there's
always someone from their entourage shoving a tape recorder into their
face. So that *they* have and hold a recording of everything that's been
said.
Boy does it piss people off sometimes when they realise that their
lies, attacks and false accusations have actually been recorded, and that
"the other side" are perfectly happy to play those recordings back.
Aidan Karley
wrote:
> If I understand Tamar correctly though, the interview
> questions are being dubbed in in the studio, after the answers
> have been recorded. Why they do it this way, I don't know,
>
answering the questions as their being asked with the camera more-or
less static and looking over the interviewer's shoulder. Often the
interviewer is making notes as to exactly the question he asked, or
annotating the pre-written list of questions as you do it.
Then you move the camera and crew to the other side of the room
and film the interviewer as they ask the questions. Again you'd often
do this over the interviewee's shoulder. (You may have to dick with the
lighting a bit too, to try to get the illumination even. That's part of
the camera man's job in news ; it may be several separate people in
studio work.)
Then you take a few minutes of shots of the interviewer nodding
the head, "umm"-ing, "smile to camera as the interviewee has just made
a telling point"-ing etc. Filler.
The crew then moves on to the next (news) story. The editing
team in the newsroom will cut the footage together to make it look
good. Since the questions are all on the tape, and in the correct
order, you don't really need to send paperwork back to the news desk
but it's a good idea to do so. Depends on how fast you're having to
work.
That's news protocol, but it's essentially the same for
documentary, correspondent work, etc. Bit less hurried, bit more
paperwork.
Gideon
> The time: 20 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: Gideon <diog...@freeuk.com>
>
>> Consider this also: if you're dressed in normal clothes,
>> and in the same room as those wearing costume, you might
>> feel embarrassed; but do you think people are really going
>> to be looking at *you* - as opposed to the people in
>> costume?
>
> For some people that's the problem. It's the old complaint;
> there's journalist reporting on a con, and you're expounding
> to them on the serious impact of the Literature of Ideas, when
> you suddenly realise there's a guy dressed as a Cyberised
> Fourth Doctor behind you. What view of fandom do you think
> (s)he'll come away with?
The view of fandom that they went *looking for* in the first place.
There's the inevitable memory of one of the '97 signings in London (one of
the Forbidden Planet signings; possibly Jingo).
There was a TV crew there making a documentary about Terry; and of all of
AFP, the person they selected to interview was Emmet.
(For those who do not know Emmet, see Exhibit A: Emmet in Normal Mode...
http://www.lspace.org/fandom/afp/rogues-gallery/tables/emmet-obrien.html
For the other Emmet, see Exhibit B:
http://www.lspace.org/ftp/images/afp-meetings/dwcon-96/r.collier/rrc-01-cilla-obrien.jpg)
If you're looking to fill a certain fannish-looking archetype, Emmet is a
pretty good candidate.
Journalists covering things like fandom tend to do so from a point of
view; since fandom itself is rarely newsworthy - what the journalist is
doing is looking for something that reinforces the point of their
article/film/position.
And a journo looking for a freakshow will inevitably look at the
oddest-looking person going and use them as a talking head.
It's an opinion; a partial (and possibly misleading) representation;
nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't bind me or define me in any way;
nor am I less a part of the fandom because I don't dress up.
As such, I really don't give a much of a toss if a journo wants to portray
fans as X or Y.
cheers,
Gideon.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: Gideon <diog...@freeuk.com>
> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
>
>> The time: 20 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
>> speaker: Gideon <diog...@freeuk.com>
>>
>>> Consider this also: if you're dressed in normal clothes,
>>> and in the same room as those wearing costume, you might
>>> feel embarrassed; but do you think people are really
>>> going to be looking at *you* - as opposed to the people
>>> in costume?
>>
>> For some people that's the problem. It's the old
>> complaint; there's journalist reporting on a con, and
>> you're expounding to them on the serious impact of the
>> Literature of Ideas, when you suddenly realise there's a
>> guy dressed as a Cyberised Fourth Doctor behind you. What
>> view of fandom do you think (s)he'll come away with?
>
> The view of fandom that they went *looking for* in the
> first place.
Fair point; and if CyberTom wasn't there, they'd find
something else they could use, possibly a slanted version of
the above hypothetical talk.
Gideon
> The time: 20 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: Gideon <diog...@freeuk.com>
>
>> Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
<snip>
>>> For some people that's the problem. It's the old
>>> complaint; there's journalist reporting on a con, and
>>> you're expounding to them on the serious impact of the
>>> Literature of Ideas, when you suddenly realise there's a
>>> guy dressed as a Cyberised Fourth Doctor behind you. What
>>> view of fandom do you think (s)he'll come away with?
>>
>> The view of fandom that they went *looking for* in the
>> first place.
>
> Fair point; and if CyberTom wasn't there, they'd find
> something else they could use, possibly a slanted version of
> the above hypothetical talk.
Which is where this little storm-inna-teacup came from; you had a journo
who had decided that Terry secretly resented JKR, and wasn't going to let
the facts (or Terry's reticence) stand in the way of his article's
selling point.
cheers,
Gideon.
Eric Jarvis
<VA.0000124...@major.free.email.provider.invalid>:
> In article <Xns989D1E35D84E5g...@212.23.3.119>, GaryN
> wrote:
> > Unfortunately we live in a world where "No Comment" in any context is
> > taken to mean either "Yes I did but I'm not going to tell you" or "Yes
> > they did but I'll look bad if I slag them off" according to the
> > questioner's preconceptions.
> >
> I tend to return such questioning with questions about when the
> questioner stopped beating his wife. Most people understand the
> reference and understand that they've been rumbled and they aren't going
> to get the answer they're looking for. And the ones who don't understand
> it are already sidetracked.
