RE : Nikolaus Maack
CycloTron
and couldn't help but noticing how much N. Maack is blasted all the
time... I've read his and your definition of surrealism and my opinion
is that his is much closer than yours to the "real" thing ... i also
couldn't help noticing how rude everyone is and using sometimes vulgar
words . Doing so makes me questionning how much your interpretations
make sense... I'm not very good in defining words and would have a
hard time defining "surrealism" even though i'm a surrealist artist
myself.... the only way i can define and express it is through
paintings...
I think everyone should have the right to his (her) own opinion no
matter how different it might be to others...
I can just imagine the reaction i'll have about this... probably rude
and uncivilized, coming from people who thinks they're better than the
rest of the world....
Maybe, i did missed something that provoked all this, if so, disregard
the above !!!!
Sven
I agree 100%.
Some of the postings of late (a prime example "How to ignore Witoless
Maack") have been just plain childish.
And boring.
At least Nik's writing is entertaining.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> I've been reading some of the conversations here and there on this ng,
> and couldn't help but noticing how much N. Maack is blasted all the
> time...
Shit man, he's been bugging us for almost four years. You think the guy
would just leave us alone, but no. He enjoys this. He's trolled other
newsgroups to his own confession, but he likes trolling us best.
> I've read his and your definition of surrealism and my opinion
> is that his is much closer than yours to the "real" thing ...
And just what is the "real" thing? Please, splash your divine light our
way oh great one.
> i also couldn't help noticing how rude everyone is and using
> sometimes vulgar words .
You're at alt.surrealism complaining about "vulgar" words. The whole
scam that some words are more vulgar than others is a joke, and part of
cultural repression. Right? I mean, what makes them "bad." You tell me.
> Doing so makes me questionning how much your interpretations
> make sense... I'm not very good in defining words and would have a
> hard time defining "surrealism" even though i'm a surrealist artist
> myself....
Surrealism is not about art, but about freedom and revolution.
> I think everyone should have the right to his (her) own opinion no
> matter how different it might be to others...
Fine, but I also have the right to tell you that I think your a fucking
idiot. Right?
> I can just imagine the reaction i'll have about this... probably rude
> and uncivilized, coming from people who thinks they're better than the
> rest of the world....
What?! You said "uncivilized"!!! What's wrong with being "uncivilized"
or even "rude." I think even Nik would back me up on the glory of
being "uncivilized" and "rude." He is, after all, a self proclaimed
Nihilist --- and a fan of Dali (kicking blind men all the way to the
bank).
> Maybe, i did missed something that provoked all this, if so, disregard
> the above !!!!
Done.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> I've read his and your definition of surrealism and my opinion
> is that his is much closer than yours to the "real" thing ...
Why don't you read what Breton wrote:
http://www.wlv.ac.uk/~fa1871/whatsurr.html
Or try this definition which is in both the document linked to above,
and in Breton's first manifesto:
SURREALISM, n. Pure psychic automatism, by which it is intended to
express, verbally, in writing, or by other means, the real process of
thought. Thought's dictation, in the absence of all control exercised
by the reason and outside all aesthetic or moral preoccupations.
ENCYCL. Philos. Surrealism rests in the belief in the superior reality
of certain forms of association neglected heretofore; in the
omnipotence of the dream and in the disinterested play of thought. It
tends definitely to do away with all other psychic mechanisms and to
substitute itself for them in the solution of the principal problems of
life. Have professed absolute surrealism: Messrs. Aragon, Baron,
Boiffard, Breton, Carrive, Crevel, Delteil, Desnos, Eluard, Gérard,
Limbour, Malkine, Morise, Naville, Noll, Péret, Picon, Soupault, Vitrac.
These till now appear to be the only ones.... Were one to consider
their output only superficially, a goodly number of poets might well
have passed for surrealists, beginning with Dante and Shakespeare at
his best. In the course of many attempts I have made towards an
analysis of what, under false pretences, is called genius, I have found
nothing that could in the end be attributed to any other process than
this.
Or how about an early collective statement:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1925surrealism.html
But I suppose you still like Nik's definition over these too.
Sven
>>> I can just imagine the reaction i'll have about this... probably
>>> rude and uncivilized, coming from people who thinks they're
>>> better than the rest of the world....
>>> disregard the above !!!!
>>
>>
>> Some of the postings of late (a prime example "How to ignore
>> Witoless Maack") have been just plain childish.
>>
>> And boring.
>>
>> At least Nik's writing is entertaining.
>>
> with a clicker.
> Good for you if you like "The Prisoner" for its _content_ rather than
> "the surreal quality of its images" alone.
I don't quite know what you mean by this. I watched The Prisoner and I
enjoyed it. I watched The Prisoner and I was impressed with its scope. I
watched The Prisoner and tried to work out what the hell it all means (man
escaping from himself, the bars of society, the dull uniformity of
Communism, man's eternal quest to escape, his (inevitable?) failure). It's
a while since I've seen it, so I'm sorry if this isn't everything. It does
have some nice surreal bits near the end. I enjoyed those. I didn't say it
was the sole source of my enjoyment.
> And so, assuming that you assimilated at least some of what McGoohan
> was trying to tell you, are _you_ going to produce something with a
> mature sensibility _yourself,_ instead of being a tourist?
I don't know what you mean by "tourist". If you're implying that I only dip
my toe into surrealism, then maybe that's true. I enjoy what I write; I
hope others get something from it. If they don't, well, never mind. All
I'm looking for is a forum in which to write. I'm hoping that my style will
develop and that I'll get some interesting ideas going, maybe even develop a
theme or themes. Until then, like Breton's man sliced through by a window,
I'm just going to keep on getting ideas that don't make any sense and
writing about them.
I would value commentary from anyone on the things that I write. I tend to
write them quickly; they come "straight from my brain", with a few
corrections afterwards. Therefore, you get varying quality. I'd prefer
some constructive criticism, though, rather than plain dismissal.
Sven
> CycloTron wrote:
>> I've been reading some of the conversations here and there on this ng,
>> and couldn't help but noticing how much N. Maack is blasted all the
>> time...
>
> Shit man, he's been bugging us for almost four years. You think the guy
> would just leave us alone, but no. He enjoys this. He's trolled other
> newsgroups to his own confession, but he likes trolling us best.
Fair enough; but surely the best way to get rid of a troll is to ignore one?