>
That's all very well provided there is no real intent from the
interviewer. For what happens when there is look at the Ken Livingstone
"concentration camp guard" saga. If a journalist working for one of the
rags that no longer bother with "outdated ideas such as objective truth"
decides to nail you then they will. There is nothing you can do about it
other than make a formal complaint afterwards which may lead to a two line
retraction buried deep down on page 27. I only know of one approach that
makes the slightest difference, and that's having a PR agent who is on
excellent terms with the relevant editor and who is seen by that editor as
a source of stories not worth upsetting over just a single minor scandal.
Everything else I've seen tried has failed more often then not.
In my experience most journalists are largely honest. Many are actually
very good and try hard to present their readers/listeners/viewers with
good and interesting information that is as close to the truth as the
journalist can get. However there are some newspapers where that approach
to journalism will get you sidelines or even dispensed with. What is
becoming the norm is that the basic story is developed as an idea, and
only then does the research begin. That means that anything that doesn't
advance the intended story will be dismissed as irrelevant or as
obfuscation. If you attempt any form of retaliation it will be treated as
the latter and you will be dealt with as if you were somebody trying to
stop the truth from being revealed. If the journalist works for a
reputable organisation then you will probably get away with a "no comment"
leading to nothing you have said being used to back up the intended story.
If not then "no comment" will be taken as permission for the journalist to
draw their own conclusions and often to include them in the story as a
quote.
The best example of this that I've seen was a while back on BBC News 24. A
tabloid had printed a rumour that Sven Goran Eriksson, the manager of the
England football team, was about to be appointed manager of Chelsea
football club. This was a story printed entirely as a rumour from an
anonymous source (probably the chap on the next desk). However at the
press conference a few days later on the eve of an international match,
almost all the questions Eriksson was asked were regarding that completely
unfounded rumour. When the News 24 sports correspondent had finished his
piece one of the studio anchors asked him whether there was really any
basis for the "story". "Probably not" said the sports correspondent "but
if it's true then it would be such a great story that we have to keep
asking questions about it".
As anyone who follows football knows, Eriksson remained manager of England
for a further year and Jose Marinho was soon afterwards given the job at
Chelsea.
In the last few weeks we've seen a huge feeding frenzy over a supposed
Labour Party internal memo that isn't signed or even dated and which first
emerged some months ago when it was dismissed as probably nor reliable.
Then it was brought up again when it fitted the "news agenda" and this
time was treated by many journalists as authoritative proof of a story
they were clearly going to write whether there was any evidence of it or
not. Quotes from various people within government and the Labour Party to
the effect that they don't know anything about the memo and don't see how
it could be what it is represented as are treated as if they are clearly
attempts to hide something. Thus a completely unattributed memo that had
at first been treated as completely unreliable is now proof that
named spokesmen are lying. The only thing that has changed is that the
press currently want to print stories about altercations between Blair and
Brown whilst before they were concentrating on the "cash for honours
affair" [1]. Now that's reached a hiatus and the intended story has
changed, so has the status of the evidence.
Has anyone outside of South London seen anything about the corruption in
Lambeth story this year? I've not seen a peep in any of the national
newspapers or on the TV news. Yet in the 80s there was a spell when rarely
a week went by without new "revelations" about corruption at Lambeth
Council. Then the news agenda was to find any way to attack the "loonie
left" so when investigations led by councillors unmasked fraud by council
officers it was presented not as a story about a newish council
administration unmasking frauds that had been committed under previous
administrations unknown to the councillors at the time, but as loonie
lefty council riddled with fraud [2]. Now we have a Lib Dem adminsitration
discovered to have "misplaced" around three million pounds and one of
their senior councillor found to have committed a six figure fraud
involving council properties, it's all just a local news story that nobody
is interested in. Yet this time it's serious enough that the police have
pretty much led the investigation.
Don't assume that facts affect what is presented as news. Most of the time
they do. However some of the time reality is treated as entirely
irrelevant. If that is happening then you have nothing to gain by
aggressive attempts to turn the tables on the journalist. It will only
upset them. The way Terry deals with attempts to portray some sort of
dispute between himself and JK Rowling is pretty much spot on. You can't
stop the spin, but you can make sure you haven't done anything to back it
up.
[1] Which appears to be a bit of a misnomer on the grounds that the people
who gave the cash didn't get any honours and there's no evidence that
anyone ever told them they would, though some were nominated for but
refused peerages. So what it really is looks like a "donations
misrepresented as loans scandal", but that wouldn't be as exciting a
story.
[2] Particulrly galling for those of us close to it because the councillor
responsible for leading the investigation had faced death threats when he
began it, and spent months having graffiti scrawled on his door and bricks
through his windows until he pretty much went into hiding. Which would
have made a great news story had anyone been interested in the truth ahead
of advancing the political agenda of their newspaper's owner.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Eric Jarvis
<VA.0000124...@major.free.email.provider.invalid>:
It's also amazing how rapidly a journalist can decide they don't really
want to ask you very many questions when you warn them that you are
recording the conversation.
Peter Ellis
>
> [1] Which appears to be a bit of a misnomer on the grounds that the
> people who gave the cash didn't get any honours and there's no
> evidence that anyone ever told them they would, though some were
> nominated for but refused peerages. So what it really is looks like a
> "donations misrepresented as loans scandal", but that wouldn't be as
> exciting a story.
If the donations are being misrepresented as loans for the purpose of
concealing them from the body that vets nominations for peerages, yes it
damn well is. And that's what appears to have been happening. Several of
the donors have explicitly said that they originally gave donations, which
they were then advised to change to "loans", so that they would not have to
be declared on the peerage nomination forms.
"You loan us money, we'll play fast and loose with the rules to give you a
better chance of getting a peerage". That's corruption and sale of honours,
whether or not they officially went out touting with a price list.
Peter
Winterbay
> Aidan Karley firstname...@major.free.email.provider.invalid wrote in
> <VA.0000124...@major.free.email.provider.invalid>:
>> In article <Xns989D1E35D84E5g...@212.23.3.119>, GaryN
>> wrote:
>>> Unfortunately we live in a world where "No Comment" in any context is
>>> taken to mean either "Yes I did but I'm not going to tell you" or "Yes
>>> they did but I'll look bad if I slag them off" according to the
>>> questioner's preconceptions.