Ten thousand insulting emails will only encourage him. I can only imagine
the goofy grin that will spread over his face when he reads this newsgroup
and sees that almost all the messages mention him in one way or another...
>> I've read his and your definition of surrealism and my opinion
>> is that his is much closer than yours to the "real" thing ...
>
> And just what is the "real" thing? Please, splash your divine light our
> way oh great one.
He/she put it in quotes; I took it to mean "real" as applied to him/her.
>> i also couldn't help noticing how rude everyone is and using
>> sometimes vulgar words .
>
> You're at alt.surrealism complaining about "vulgar" words. The whole
> scam that some words are more vulgar than others is a joke, and part of
> cultural repression. Right? I mean, what makes them "bad." You tell me.
You have to admit, though, if you're wanting people to recognize Nik as a
troll, you're not going to get them on your side if you're just rude about
it.
There are simple ways of dealing with trolls, if that is what he is. Some
NGs prefer a single, one word response: "Troll."
>> Doing so makes me questionning how much your interpretations
>> make sense... I'm not very good in defining words and would have a
>> hard time defining "surrealism" even though i'm a surrealist artist
>> myself....
>
> Surrealism is not about art, but about freedom and revolution.
And art is an unfortunate by-product? I would imagine that "surrealism"
would include the ideology as well as the art that sprung from it.
>> I think everyone should have the right to his (her) own opinion no
>> matter how different it might be to others...
>
> Fine, but I also have the right to tell you that I think your a fucking
> idiot. Right?
Hmm. Bit alienating, no?
>> I can just imagine the reaction i'll have about this... probably rude
>> and uncivilized, coming from people who thinks they're better than the
>> rest of the world....
>
> What?! You said "uncivilized"!!! What's wrong with being "uncivilized"
> or even "rude." I think even Nik would back me up on the glory of
> being "uncivilized" and "rude." He is, after all, a self proclaimed
> Nihilist --- and a fan of Dali (kicking blind men all the way to the
> bank).
>
>> Maybe, i did missed something that provoked all this, if so, disregard
>> the above !!!!
>
> Done.
>
Sigh.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Fair enough; but surely the best way to get rid of a troll is to
ignore one?
Good point, but we've tried. You see Nik doesn't care about if people
respond to him, only that he takes up space. He also is a prime example
of someone who hasn't read much about Surrealism (except for via out-
dated art history books) but proclaims to know everything about it. He
fails to see the differences between Surrealism and mysticism,
Surrealism and Taoism, Surrealism and psuedo-Surrealism, Surrealism and
psychoanalysis, and he continues to shout out common misunderstandings
for the very sake of hearing us correct him. Not only that but he's
extremely conservative in his views and claims that any disagreement is
an attack against him with a b-b gun. After trying to discuss things
with I realized that the only way to get any kind of response out of
him was to insult him.
> There are simple ways of dealing with trolls, if that is what he is.
> Some NGs prefer a single, one word response: "Troll."
Its been nearly four years. Don't you think we've tried that.
> And art is an unfortunate by-product?
Art as an access to freedom (via chance and automatism).
I wrote:
> Fine, but I also have the right to tell you that I think your a
> fucking idiot. Right?
Sven:
> Hmm. Bit alienating, no?
Yes, but I find it rather ironic that the same people coming in here
proclaiming freedom of everyone's opinions is the same person who is
protesting everyone's choice of words.
Sven
>> Fair enough; but surely the best way to get rid of a troll is to
> ignore one?
>
> Good point, but we've tried. You see Nik doesn't care about if people
> respond to him, only that he takes up space. He also is a prime example
> of someone who hasn't read much about Surrealism (except for via out-
> dated art history books) but proclaims to know everything about it. He
> fails to see the differences between Surrealism and mysticism,
> Surrealism and Taoism, Surrealism and psuedo-Surrealism, Surrealism and
> psychoanalysis, and he continues to shout out common misunderstandings
> for the very sake of hearing us correct him. Not only that but he's
> extremely conservative in his views and claims that any disagreement is
> an attack against him with a b-b gun. After trying to discuss things
> with I realized that the only way to get any kind of response out of
> him was to insult him.
All this may well be true; I'm not sure yet. What strikes me, though, is
that the newcomer (e.g. me, CycloTron) enters the newsgroup and sees
invective directed towards one person, whose opinions do not seem to be
unreasonable enough to deserve it (if you see what I mean). If he truly is
a troll, and doesn't even necessarily believe what he's saying, then this is
surely exactly what he wants; such newcomers will side with him, or at least
against those who seem to be being unpleasant.
>> There are simple ways of dealing with trolls, if that is what he is.
>> Some NGs prefer a single, one word response: "Troll."
>
> Its been nearly four years. Don't you think we've tried that.
OK.
>> And art is an unfortunate by-product?
>
> Art as an access to freedom (via chance and automatism).
I still think CycloTron's use of the word was justified.
While you're mentioning it: I can see perfectly how automatic writing, etc,
is a valid form of surrealism, as it allows true freedom of expression
without the artificial constraints of making sense etc. (Would you say this
is a valid assessment?) What I am wondering is: to what extent can you
ignore these constraints? For example, you can write a piece of prose that
is conventional in its structure and resolution, but which contains
automatic material. A simple example would be a piece of conventional
writing in which the nouns were "automatic". On the other hand, by applying
no constraints whatever, you'll probably just get a line wobbled along
paper. The translation of ideas into language is a constraint in itself; to
move further along the line, one would arrive at a string of meaningless
sounds, then a collection of unrelated words. Further applying rules, you
can apply punctuation and capital letters to form sentences, or you can
begin to structure your sentences so that verbs, nouns, prepositions all
occur in places that allow the sentence to read well. By the time you are
forming proper sentences, you have necessarily reached for the rulebook many
times.
Where, in your opinion, does automatic writing begin and end?
> I wrote:
>> Fine, but I also have the right to tell you that I think your a
>> fucking idiot. Right?
>
> Sven:
>> Hmm. Bit alienating, no?
>
> Yes, but I find it rather ironic that the same people coming in here
> proclaiming freedom of everyone's opinions is the same person who is
> protesting everyone's choice of words.
Again, hmm: there's a difference, surely, between freedom of expression, and
the simple requirement of politeness and civility that allows such
expression to go on. I don't actually mind being called a "fucking idiot"
as such, but if called so in a manner that I believe to be unprovoked, my
opinion of the person doing the calling will drop dramatically.