>>>
>> I tend to return such questioning with questions about when the
>> questioner stopped beating his wife. Most people understand the
>> reference and understand that they've been rumbled and they aren't going
>> to get the answer they're looking for. And the ones who don't understand
>> it are already sidetracked.
>>
>
> That's all very well provided there is no real intent from the
> interviewer. For what happens when there is look at the Ken Livingstone
> "concentration camp guard" saga. If a journalist working for one of the
> rags that no longer bother with "outdated ideas such as objective truth"
> decides to nail you then they will. There is nothing you can do about it
> other than make a formal complaint afterwards which may lead to a two line
> retraction buried deep down on page 27. I only know of one approach that
> makes the slightest difference, and that's having a PR agent who is on
> excellent terms with the relevant editor and who is seen by that editor as
> a source of stories not worth upsetting over just a single minor scandal.
> Everything else I've seen tried has failed more often then not.
>
the newspaper for "defamation" as was done by the (sort of) famous
Swedish actor Mikael Persbrandt after Expressen had claimed that he had
been taken to a recovery centre for alcoholics, something that was
totally made up and that the newspaper lost a lot of PR on (not that
they had any to loose in my eyes anyway but...), and also a lot of money
due to having to pay for the costs of all parts...
/Winterbay
Eric Jarvis
Excpet that these are two separate sets of people. Those who made
donations and were nominated for honours and a few who made "loans" and
were not nominated for honours. The worst examples are a small few who
were able to be considered for honours in precisely the same way as they
would have if they hadn't made a donation. So far as I am aware nobody has
so far uncovered an example of somebody who made a major donation and then
soon after received an honour. I'm not saying there isn't a scandal there
because there most definitely is. However it is being labelled as a
scandal that hasn't happened but which initially journalists hoped they
could uncover, and thus we aren't being given a clear picture of the real
scandal.
The real scandal here is that the Labour Party, having set up rules to
make all political donations easy to scrutinise, then reacted to a
financial crisis by persuading some major donors to call the donations
loans and thus enable the Party to not declare them. That's not only
serious and it's not only hypocrisy of the first order, it's also
something nobody has done before. What it isn't is selling honours.
MEG
> Journalists covering things like fandom tend to do so from a point of
> view; since fandom itself is rarely newsworthy - what the journalist is
> doing is looking for something that reinforces the point of their
> article/film/position.
And that's the main reason for con committees repeatedly turning down
requests to televise the conventions. Yes, we dress up. Yes, we do some
silly activities but, when all's said and done, we're in it to spend time in
the presence of The Creator and socialise with those people who share our
interests.
And drink beer.
- MEG
jester
<diog...@freeuk.com> wrote:
<hack>
>
>And a journo looking for a freakshow will inevitably look at the
>oddest-looking person going and use them as a talking head.
For example, at a SF LARP get together many years ago, a TV crew were
filming (and I never did get to see me being blown up, oh well).
They decided, out of all the people in generic Sci-Fi costumes, or the guy
in very nice home-made Star Wars Stormtrooper armour, to interview the guy
in the four-horned goat's head mask.
Unfortunately for them he was well spoken, intelligent and able to clearly
express himself in countering all the usual 'roleplayers are
devil worshippers' type stuff they came up with.
--
Andy Brown
In 1665 Issac Newton became discouraged when he fell up a flight of
stairs.
Sirius Kase
Eric Jarvis wrote:
> In my experience most journalists are largely honest.
The can't lie, not in public, or they'd risk losing their job, get
sued, or both. And I'm not sure jounalist are any nicer than anyone
else.
> Many are actually
> very good and try hard to present their readers/listeners/viewers with
> good and interesting information that is as close to the truth as the
> journalist can get.
The top priority all too often is to be interesting. Useful, accurate,
truthful stories are intrinsically interesting, but all too often, the
journalist wants all too much to make it even more interesting. It
must be dull to write the same old stuff about Pratchtt and Rowling
every time. I don't know why they keep asking the question. Isn't it
enough just to get him to expound on Hogfather or Hogswatch or whatever
his latest creation happens to be? I mean, wasn't that the declared
purpose of the interview? But, no, he wanted his little piece to be
read by Rowling fans as well as Pratchett fans, and I guess stirring
the pot makes it all so much more creative. Frankly, I'm tired of
creative reporting. Fast and accurate reporting on useful subjects is
where it should stop. Some of these people would be better off writing
fiction. that's probaby it. the "reporter" is insanely jealous of both
Practchett and Rowling
>
> Has anyone outside of South London seen anything about the corruption in
> Lambeth story this year?
Nope, the Atlanta Urinal hasn't picked up on that one. Are you
relieved?
>
> Don't assume that facts affect what is presented as news. Most of the time
> they do.
You must always consider the source and everyone who handles the
product. This goes for news as well as food.
> However some of the time reality is treated as entirely
> irrelevant. If that is happening then you have nothing to gain by
> aggressive attempts to turn the tables on the journalist. It will only
> upset them.
And give them more material for an interesting story where your anger
is interpretted as anything but a reaction to their own tricks. It
will be proof that they were able to get some kind of nasty truth out
of you.
>The way Terry deals with attempts to portray some sort of
> dispute between himself and JK Rowling is pretty much spot on. You can't
> stop the spin, but you can make sure you haven't done anything to back it
> up.
Or you can explain yourself in another public forum such as usenet or a
rival newspaper.
>
> [1] Which appears to be a bit of a misnomer on the grounds that the people
> who gave the cash didn't get any honours and there's no evidence that
> anyone ever told them they would, though some were nominated for but
> refused peerages. So what it really is looks like a "donations
> misrepresented as loans scandal", but that wouldn't be as exciting a
> story.
A very simplified version made it to Atlanta, looks like honors are for
sale, which makes the whole honors system look even more stupid than it
already does. Makes it more important for honorable people to refuse
to accept them. They make the British Government look like part of the
Entertainment industry, since the only recepients who make the news are
entertainers. It should be more like the Medal of Honor, where you
actually have to do something above and beyond the job you were hired
to do. The current system looks like patronage, even before the
scandal.
>
> [2] Particulrly galling for those of us close to it because the councillor
> responsible for leading the investigation had faced death threats when he
> began it, and spent months having graffiti scrawled on his door and bricks
> through his windows until he pretty much went into hiding. Which would
> have made a great news story had anyone been interested in the truth ahead
> of advancing the political agenda of their newspaper's owner.
You are right. When a public official is threatend, that IS news,
bigger news than a lot of stuff that graces the front page of the BBC.
(Yeah, I know it's really a broadcaster, but to me and most of my
frineds, it's a webpage)
diane...@gmail.com
Gideon wrote:
> Pete Morwood?
Peter was a bit late going to his first convention. He thought you had
to be a published author to be allowed in. He didn't go to a con until
THE HORSE LORD had come out.
:) So sweet.
Best! -- Diane
--
Diane Duane | The Owl Springs Partnership | Co. Wicklow, Ireland
http://www.dianeduane.com | http://www.youngwizards.com
Orjan Westin
> Gideon wrote:
>
>> Pete Morwood?
>
> Peter was a bit late going to his first convention. He thought you had
> to be a published author to be allowed in. He didn't go to a con until
> THE HORSE LORD had come out.
>
> :) So sweet.
Indeed. Any news on no. 5 in that series? I've reserved a gap in my
bookshelf for it.
Myself, I didn't go to my first convention until I could go armed and
armoured with sword, shield, seax, spear and helmet. I had *heard* about
fans, see.
I was still unpublished, though, but my writing partner had heroically
managed to wrap up our book the day before the con started.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Gideon
news:1166652836.2...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> Gideon wrote:
>
>> Pete Morwood?
>
> Peter was a bit late going to his first convention.
You wouldn't realise it, though; between Peter's stories and other
talents like the mimicry, he tends to end up wherever the mischief
potential is greatest; and usually surrounded by an eager audience
waiting to see what will happen next.
(The legendary imaginary sword fight between Peter and Chris
Claremont, for example - was the Marvel character Kylun actually
based on Peter? - I remember hearing as such, but never remembered
to ask.)
cheers,
Gideon.
(Do send our best, by the way.)
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: "Orjan Westin" <nos...@cunobaros.com>
> Myself, I didn't go to my first convention until I could go
> armed and armoured with sword, shield, seax, spear and
> helmet. I had *heard* about fans, see.
If you weren't currently living in this country, or at least
hadn't been at the time, I could make a joke about trying to
get that lot through Customs, and being told "No seax please,
we're British".
So there's something to be thankful for.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://sesoc.eusa.ed.ac.uk/
"The only thing worse than being talked about
is having nothing to declare except my handbag."
-Oscar Wilde, according to Humphrey Lyttleton
Sabremeister Brian
Eric Jarvis (use...@ericjarvis.co.uk) spake thusly:
Do you have to warn them before they start asking, or can you wait
until the end and tell them that the conversation has been recorded?
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"We don't believe in rheumatism and true love until after the first
attack."
Eric Jarvis
<4utvq6F...@mid.individual.net>:
> In a speech called MPG.1ff390fc8...@www.motzarella.org,
> Eric Jarvis (use...@ericjarvis.co.uk) spake thusly:
>
> > really want to ask you very many questions when you warn them that
> > you are recording the conversation.
>
> Do you have to warn them before they start asking, or can you wait
> until the end and tell them that the conversation has been recorded?
>
I'm not sure what the law requires, but it's basic politeness to tell
people in advance if you are recording them.
Aidan Karley
Hagen wrote:
> Because extreme hero worshipping seems to transcend cultures, I wonder
> whether this behaviour originally served a biological purpose, and
> whether the inclination towards it is inheritable?
>
It could be a common over-reaction of a normally-functional
system. In the same way, obsessive love or religions may be distortions
of perfectly functional mechanisms for breeding and raising new
generations. So it wouldn't be directly heritable, but persist because
the harm it does (with a certain probability, within a population)
doesn't out weigh the benefits of the normal range of behaviours (at
their range of probabilities and pay-offs in the same population).
Esmeraldus
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:34:03 +0000, Gideon
> <diog...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> <hack>
>>
>> And a journo looking for a freakshow will inevitably look at the
>> oddest-looking person going and use them as a talking head.
>
> For example, at a SF LARP get together many years ago, a TV crew
> were filming (and I never did get to see me being blown up, oh
> well).
>
> They decided, out of all the people in generic Sci-Fi costumes, or
> the guy in very nice home-made Star Wars Stormtrooper armour, to
> interview the guy in the four-horned goat's head mask.
>
> Unfortunately for them he was well spoken, intelligent and able to
> clearly express himself in countering all the usual 'roleplayers are
> devil worshippers' type stuff they came up with.
You've just given me an excellent reason to dress up as something
particularly outlandish next time, if I can think of anything.
I'm fond of bombshells, and I would *dearly* love to be what is under the
rock someone turns over looking for lurid sf geekiness.
Lesley Weston
on 20/12/2006 2:53 AM:
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>
>> in article Xns989E9F7F...@130.133.1.4, Daibhid Ceanaideach at
>> daibhidc...@aol.com wrote on 19/12/2006 7:39 AM:
>>
>>> The time: 19 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
>>> speaker: Arthur Hagen <a...@broomstick.com>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 11:39 +0000, Gideon wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> I prefer not to think of myself as a fan - of TP or anyone else. I like
>> his books, as I like those of many other authors, but that's it. If afp
>> really were a fan group, I wouldn't be part of it
>
> Why?
>
> Not only is AFP a fan group, but many of the people who've been on AFP over
> the years have been unashamed members of SF&F fandom in general.