Dale Houstman
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8o8d7b$cqe$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Sven wrote:
> > Fair enough; but surely the best way to get rid of a troll is to
> ignore one?
>
> Good point, but we've tried. You see Nik doesn't care about if people
> respond to him, only that he takes up space.
This makes him a shelf troll, or a sort of cheap nik-nak doesn't it?
When I stopped responding to him for a long while, he simply went on
mentioning me in posts, sometimes with his patented adolescent salacious.
>
> Yes, but I find it rather ironic that the same people coming in here
> proclaiming freedom of everyone's opinions is the same person who is
> protesting everyone's choice of words.
Again, it never hurts to mention that Lenny Bruce died for this "sin." If we
haven't learned
from his stance that control of words (even by dissolving them in nihilism)
is control of thought, then where will we learn it? Of course, thanks to the
decay of American education and the embolism of rapid throw away culture,
most people think Eddie Murphy is the essential comedian, and that humor's
one function is to make us all feel vaguely queasy and beaten up.
dmh
ca314159
>
> <brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8o8d7b$cqe$1...@nnrp1.deja.com..
A man kicks a donkey, the donkey kicks the man;
and one person laughs.
That's one for the price of two, which may not seem
economical to someone watching; all alone, and expecting
increasing returns.
For larger audiences, the economics of humor is much
more complicated and elusive, which is why some people
can monopolize a sense of humor, and other people are
comically broke.
The economic disparity caused the greatest concern until
someone invented the concept of comical credit, in which
one could on loan, borrow a sense of humor, based on the
probability of a person having future tangible comical
earnings.
Eventually the market seemed to float on an inflated bubble
of comic relief until it finally collapsed from too much
laughter. Then after a long desolate pause of silence, and
a great depression, the whole thing started all over again
when someone, somewhere cracked a good one.
CycloTron
I don't need Breton to tell me what surrealism is, it seems you do...
although he was the founder of the surrealism movement formed in 1924.
I respect him greatly, but don't forget that you missed some important
names that were part of that group : Dali, Alexandre, Buñuel,
Caupenne, Fourrier, Magritte, Thirion, Tanguy, Nougé, Goesman, Ernst,
Valentine..... Would Breton adhere anyone in his movement that
wouldn't comply with the surrealism 's philosophy ? I think not, ...
You wrote :
>>Surrealism is not about art, but about freedom and revolution.
Of course it is, in a way, Breton was a writer, and used literature as
a mean to record his semi-conscious wanderings...
He later recognized painting as a legitimate mean when he discovered a
painting by Giorgio de Chirico "The brain of the child" which was made
10 years beforehand ...
You also wrote :
>> Fine, but I also have the right to tell you that I think your a
>> fucking idiot. Right?
I don't think that was a well thought and educated statement,
you don't know me , I could call you "Goof" but i won't ...
You'll never understand surrealism unless you're one yourself...
And the way i see things, you sound more like a frustrated young man
who pleases in blasting people, please get a life...
Here's a good saying I caught in a movie :
"Would you do the world a favor ? Why don't you pull your lips over
your head and swallow it "
By the way, I'm a vivid fan of Dali ...
(`'·.,¸¸,ø¤°Cyclo{-_-}Tron°¤ø,¸¸,.·'´)
The more we live, the more we learn, the more we know.....
The more we give, the more we love, the more we grow.
(Squire, Sherwood ..... YES)
Sven
>>> Sven, you seem to have your monitor confused with another big box
>>> with a clicker.
>>> Good for you if you like "The Prisoner" for its _content_ rather
> than
>>> "the surreal quality of its images" alone.
>>
>> I don't quite know what you mean by this. I watched The Prisoner
>> and I enjoyed it. I watched The Prisoner and I was impressed with
>> its scope. I watched The Prisoner and tried to work out what the
>> hell it all means (man escaping from himself, the bars of society,
>> the dull uniformity of Communism, man's eternal quest to escape,
>> his (inevitable?) failure).
>
> I don't understand what all of it is about, and don't think its
> creator did either, but a significant key to the series is in the fact
> that everyone there a number instead of a name. McGoohan's preceding
> series "Secret Agent", in which he plays John Drake, is a part of the
> prisoner. Its theme song, "Secret Agent Man", by Johnny Rivers,
> helps explain "The Prisoner", and I venture to say that the half-hour
> series "Danger Man", the first in the set of three, does as well, but
> I've never seen it.
I may be wrong, but I thought that "Danger Man" was the name of the series
here in the UK, whereas it was renamed "Secret Agent" on export to the U.S.
Ask David Mackenzie, he sometimes lurks around here...
> Incidentally, places like The Village did or still do exist. "Colony
> Three" (or is it "Thirteen"?) in the "Secret Agent" series has such
> a place as its setting.
>
> Maybe someone familiar with spy novels knows of some books that
> mention these places?
Sinister thought, isn't it? Incidentally, the people as numbers thing
always reminded me of the bit in "The Sword in the Stone" by T.H. White
where Wart is magicked by Merlin down into the world of the ants. If I
remember correctly (I don't have my copy handy), they referred to each other
by number. And everything was "Done" or "not Done". And they had a
marvellous slogan; something like "everything not forbidden is compulsory".
Or is that 1984?
>> I enjoy what I write; I hope others get something from it. If
>> they don't, well, never mind. All I'm looking for is a forum in
>> which to write. I'm hoping that my style will develop and that
>> I'll get some interesting ideas going, maybe even develop a
>> theme or themes. Until then, like Breton's man sliced through by a
>> window, I'm just going to keep on getting ideas that don't make
>> any sense and writing about them.
>
> Well, it was Breton who experienced the sliced man; he himself was
> simply going about his business, but I know what you mean. However,
> I don't know why your ideas don't make any sense (to you I mean).
> That hasn't at all been my own experience with what I write...
Well, "make no sense" in conventional terms, if such terms exist. The kind
of things to which a standard non-surreal person would react with a "Huh?".
The ideas make perfect sense to me.
>> I would value commentary from anyone on the things that I write. I
>> tend to write them quickly; they come "straight from my brain", with
>> a few corrections afterwards. Therefore, you get varying quality.
>> I'd prefer some constructive criticism, though, rather than plain
>> dismissal.
>
> I wasn't dismissing your writing, at all. About good commentary on
> your pieces, the people you've been going up against thus far are
> the ones who could do that for you, but critiques are not something
> I've seen happen on this newsgroup.