No reason why they shouldn't be - I was talking about my own feelings on the
matter, not anyone else's.
>
> Lest you forget, Terry was an active member of SF fandom well before the
> Discworld series was written; I remember seeing a picture of him sometime
> during the 1970s at some sort of fandom event in London.
Again, no reason why he shouldn't. I don't suggest that everybody has to
behave as I do.
>
> (Possibly a Tun meeting; the London Group SF Fan meetings have been going on
> on the first Thursday of every month since 1946 - the first generation of
> Tun-goers included ACC, John Wyndham and John Christopher; and I'm sure
> Terry's been to a few.[1])
Do they meet on the first Thursday of every month to exclaim in delight over
each other's toenail clippings and shyly ask each other to sign their
latest, so that they can then boast to outsiders that they have actually met
each other? It seems more likely that they talk shop.
>
> Charlie Stross, who also invented the footnote on AFP[2], is now a
> Hugo-winning author as well as being a convention regular.
>
> Pete Morwood? Diane Duane? Dave Langford? Juliet McKenna? - all of them
> die-hard fans, generally found at cons propping up panels[3] or chatting in
> the bar.
I'm afraid I haven't heard of any of these; I don't read Fantasy, so perhaps
that's why. But I don't doubt that you're right.
>
> (It might be reasonable to posit that the majority of current SF&F authors
> have become authors after being fans.)
Yes, it's a recognised way into SF (and presumably F), and many of the most
important SF authors got their work first published that way. It's a tough
world out there in publisher land - whatever works is good. And it doesn't
matter how fannish an aspiring author gets; if their work's no good they
*still* won't get published.
>
>
>> ; whenever afpers start
>> behaving like the fans in "Cruise of the Gods" or "Galaxy Quest" (which
>> does happen from time to time), I become uncomfortable and embarrassed.
>
> If it happened in a public space, I might agree with you to a small degree;
> I occasionally look at some of the sillier fandom activities and wince
> slightly.
Afp is a public space. I'm uncomfortable and embarrassed for them, not
myself - I'm not the one doing embarrassing things. Not in that context,
anyway.
>
> However; we're talking about people engaging in something that a) they enjoy
> and b) something that doesn't harm anyone else (often quite the reverse).
>
> Where's the beef?
No beef. See above.
>
> If you want to dress up like Butcher[5] and wander around the streets of
> Wincanton, well, that's *your* business and it doesn't directly affect *me*
> (and Butcher is in fact a nice bloke, for all that he wears a slightly odd
> costume).
Who is Butcher? And what is his connection with the beef that there is none
of?
>
> If such activities were exclusive, then I'd disagree strongly with them; but
> they're not: everyone I've met in Pratchett fandom is entirely free to
> express their fandom in whichever way and to whatever degree they want;
Except me?
> (Galaxy Quest is a great film, FWIW.)
It's wonderful! I watch it every time it comes round in the cycles of the
various channels.
>
> Yes, people in fandom do things that appear somewhat odd to the non-fans;
> and fans can sometimes express themselves in disturbing or harmful ways;
How is it harmful?
> but is being part of a fandom ultimately any more silly or pointless than,
> say, going to church or a football match or an opera?
Of course not.
>
>
>> But I do enjoy TP's books, there's no doubt of that, so I guess
>> technically I am a fan, same as everybody else here.
>
> It's a wide and tolerant fandom; no-one insists that anyone dress funny, or
> speak funny; or that anyone who doesn't conform is persona non grata.
>
> I suspect that you're using the term 'fan' only for certain predefined
> concepts of the extreme ends of fandom, rather than the whole spectrum.
>
> Look at the guy in the middle of the photo:
> http://www.lspace.org/art/carpet-people/bigheals1.html
>
> - that'd look pretty similar to a lot of peoples' stereotype of a 'fan',
> wouldn't it?
Possibly. In that picture, TP looks much like most of the young men that I
knew at that time (not that I knew or know him), except for one important
detail: He's holding a copy of a book that he wrote and that has been really
published by a real publisher and really marketed, and is really bringing in
real royalties.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Lesley Weston
cyp...@doomstone.co.uk wrote on 19/12/2006 10:20 AM:
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> To cross threads for a moment, I've never seen how the alpha-pair system can
>> be advantageous to a species, so I wonder how pack-leader worship in humans,
>> which undoubtedly exists, benefits mankind. And if it doesn't, how come it's
>> still around?
>
> I'd guess that hanging around the group and being subservient (at least
> until you get the chance to hit the boss over the head with a rock one
> dark night and take his place) gives you better odds of passing on your
> genes than simply saying "sod this for a game of soldiers" and taking
> off on your own.
Ah, but taking off with the mate of your choice, so long as it's not one of
the alpha pair? Or all the pack pairing off and reproducing, thus giving all
the viable genes a chance? Either tactic seems more beneficial to the
species than just the alpha pair having it off.
>
> Of course, it doesn't necessarily have to benefit the *species*, just
> the individual gene's odds get reproduced, depending on where you stand
> on Group Selection vs Individual Selection vs the "Selfish Gene".
Actually, I'm not sure where I stand on that one - there are good arguments
for all of it.
Lesley Weston
chatt...@doctorwhowebguide.net wrote on 20/12/2006 1:22 AM:
> "Gideon" <diog...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:em92ur$9kd$1...@mud.stack.nl...
>> I know of AFP posters and
>> people elsewhere in Pratchett fandom who have expressed the opinion that
>> Terry /can't/ write a book that is anything other than shining and
>> brilliant.
>
>
> They have obviously not read "Dark Side of the Sun".
Oh, it's not *that* bad. Not his best, certainly, but still worth reading if
there's nothing else.
michaelangelica
> >He was posed a question, "Did Rowling copy you?",
>
> Ye gods, we've all been though this before. In a genre, it all comes
> out of the same big pot, yadda, yadda, And that's true. As a writer
> you can dip it and pull out 'Magic school' or 'dragon riders' or
> whatever, and you understand that someone else might do exactly the
> same thing and that's okay provided everyone understands that they
> should put their own skin on the idea. I have never accused JKR of
> plagiarism, although I get the impression that some of her fans think I
> do so all the timeI am new to this group but- How is Rowling anything like Pratchett??
Where is Rowling's wit, humour, humanity, intelligence, obscure
footnotes and references to EVERYTHING, comments on life living the
universite and how silly* it is. Dozens of wonderful "real"**
characters like Death, Carrot, The patrician, Leonardo, Conan the B,
Vines, Granny Weatherwax,and Ogg, the world of wizardry, and dozens of
assorted beings. The world Prattchett creates is so much more "real"***
and fleshed out then Hogwarts. Sure they are good reads. I read them
once but never again. I am up to my tenth+ read of most of Prattchett's
books and still getting joy from them (I think I may have a bad memory
too) Rowling is not even in the same ballpark as TP!
I am amazed that anyone would make a comparison of the two.
Well I guess they both write books;
and are filthy rich
but there it ends.****
* silly in the old meaning of the word
**in a sort of "un-real"*** sense
*** You know what I mean
**** O, they are both human too ; probably
Gideon
> in article emb4nm$2362$1...@mud.stack.nl, Gideon at diog...@freeuk.com
> wrote on 20/12/2006 2:53 AM:
>
>> Lesley Weston wrote:
<snip>
>>> I prefer not to think of myself as a fan - of TP or anyone else. I
>>> like his books, as I like those of many other authors, but that's it.
>>> If afp really were a fan group, I wouldn't be part of it
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Not only is AFP a fan group, but many of the people who've been on AFP
>> over the years have been unashamed members of SF&F fandom in general.
>
> No reason why they shouldn't be - I was talking about my own feelings on
> the matter, not anyone else's.
Sure, but I think you might have a slightly strange concept of what 'a fan
group' /is/.
This is a fan group; you are a part of it; ergo, you are part of a fan
group, even if you don't see it that way.
(It might be worth pointing out that a fan group does not automatically
entail slavish devotion to $PERSON on the part of its members.)
>> (Possibly a Tun meeting; the London Group SF Fan meetings have been
>> going on on the first Thursday of every month since 1946 - the first
>> generation of Tun-goers included ACC, John Wyndham and John
>> Christopher; and I'm sure Terry's been to a few.[1])
>
> Do they meet on the first Thursday of every month to exclaim in delight
> over each other's toenail clippings and shyly ask each other to sign
> their latest, so that they can then boast to outsiders that they have
> actually met each other? It seems more likely that they talk shop.
'Shop' is a fairly flexible term; the Tuns I've been to have involved the
discussion of anything and everything. And yes, the conversations can get
very geeky and/or 'fannish'; as people talk about the things they want to
talk about.
>> Charlie Stross, who also invented the footnote on AFP[2], is now a
>> Hugo-winning author as well as being a convention regular.
>>
>> Pete Morwood? Diane Duane? Dave Langford? Juliet McKenna? - all of them
>> die-hard fans, generally found at cons propping up panels[3] or
>> chatting in the bar.
>
> I'm afraid I haven't heard of any of these;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Morwood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Duane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Langford
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stross
http://www.julietemckenna.com/aboutjem.html
The first three have been regulars at DWCons passim.
All of them are a) lovely people and b) first-rate authors.
> I don't read Fantasy, so perhaps that's why.
*blink* *blink* *spock*
Wizards? Witches? Elves? Trolls? Dragons?
A flat world that rides on the back of a turtle?
How is that /not/ fantasy?
Do you class the DW books as 'not fantasy' in some way?
Or do you make a distinction between 'fantasy' (like the DW books)
and 'Fantasy' (heroic cleavages, stale plots, not many clothes)?
>> (It might be reasonable to posit that the majority of current SF&F
>> authors have become authors after being fans.)
>
> Yes, it's a recognised way into SF (and presumably F), and many of the
> most important SF authors got their work first published that way. It's
> a tough world out there in publisher land - whatever works is good. And
> it doesn't matter how fannish an aspiring author gets; if their work's
> no good they *still* won't get published.
You make it sound as though would-be authors get involved in fandom as a
way of getting published.
I don't think this is the case; I think it would be more accurate to say
that SF&F authors are as often as not people who read SF&F and enjoyed
it; and that indulging in fandom is merely 'getting out and meeting
fellow fans'.
The actual writing bit is merely an expression of themselves, not of their
fandom.
>>> ; whenever afpers start
>>> behaving like the fans in "Cruise of the Gods" or "Galaxy Quest"
>>> (which does happen from time to time), I become uncomfortable and
>>> embarrassed.
>>
>> If it happened in a public space, I might agree with you to a small
>> degree; I occasionally look at some of the sillier fandom activities
>> and wince slightly.
>
> Afp is a public space. I'm uncomfortable and embarrassed for them, not
> myself
Every adult is their own master. If they want to, and it doesn't harm
anyone, then it's not really our place to judge them, is it?
>> If you want to dress up like Butcher[5] and wander around the streets
>> of Wincanton, well, that's *your* business and it doesn't directly
>> affect *me* (and Butcher is in fact a nice bloke, for all that he wears
>> a slightly odd costume).
>
> Who is Butcher?
One of the Silver Horde; a bunch of guys who frequent DW events dressed as
Cohen and his cohorts.
(See also: http://www.silverhorde.co.uk/)
>> If such activities were exclusive, then I'd disagree strongly with
>> them; but they're not: everyone I've met in Pratchett fandom is
>> entirely free to express their fandom in whichever way and to whatever
>> degree they want;
>
> Except me?
Including you.
Of course, the freedom of speech includes the right to reply; look at the
Tyrant's comments to Vorbis in SG.
Free speech includes free dissent; the audience can and do disagree from
time to time.