> What particular about your writing would you like a comment on?
I haven't been "going up against" anyone; I just react where I think it's
appropriate.
If people are amenable in general to it, I think it would be nice if we
could all comment on each others' writing. That way, it wouldn't feel as if
the posts were vanishing into the void... Maybe we could put a "CW" in the
post name, for "comments welcome", or something...
As to what in particular; well, if the writing sparks anything in anyone, it
would be nice to hear about it. If it seems flawed in any obvious way, that
would be another avenue for comment. You seemed to be saying that a lot of
the writing recently didn't do anything for you; well, what did it lack?
barrett john erickson
"CycloTron" <shi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39a70e9d...@allnews.nbnet.nb.ca...
> I've been reading some of the conversations here and there on this ng,
> and couldn't help but noticing how much N. Maack is blasted all the
> is that his is much closer than yours to the "real" thing ... i also
> couldn't help noticing how rude everyone is and using sometimes vulgar
> make sense... I'm not very good in defining words and would have a
> hard time defining "surrealism" even though i'm a surrealist artist
> paintings...
> matter how different it might be to others...
> [...]
well, that doesn't mean every opinion should be allowed free reign without
challenge, does it?
the problem for a "newcomer" is that many of nik's comments may not seem
that far off, when taken out of the larger context of his 3 year or so
posting history. i certainly had a more favorable impression of him when he
first arrived here in alt.surrealism. but since then, some of us have tried
repeatedly to engage him in attempts (quite civil attempts, i may add) to
correct his various missteps, and have come to realize that he isn't open to
reconsidering any of the misinterpretations he clings to, and has little
interest in actually learning anything about, or contributing anything to
the surrealist movement as it exists today.
nik has, in his posts here, consistently and recklessly misrepresented the
arguments of others, is often the first to personalize a discussion with
insults and psychologized assertions about an other's motivations, is prone
to criticizing writing style in lieu of responding to a well directed point,
and in the end, he openly judges everything solely on the grounds of -- and
appears to be interested only in -- what is "useful" to him.
it is the arrogance of his ignorance (or perhaps the ignorance of his
arrogance) that provokes the comments you witness.
i remember seeing a quote form Daniel Moynahan in someone's "sig" recently:
"everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts" or
something similar.
and this is where our arguments with nik began three or so years ago. these
early conflicts continue because he refuses to recognize any basis for
resolution beyond his being allowed to assert any misrepresentation and
disseminate any falsification of "surrealism" unchallenged.
_that_ is what forms the overall context in which the criticisms of today
take place.
for example:
during a discussion a year or two ago, nik and a couple others proclaimed
essentially that "surrealism" was whatever they decided it was (a position
now known as "personalist"). it didn't matter to them that a long record
might exist of surrealists rejecting a particular perpective, it didn't
matter what 80 years of surrealist texts might say on the matter, and it
didn't matter if every surrealist asked would denounce the perspective and
be able to argue their point effectively from within the context of
surrealist theory.
they insisted any person could, simply because he/she decided to, now
proclaim that any given perspective was compatible with their personal
"surrealism" and that surrealists should accept that, or at least not argue
with them about it.
this of course provoked a series of attempts to get them to acknowledge
hat -- 1) because "surrealism" was a collaborative venture, as much social
as personal, and that 2) in any case, it can't be denied that "surrealism"
obviously existed before they did, and has a history and a lineage of
thought and practice that 3) continues today all around the world among
living surrealists with unbroken links to that lineage and history -- that
no one person could legitimately redefine the term "surrealism" in ways that
deliberately ignored, much less openly conflicted with that historical and
current context. and that anyone attempting to do so in a forum discussing
"surrealism" should expect a heated challenge.
nik among others continued to argue otherwise.
just one opinion vs. another? no, despite their insistent accusations that
we were arguing that there was some kind of criteria that had to be met to
be an "official" surrealist, we were only arguing that _they_ could not
arbitrarily redefine "surrealism" in their own image and expect others to go
along with it -- that "surrealism" has existed and continues to exist as a
global movement with observable characteristics that are outside of their
personal control.
nik, among others who post far less frequently, remains entrenched in his
refusal to acknowledge this simple reality and it is that choice -- _his_
choice -- that places him by definition outside of "surrealism".
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@MagneticFields.org
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
Doug Eichenberg
> proclaim that any given perspective was compatible with their personal
> "surrealism" and that surrealists should accept that, or at least not
argue
> with them about it.
Interesting point. To define surrealism as whatever you want it to be is
to make the word meaningless. There is a difference between surrealism
and dada... that's why the surrealists broke away to begin with.
Doug Eichenberg
http://www.getinfo.net/douge
do...@nls.net
CycloTron
(`'·.,¸¸,ø¤°Cyclo{-_-}Tron°¤ø,¸¸,.·'´)
Salamander
Sven <svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B5CDC257.102F9%svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> Well, "make no sense" in conventional terms, if such terms exist. The
kind
> of things to which a standard non-surreal person would react with a
"Huh?".
> The ideas make perfect sense to me.
What is a standard non-surreal person? I'm asking seriously, not trying to
be clever here. What is a non-standard surreal person? I wonder how your
answer will relate to sanity in the medical sense, too. Schizophrenics tend
to write or speak in "word salad" (isn't that a great term?!) which comes
more directly from the subconscious than normal speech, and truly has a
meaning and logic all its own. When I did cognitive testing, schizophrenics
would not "make sense" in their speech, but would be expressing their own
inner world very powerfully. Do you think there is a danger in being a
non-standard surreal person of opening doors you won't be able to close?
Doug Eichenberg
He insisted that the government was blocking our toilet with radio waves.
He also claimed to have been shot many times with pneumatic bullets.
I often considered tape-recording him because everything he said was
so surreal. I think he was the most honest surrealist I have ever met...
brandon...@my-deja.com
really seem like you might enjoy flaming.
CycloTron wrote:
> I don't need Breton to tell me what surrealism is, it seems you do...
Its a good start. Where would you start? Gandhi? Jesus Christ? Stalin?
Andy Warhol? Bob Vila?
> I don't think that was a well thought and educated statement,
> you don't know me , I could call you "Goof" but i won't ...
Can we nickname you "High-horse." I mean, your so good at
identifying "educated" statements. Just read Nik's posts. They are full
of "educated" statements.
HA!
> You'll never understand surrealism unless you're one yourself...