>> Yes, people in fandom do things that appear somewhat odd to the
>> non-fans; and fans can sometimes express themselves in disturbing or
>> harmful ways;
>
> How is it harmful?
Read Misery?
(or seen the film)
Being a fan isn't necessarily harmful; but what you *do* can be.
>> I suspect that you're using the term 'fan' only for certain predefined
>> concepts of the extreme ends of fandom, rather than the whole spectrum.
>>
>> Look at the guy in the middle of the photo:
>> http://www.lspace.org/art/carpet-people/bigheals1.html
>>
>> - that'd look pretty similar to a lot of peoples' stereotype of a
>> 'fan', wouldn't it?
>
> Possibly. In that picture, TP looks much like most of the young men that
> I knew at that time (not that I knew or know him), except for one
> important detail: He's holding a copy of a book that he wrote and that
> has been really published by a real publisher and really marketed, and
> is really bringing in real royalties.
If you like, we could get Orjan and Marco to pose with a copy of the Tale;
would that make them 'not fans' or somehow different from the rest of us?
Would it alter A.N. Other's perceptions of Orjan and Marco?
cheers,
Gideon.
Eric Jarvis
>
> I'm fond of bombshells, and I would *dearly* love to be what is under the
> rock someone turns over looking for lurid sf geekiness.
>
I don't think you'd be able to do an effective Kim Newman impersonation
without extensive use of prosthetics.
mcv
>
>> Ye gods, we've all been though this before. In a genre, it all comes
>> out of the same big pot, yadda, yadda, And that's true. As a writer
>> you can dip it and pull out 'Magic school' or 'dragon riders' or
>> whatever, and you understand that someone else might do exactly the
>> same thing and that's okay provided everyone understands that they
>> should put their own skin on the idea. I have never accused JKR of
>> plagiarism, although I get the impression that some of her fans think I
>> do so all the time
>I am new to this group but- How is Rowling anything like Pratchett??
They both write fantast, they both have a highly magical educational
institute filled with weird characters.
> Where is Rowling's wit, humour, humanity, intelligence, obscure
> footnotes and references to EVERYTHING, comments on life living the
> universite and how silly* it is. Dozens of wonderful "real"**
> characters like Death, Carrot, The patrician, Leonardo, Conan the B,
> Vines, Granny Weatherwax,and Ogg, the world of wizardry, and dozens of
> assorted beings. The world Prattchett creates is so much more "real"***
> and fleshed out then Hogwarts. Sure they are good reads. I read them
> once but never again. I am up to my tenth+ read of most of Prattchett's
> books and still getting joy from them (I think I may have a bad memory
> too) Rowling is not even in the same ballpark as TP!
All of that is part of the 'skin' that Terry put on his fantasy ideas.
Rowling put a very different skin on it, even if they were inspired by
similar sources. They're not the same writers, but they work in the
same genre, so you're bound to see similar themes.
And they're both wildly successful and appeal to a big audience, so
it's somewhat understandable that people who are not familiar with
the entire body of fantasy literature than went before them, think
that they might be stealing ideas from each other.
But Rowling shares just as many themes with Gaiman's Books of Magic,
for example. But again she put her own twist on it.
mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
Robin van Steenbergen
> Esmeraldus muclu...@mypacks.net wrote in <emcsak$lf7$1...@mud.stack.nl>:
>> I'm fond of bombshells, and I would *dearly* love to be what is under the
>> rock someone turns over looking for lurid sf geekiness.
>
> I don't think you'd be able to do an effective Kim Newman impersonation
> without extensive use of prosthetics.
Looking for "lurid SF geekiness"? You mean like the silly stunt they
pulled with Jolene Blalock's *body double* and Connor Trinneer's as well
to attract potential viewers? You may of course have your own opinion
about fans, but here's mine:
I definitely found out that SF&F fandom makes a good common ground for
starting friendships and good discussion. Sometimes, *very* intellectual
discussion (Although I've never been to a Worldcon-style event, the
level of some panels there actually blow me away) and sometimes just to
have a good time with the people you respect from the world (like a
Utopia-con). Of course you really don't need to attend conventions to
get involved in the fandom, everybody expresses it in their own way.
Suppose you have a great idea for a story based on your favorite
universe -- write it down, turn it into music (filk) or make a video out
of it. One of the main things shared by fans is their limitless
creativity, the other being complete acceptance for other fans. Which is
a form of society even a lot of modern nations can really take their
example from.
Kieran Sanders
> in article Iq-dnWjLSPT...@bt.com, Kieran Sanders at
> cyp...@doomstone.co.uk wrote on 19/12/2006 10:20 AM:
>> I'd guess that hanging around the group and being subservient (at least
>> until you get the chance to hit the boss over the head with a rock one
>> dark night and take his place) gives you better odds of passing on your
>> genes than simply saying "sod this for a game of soldiers" and taking
>> off on your own.
>
> Ah, but taking off with the mate of your choice, so long as it's not one of
> the alpha pair? Or all the pack pairing off and reproducing, thus giving all
> the viable genes a chance? Either tactic seems more beneficial to the
> species than just the alpha pair having it off.
Possibly, but both of those scenarios require that more than one
individual act together at the same time to overthrow the status quo,
and natural selection doesn't have any scope for planning in advance.
My guess is that any genetic predisposition which would make you more
able to persuade a mate to break away from the alpha pair would also
give you better odds of being able to BE one of the alpha pair, so
sticking around would still be the most advantageous thing to do (or you
could successfully break away, and become the alpha pair of a new group,
when it becomes to your advantage to put down any similar insurrections
int he new group).
There's also the point of view that since this all evolved when we lived
in close-kin groups, with whom we shared a lot of genetic material,
something that is good for the alpha pair's odds of reproducing is
almost as good for your genes (and less risky) as something which helps
you reproduce for yourself - since a fair proportion of your genes are
also present in your cousins/brothers/sisters who do get to breed.
--
Kieran Sanders
Esmeraldus
> Eric Jarvis schreef:
>> Esmeraldus muclu...@mypacks.net wrote in
>> <emcsak$lf7$1...@mud.stack.nl>:
>>> I'm fond of bombshells, and I would *dearly* love to be what is
>>> under the rock someone turns over looking for lurid sf geekiness.
>>
>> I don't think you'd be able to do an effective Kim Newman
>> impersonation without extensive use of prosthetics.
>
> Looking for "lurid SF geekiness"? You mean like the silly stunt they
> pulled with Jolene Blalock's *body double* and Connor Trinneer's as
> well to attract potential viewers? You may of course have your own
> opinion about fans, but here's mine:
Mine is that despite some common ground, they're a varied lot just like
anyone else.
> I definitely found out that SF&F fandom makes a good common ground
> for starting friendships and good discussion. Sometimes, *very*
> intellectual discussion
I'm mostly familiar with the intellectual, academic fan subspecies. I don't
know you, so I find it hard to explain.
But I can imagine the entertainment value (for me) in taking someone who's
looking for geeky, inept losers and playing them until their preconceptions
are completely destroyed.
Esmeraldus
> Where is Rowling's wit, humour, humanity, intelligence, obscure
> footnotes and references to EVERYTHING, comments on life living the
> universite and how silly* it is. Dozens of wonderful "real"**
> characters like Death, Carrot, The patrician, Leonardo, Conan the B,
> Vines, Granny Weatherwax,and Ogg, the world of wizardry, and dozens
> of assorted beings. The world Prattchett creates is so much more
> "real"*** and fleshed out then Hogwarts. Sure they are good reads.
> I read them once but never again. I am up to my tenth+ read of most
> of Prattchett's books and still getting joy from them (I think I
> may have a bad memory too) Rowling is not even in the same ballpark
> as TP!
> I am amazed that anyone would make a comparison of the two.
Oh, be fair. The Harry Potter books are pretty good, and they DO deal with
the never-outdated conflicts kids experience. Cut them a break.
Yes, I think the DW books have a wider applicable age-range of readers,
they're a LOT more intertextual and intellectual, and yes, better. But IMO
it's like the witch trials. I'm not about to say Pratchett's never written a
wrong word, and I do like some of the books better than others, but I think
for quality most authors are competing for second.
Nonetheless, that assumes that everyone is looking for what I'm looking for
in a book. The Rowling books are fine examples of what they are and should
get credit for that.
Perhaps that was a bit muddled, but while I do feel Pratchett's the better
author, I see no reason to devalue Rowling--there's no need.
Alec Cawley
I don't see it at all attempting to hide them from the people who vet
honours - I see it as attempting to hide them from the people who vet
donations. The parties wanted big lumps of money to fund a general
election. They did not want to be seen as accepting big lumps of money
immediately before the election, but but the rules they made themselves,
they would have to declare donations. So they made them loans, whcih
could then quietly be converted into donations piecemeal after the
election was safely in the can.
As Eric said, the honours bit is is a distraction. For good reason, they
made rules enforcing the publication of large donations immediately.
When they did so, the boasted about their uncorruptness and how they
were cleaning up after predecessors misdemeanors. And with the ink
hardly dry on the Queens Assent, they found the new rules inconvenient
so simply found a devious bypass. Show them to be as disreputable as
their predecessors if not more so - they sold their virtue even faster,
Alec Cawley
> but Ankh-Morpork is slightly fervent about not having a king; I
> can't see Carrot in the persona of Charles II.
What are you talking about? It was made clear in G!G! that the Mob in
Ankh Morpork is practically drooling for a King. And in FoC it was made
clear that the aristocracy would love a suitably controllable King. The
point is reinforced in J. The only person we *know* who does not want a
King is Vimes, who loathes the concept. Almost certainly Vetinari does
not want a Kin to replace him or to be his puppet - he is doing fine
without. And I suspect that Carrot would rather not be king, because
then he cannot go round talking to people; but he would become one like
a shot if it were right for A-M. And the the fourth person who doesn't
want a king, the one with the casting vote, is Terry Pratchett.
Alec Cawley
> To cross threads for a moment, I've never seen how the alpha-pair system can
> be advantageous to a species, so I wonder how pack-leader worship in humans,
> which undoubtedly exists, benefits mankind. And if it doesn't, how come it's
> still around?
Often, A Decision has to be made. There is not time to debate it; the
cost of debate is higher than the cost of the second best decision. So
you need to find the best decision maker, then leave them to make the
decisions.
In our modern, educated and complex world, we can sometimes spare the
effort for a proper debate. But in earlier times, before the development
of methods of debate and before the general acceptance that violence was
not an acceptable way of continuing debate if you were losing, an alpha
was necessary. Actually, the still are necessary, which is why we have
CEOs, PMs etc. We cannot have a shareholder meeting or a referendum on
every single decision - we choose an alpha and let hem get on with it.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
> in article Iq-dnWjLSPT...@bt.com, Kieran Sanders
> at cyp...@doomstone.co.uk wrote on 19/12/2006 10:20 AM:
>
>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>> To cross threads for a moment, I've never seen how the
>>> alpha-pair system can be advantageous to a species, so I
>>> wonder how pack-leader worship in humans, which
>>> undoubtedly exists, benefits mankind. And if it doesn't,
>>> how come it's still around?
>>
>> I'd guess that hanging around the group and being
>> subservient (at least until you get the chance to hit the
>> boss over the head with a rock one dark night and take his
>> place) gives you better odds of passing on your genes than
>> simply saying "sod this for a game of soldiers" and taking
>> off on your own.
>
> Ah, but taking off with the mate of your choice, so long as
> it's not one of the alpha pair? Or all the pack pairing off
> and reproducing, thus giving all the viable genes a chance?
> Either tactic seems more beneficial to the species than
> just the alpha pair having it off.
I'm not sure about the latter case, but as far as the former
goes: there's safety in numbers.