Huh?
> And the way i see things, you sound more like a frustrated young man
> who pleases in blasting people, please get a life...
Actually, I am a bit frustrated. I'm frustrated with individual who are
new to alt.surrealism coming in and acting like Sheriff by declaring NO
MORE DIRTY WORDS and NO MORE PICKING ON NIK MAACK!
Give me a break, Sheriff. I never broke no law.
> "Would you do the world a favor ? Why don't you pull your lips over
> your head and swallow it "
Is this one of those "educated" statements.
> By the way, I'm a vivid fan of Dali ...
That's your problem.
brandon...@my-deja.com
negative. Often when someone new comes in defending Nik I tend to
filter my frustrations on to them as well. I am trying my best not to
do that here.
Sven wrote:
> While you're mentioning it: I can see perfectly how automatic
> writing, etc, is a valid form of surrealism, as it allows true
> freedom of expression without the artificial constraints of making
> sense etc. (Would you say this is a valid assessment?)
Pretty much.
> What I am wondering is: to what extent can you ignore these
> constraints? For example, you can write a piece of prose that
> is conventional in its structure and resolution, but which contains
> automatic material.
I often do this. Sort of. Kind of. I tend to mix automatic material
with collage material with dream material. So, the entire make-up of
the piece isn't necessarily "automatic writing." As for convential in
struction and resolution with automatic "nouns" I think this sounds
like a worthwhile experiment ... something the Oulipo might try? But it
really isn't pure automatism for automatism only takes up a fraction of
the creative process.
> By the time you are forming proper sentences, you have necessarily
> reached for the rulebook many times. Where, in your opinion, does
> automatic writing begin and end?
I think automatic writing begins and ends as the loose mush that often
in unreadable. For me it is just part of the creative equation when I
am sculpting some piece of writing. Does that make sense?
> there's a difference, surely, between freedom of expression, and
> the simple requirement of politeness and civility that allows such
> expression to go on.
Possibly. But socially constructed prudeness is to blame, not that
which has been labelled "vulger."
barrett john erickson
"Doug Eichenberg" <do...@nls.net> wrote in message
news:cWVp5.181$%o4.2...@news1.onlynews.com...
> > they insisted any person could, simply because he/she decided to, now
> > proclaim that any given perspective was compatible with their personal
> > "surrealism" and that surrealists should accept that, or at least not
> argue
> > with them about it.
>
> to make the word meaningless. There is a difference between surrealism
> and dada... that's why the surrealists broke away to begin with.
exactly.
but nik's answer to this argument was to simply assert that _no_ word has
any meaning that he need acknowledge. which obviously means that he accepts
no common ground from which he can participate in a discussion. but he
denies this as well of course and continues to insist on a role.
hence the frustration of others.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> nik has, in his posts here, consistently and recklessly
> misrepresented the arguments of others, is often the first to
> personalize a discussion with insults and psychologized assertions
> about an other's motivations, is prone to criticizing writing style
> in lieu of responding to a well directed point, and in the end, he
> openly judges everything solely on the grounds of -- and appears to
> be interested only in -- what is "useful" to him.
Wow! Good summery, Barrett!!!* I feel I have been bothered by almost
all of these flies. The funny thing is that just recently I've swatted
some of these flies back at Nik and he seems just as annoyed with me as
we are tired of him.
What's that cliche: he can dish it, but can't take it.
*It should be noted that Nik will use my endorcement of Barrett's
statement as proof that Barrett is the master of the alt.surrealism
universe. Do I have a career on psychic hotlines or what?
ca314159
>
> "Doug Eichenberg" <do...@nls.net> wrote in message
> news:cWVp5.181$%o4.2...@news1.onlynews.com..
> > > proclaim that any given perspective was compatible with their personal
> > > "surrealism" and that surrealists should accept that, or at least not
> > argue
> > > with them about it.
> >
> > Interesting point. To define surrealism as whatever you want it to be is
> > to make the word meaningless. There is a difference between surrealism
> > and dada... that's why the surrealists broke away to begin with.
>
> exactly.
metaphysically:
'Interesting point. To define enlightenment as whatever you want it to be is
to make the word meaningless. There is a difference between enlightenment
and Buddhism... that's why the Zen Buddhists broke away to begin with.'
or pataphysically:
'Interesting point. To define quantum as whatever you want it to be is
to make the word meaningless. There is a difference between quantum
and measurment... that's why the quantum physicists broke away to begin with.'
works also.
Foucault/Magritte, This is not a pipe, an art quantum
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0520049160.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif
the surrealist version ?
>
> but nik's answer to this argument was to simply assert that _no_ word has
> any meaning that he need acknowledge. which obviously means that he accepts
> no common ground from which he can participate in a discussion. but he
> denies this as well of course and continues to insist on a role.
>
> hence the frustration of others.
curiously, that's also what some people they say about zen masters:
they're a real pain in the noodle.
I suppose one can either expand one's horizons, or,
one can enjoy the effect of constantly tripping
over them.
It's all fun; either way, until someone starts
complaining that the other side of their coin,
is not being fair.
Then, no one wants to play Scrabble anymore and
an argument errupts.
Someone decides to drag out the rulebook and a dictionary...
Everyone moans.
Dale Houstman
>
>
>I enjoy what I write; I hope others get something from it. If they don't,
well, never mind. All I'm looking for is a forum in which to write. I'm
hoping that my style will
> develop and that I'll get some interesting ideas going, maybe even develop
a
> theme or themes. Until then, like Breton's man sliced through by a
window,
> I'm just going to keep on getting ideas that don't make any sense and
> writing about them.
There are many groups dedicated to this sort of thing. But surrealism is not
about aesthetics and style, or about mere poetics.
>
> I would value commentary from anyone on the things that I write. I tend
to
> write them quickly; they come "straight from my brain", with a few
> corrections afterwards. Therefore, you get varying quality. I'd prefer
> some constructive criticism, though, rather than plain dismissal.
>
What could one possibly say in the context of the group's focus? By all
means keep on writing if it pleases you, but automatic writing - dedicated
only to the pursuit of style or a writing "career" - strikes me as
pointless. For myself I learned a long time back that surrealism demands a
certain looking "beyond" the product, or the text. This emphasis of yours
upon improving your "style" is not intriguing, but - as I said - if this is
what you are mainly interested in - there are groups dedicated to it.
dmh
Dale Houstman
>
> All this may well be true; I'm not sure yet. What strikes me, though, is
> that the newcomer (e.g. me, CycloTron) enters the newsgroup and sees
> invective directed towards one person, whose opinions do not seem to be
> unreasonable enough to deserve it (if you see what I mean). If he truly
is
> a troll, and doesn't even necessarily believe what he's saying, then this
is
> surely exactly what he wants; such newcomers will side with him, or at
least
> against those who seem to be being unpleasant.
But why should we care what a handful of idiots thinks? This isn't a
popularity contest, and I won't ameliorate my responses simply because some
new dandelion fluff doesn't like the way the wind is blowing. As for people
"siding"with the troll. This isn't really my concern, it is the troll's. He
is the one who thinks a certain amount of importance accues to him due to
the "winning" of a position, not I. Why should I take his corrupted ideal of
status upon myself? If some new arrival is stupid enough to fall for his
overt tripe, that's the way that goes. But MY life goes on outside this
forum. If the troll gains some little degree of self-value from his tiny
little triumphs, so what?
>
> While you're mentioning it: I can see perfectly how automatic writing,
etc,
> is a valid form of surrealism, as it allows true freedom of expression
> without the artificial constraints of making sense etc. (Would you say
this
> is a valid assessment?) What I am wondering is: to what extent can you
> ignore these constraints? For example, you can write a piece of prose
that
> is conventional in its structure and resolution, but which contains
> automatic material. A simple example would be a piece of conventional
> writing in which the nouns were "automatic". On the other hand, by
applying
> no constraints whatever, you'll probably just get a line wobbled along
> paper. The translation of ideas into language is a constraint in itself;
to
> move further along the line, one would arrive at a string of meaningless
> sounds, then a collection of unrelated words. Further applying rules, you
> can apply punctuation and capital letters to form sentences, or you can
> begin to structure your sentences so that verbs, nouns, prepositions all
> occur in places that allow the sentence to read well. By the time you are
> forming proper sentences, you have necessarily reached for the rulebook
many
> times.
>
> Where, in your opinion, does automatic writing begin and end?
Breton struggled with this and being the perfectionist he was, usually
resorted to (supposedly) arduous rewrites. But automatic writing never
breaks down to mere wiggles on the paper, because that's not writing.
Automatic writing remains a linguistic exercise. There remains some gap
between visual art and language of the sort explored by automatic writing.
However, you are certainly free to cross over that gap. Who knows what you
may find?
As for all the other "constraints" that's between you and your imagination,
but it is only important to remember that the process is not not essentially
a literary one: although you might produce (or not produce) some marvelous
images in this manner, it isn't really meant to be about production, but
about training your mind for newer and better escapes.
dmh
ca314159
> Considering that Zen Buddhists are pacifists, why have you compared
> Nik to a "Zen master"? Which ones have you read?
Alway's subtracting and never adding,
the light is diminished.
One who never adds, goes into darkness.
They get left with an empty deck of cards
with nothing to play with. Nothing to say.
They look and see nothing.
One who learns to add, also learns about
synergy and Gestalts...; how two colors set
side by side on a piece of paper can produce
yet a third color that wasn't in the original
deck of cards.
"Where did it come from ? Doesn't matter.
I'll play with it."
Freeware. As many letters as you want.
Follow the yellow brick road:
http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=color+paradox+illusion
pass Go, collect $200, and return to Start again
(there's no place like home).
But first you have to take the trip to Oz.
Nobody can force you to do that;
and it's not on the map.
barrett john erickson
"ca314159" <ca31...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
news:39A921...@bestweb.net...
> barrett john erickson wrote:
> >
> > "Doug Eichenberg" <do...@nls.net> wrote in message
> > news:cWVp5.181$%o4.2...@news1.onlynews.com..
now
> > > > proclaim that any given perspective was compatible with their
personal
> > > > "surrealism" and that surrealists should accept that, or at least
not
> > > argue
> > > > with them about it.
> > >
> > > Interesting point. To define surrealism as whatever you want it to be
is
> > > to make the word meaningless. There is a difference between
surrealism
> > > and dada... that's why the surrealists broke away to begin with.
> >
> > exactly.
>
>
> 'Interesting point. To define enlightenment as whatever you want it
to be is
> to make the word meaningless. There is a difference between
> and Buddhism... that's why the Zen Buddhists broke away to begin
with.'
but we're not talking about some vague and personal _concept_ of "spiritual
enlightenment" in alt.general.chat.
we're talking about a word -- "surrealism" -- that refers to a real movement
that effectively began 1919 and continues today around the world among real
surrealists.
even when the word is badly abused, as in the popular press, or at a
"personalist's" keyboard, the usage still clearly has its antecedent in the
attitudes and perceptions of this specific movement.
and here in a place called "alt.surrealism", a place set aside for the
discussion of "surrealism", don't you think surrealists themselves (living
or dead) are the one "source material" that everyone should be expected to
accept when it comes to discussions about the attitudes and perspectives of
surrealists -- that is, when defining "surrealism"?
surrealists do disagree. but when surrealists challenge each other over
something major, the discussion quickly centers around clarifying and
extending surrealist theory.
when a "personalist" is challenged here, any attempt to center the
discussion on surrealist theory is met with strident accusations of trying
to impose an "orthodox surrealism" on the group.
Dale Houstman
cannot believe in at any rate) and any random high school blither-blather,
is that he has the lung power to go on a little bit too long, reducing his
pretended "righteous rage" into a mere dribble of yawns and giggles. I
wouldn't go so far as to say there is real illness in any of this, because
it seems so awkwardly artificial. But it certainly all borders on a fatigue
of personality he seems unlikely to recover from soon.
By the way: I never said "being published" was beneath me (this is one of
Nik's clumsy approximations of reality which help him steer his drunken path
so erringly), in fact, I have had poems published in many small magazines.
Actually what I said (according to Nik's fake enthusiasm for ther personal)
should have been pleasing to the little Ottawank: from a personal stance it
simply doesn't thrill me anymore. Since I help to produce a small magazine
(in which I am also published) it would be damn odd of me to be against
being printed.
It is a shame though that Nik seems unable to comprehend (or rather that he
must - for some vague tactical advantage - pretend not to comprehend) that
there might be a myriad of reasons why a person might not want to publish.
Since I was having fairly good success at getting my work published, it
could hardly be that I "cannot play in the big leagues" (whatever that
pathetic sports metaphor might mean in this context!).
In a way of course Nik is right: his presence in this group and our
responses to him have given him a slippery slope of preeminence that I doubt
he can achieve in any other arena. The sad truth is that one of the reasons
we initially spoke to him is that we - naively but decnetly - took him
seriously and thus wished to engage with him on subjects. That this regard
was not repaid is obvious.
But this bloated pretense of victory exists in his mind, either as real
satisfaction or just a dim echo of his UberMother's less-adolescent but
still pernicious mind. He really thinks that this forum - however it goes -
matters to a great deal. And - I think - for him it is true, because this is
the only arena he can compete in and not be kicked in the ass for being a
bothersome anal wart.
dmh
Sven
>> Sinister thought, isn't it? Incidentally, the people as numbers thing
>> always reminded me of the bit in "The Sword in the Stone" by T.H.
> White
>> where Wart is magicked by Merlin down into the world of the ants. If
> I
>> remember correctly (I don't have my copy handy), they referred to
> each other
>> by number. And everything was "Done" or "not Done". And they had a
>> marvellous slogan; something like "everything not forbidden is
> compulsory".
>> Or is that 1984?
>
> Ah, _The Once and Future King_. I loved that book. I haven't read
> _1984_...
Recommended; but it is rather depressing. However, you will find yourself
understanding lots of references that may have passed you by before (the
internationally ubiquitous "Big Brother", Thought Police, doublespeak etc).
>>> [...] I don't know why your ideas don't make any sense (to you I
>>> mean). That hasn't at all been my own experience with what I
>>> write...
>>
>> Well, "make no sense" in conventional terms, if such terms exist.
>> The kind of things to which a standard non-surreal person would
>> react with a "Huh?". The ideas make perfect sense to me.
>
> This is a little segue: I'm confused as to why you found Nik's
> "surrealist" posts preferable to, and more true to the essence
> of surrealism than say, Brandon's and Dale's. (Please excuse me if
> I've misquoted or misinterpreted you).
I can't remember exactly what I said. Since I'm a beginner at the whole
surrealism thing, I'm not sure what's true to the "essence of surrealism".
I'm not about to try to impose my ideas of surrealism on the group. I'm not
even sure if anyone considers what I write surrealist, although I'm not sure
what else it is. Despite all the explanations of what the movement
involves, I'm not sure about the creative boundaries here.
As for the value of Nik's posts: I happen to think he's a talented writer.
I think he consistently comes up with interesting ideas. He's provocative,
too, which, of course, can go too far (as you have pointed out). But when
he gets it right, it can be quite stimulating. Also, on occasion, he makes
me laugh.
>> I haven't been "going up against" anyone; I just react where I
>> think it's appropriate.
>
> Hmmm, guess what happens after you've told Nikolaus two or three
> times that you dislike his insulting remarks about people.
> That was the beginning of the process through which he's decided to
> publicly state that he finds me a "patently stupid" "insane" "bitch"
> that he'd "like to punch in the cunt", "suffering from childhood
> trauma" and supposedly "in love" with him. (strangely, in the midst of
> all this he sent me some friendly-ish emails).
> Not to be too complaining about him now, especially since he hasn't
> posted a body-slam to someone for a whole day, but there is something
> I would like some of you to read:
> I feel it's natural to become upset and reactive when such behavior
> is defended on a newsgroup or anywhere else, (and some of you have
> gone so far as to call him "funny" -- please explain to me how such
> rubbish amuses you!!!), especially when you make no mention of the
> (in my case, months and luckily, not entire years) of nastiness
> directed at Dale, Brandon, barrett, Parry and me. (And Kristina, who
> left).
I would never defend nastiness. Funny is funny, though; if something makes
me laugh, that's it, and it's pointless making a judgement call beyond that.
I suppose I'm not viewing this subjectively enough. I'll wait until he's
insulted me, then I'll decide what to think.
On the other hand, witness brandon being thoroughly unpleasant to a newcomer
in recent posts. If Nik does this, he is not alone.
> His typical response when you disagree with him is "you're stupid".
> And now, to wrap up about Nik: I empathize with him _up to a point_,
> but just cannot take reading his little daily attacks against
> someone or other. And do not want to ignore all of them, because on a
> certain level that feels akin to condoning, or even agreeing, with
> him.
> I've almost left this group a few times since spring, (as someone
> recently mentioned, drawing on contents from emails we had shared);
> that's how uncomfortable I feel to be on the same newsgroup with this
> repeatedly thoughtless person.
> "Surrealism" doesn't involve a lack of personal boundaries...
>
> cythera
Sven
>
> "Sven" <svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:B5CD645B.102BE%svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>>
>> I enjoy what I write; I hope others get something from it. If they don't,
> well, never mind. All I'm looking for is a forum in which to write. I'm
> hoping that my style will
>> develop and that I'll get some interesting ideas going, maybe even develop
> a
>> theme or themes. Until then, like Breton's man sliced through by a
> window,
>> I'm just going to keep on getting ideas that don't make any sense and
>> writing about them.
>
> There are many groups dedicated to this sort of thing. But surrealism is not
> about aesthetics and style, or about mere poetics.
Hmm. Well, I can see that if you're still talking about politics, that
might be the case. But if we're talking about art: I don't see how you can
claim that style has nothing to do with art. Granted, surrealism may not be
*about* style, but I don't see how you can dismiss it as being unnecessary.
Here's an idea: a man with thirteen heads is impaled against an iceberg with
a steak knife. Now is it a painting, a story, a poem, or what?
>> I would value commentary from anyone on the things that I write. I tend
> to
>> write them quickly; they come "straight from my brain", with a few
>> corrections afterwards. Therefore, you get varying quality. I'd prefer
>> some constructive criticism, though, rather than plain dismissal.
>>
> What could one possibly say in the context of the group's focus? By all
> means keep on writing if it pleases you, but automatic writing - dedicated
> only to the pursuit of style or a writing "career" - strikes me as
> pointless. For myself I learned a long time back that surrealism demands a
> certain looking "beyond" the product, or the text. This emphasis of yours
> upon improving your "style" is not intriguing, but - as I said - if this is
> what you are mainly interested in - there are groups dedicated to it.
OK, certainly look beyond the product, but in a newsgroup environment, all
people are going to see is the product. And I believe it is better to
convey ideas well than badly.
Sven
> In article <39a94231$0$72530$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
> I find myself wondering why he's taken such a dislike to some of us.
> I don't understand this urge of his to write what he has in these
> circumstances.
>
> But the most shocking aspect of all this to me is the number of
> people who read him and either post no objection to him, or tell us
> that we're boring and he's funny.
>
> I hope that just one of these people will respond -- directly -- to
> what I'm saying here.
>
What sort of a response do you want?
Without taking into consideration the wider context (the history of posts &
this "battle" that's been going on), certainly I found Nik's posts
entertaining and a lot of the responses, including your own "yawns" and
content-free attacks on "Witoless Maack", boring.
Around that time, you were attacking him just as much as he was attacking
you. To an outside observer, you were all just as bad as each other.
Sven
>> I can't remember exactly what I said. Since I'm a beginner at the
> whole
>> surrealism thing, I'm not sure what's true to the "essence of
> surrealism".
>> I'm not about to try to impose my ideas of surrealism on the group.
> I'm not
>> even sure if anyone considers what I write surrealist, although I'm
> not sure
>> what else it is. Despite all the explanations of what the movement
>> involves, I'm not sure about the creative boundaries here.
>
> Well, what I'm saying is that there are personal boundaries here.
> If Nik printed out his posts and mailed them to me at my home, or
> published them in a newspaper, I could sue his ass and win.
I'd agree with you on that. I think his posts were unacceptable. But this
is Usenet, though. If I happen to be in a particularly foul mood I could
throw off a couple of posts insulting everyone on the internet. Personal is
nasty; but, on Usenet, how personal is personal? Perhaps that's why Nik
wants to learn more about you lot, wants you to write about your lives.
When I stooped to insult, I described him as a "fat artist from Canada".
That's cause he's mentioned, here or elsewhere, that he's an artist, that
he's from Canada and that he's a little on the chubby side (his words, I
believe, not mine). My post was a provocative one. I'm speculating utterly
here, but maybe it's the anonymity of Usenet that's the key. It is *so*
easy to say, "Jodee_1019, you're a pimply lactating whore." No
repercussions, unless you're stupid enough to give them your address.
I'm not saying that makes it OK. However, I *am* uncomfortable about
judging someone based on events that I was not party to. (Yes, you can pick
holes in that if you please, but it's the way I work.)
>> As for the value of Nik's posts: I happen to think he's a talented
>> writer.
>
> I believe a talented writer _creates._
>
He doesn't just destroy, you know. He is very inventive.
>
>> I would never defend nastiness. Funny is funny, though; if
>> something makes me laugh, that's it, and it's pointless making a
>> judgement call beyond that.
>
> Why?
If something is funny, you can stop and think, "That shouldn't be funny.
No, I shouldn't be laughing at that." But that doesn't stop it from being
funny.
(Hmm; written the word "funny" too many times, it's starting to look a
bit...peculiar...)
>> I suppose I'm not viewing this subjectively enough.
>
> Objectively, you mean? Okay, why aren't you?
No, subjectively. Objectively, it's just a quarrel on a medium that makes
it easy to ignore what your enemies are saying. Subjectively, you get
really pissed off that anyone's disparaging you. You have to read what
they're saying.
As I said above, unless I'm party to an event, I find it difficult to judge
someone based on it.
>> I'll wait until he's insulted me, then I'll decide what to think.
>
> Because you can't imagine what it's like, or what? I don't understand
> this. On various levels, you're not showing what it takes to be a
> writer. Listen, a _writer_ makes decisions about how he or she is
> going to live. The "what's in it for me" approach won't cut it.
Where's this "how to be a writer" handbook that you're quoting from? A
writer is just someone who puts words together in new ways. A talented
writer is someone who does it well. It has nothing to do with your life. I
could write *you* and imagine what it would be like for you to read Nik's
insulting posts. But then, I don't know anything about you. It's all
context. Not, "what's in this for me?" but "how do I relate to this?"
>> On the other hand, witness brandon being thoroughly unpleasant to a
>> newcomer in recent posts.
>
> If Brandon feels upset or disgusted at the situation in this
> newsgroup, then I empathize. Perhaps you can look at it from his point
> of view.
>
>> If Nik does this, he is not alone.
>
> Why are you saying "if"? Please read or re-read my 8-27 post to ca-
> something on another thread.
Alright; he does do it. But he's still not alone.
ca314159
We're just going around and around. I think we're caught in a
Tornado. What should we do ? Oh my !"
Scarecrow: "Dorothy, why don't we go see the Wizard of Oz ?
They say he can give me a brain, the lion courage and the
tin man a heart. Maybe he can help you too ?"
Dorothy: "Oh no Scarecrow, he's a mean old man; loud and insulting.
I don't think I like him at all."
Tin Man: "He said to kill the wicked witch of the West.
What did he mean by that ?
If we bring the wizard her broom, I bet he'll help us !"
Lion: "I I I don't waaant to go. That mean ol' Western witch
doesn't want Dorothy to get home. She'll send those aweful
creatures after us and steal her new magic shoes. I wish the
good witch of the East never gave them to her. They'll get us
in alot of trouble."
Dorothy: "Toto, where are you ? Someone's taken toto !
Toto ! Toto ! This isn't Kansas anymore."
Scarecrow: "I'm dizzy. Have we stopped going around and around yet ?"
Sven
> In article <B5CF0CCF.19BE%svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Sven <svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
>>> "Sven" <svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:B5CD645B.102BE%svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> You might enjoy Dale's poetry; do a Deja search and see!
>
>> Here's an idea: a man with thirteen heads is impaled against an
>> iceberg with a steak knife. Now is it a painting, a story, a poem,
>> or what?
>
> It's a man with thirteen heads impaled against an iceberg with a
> steak knife.
Obvious cause of the wreck of the Titanic; see one of those and your
steering arm goes a bit wobbly.
Sven
> In article <B5CF17B8.19C3%svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Sven <svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> cythera wrote:
>>
>>> In article <39a94231$0$72530$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
>>> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I find myself wondering why he's taken such a dislike to some of
>>> us. I don't understand this urge of his to write what he has in
>>> these circumstances.
>>>
>>> But the most shocking aspect of all this to me is the number of
>>> people who read him and either post no objection to him, or tell
>>> us that we're boring and he's funny.
>>>
>>> I hope that just one of these people will respond -- directly --
>>> to what I'm saying here.
>>>
>> What sort of a response do you want?
>
> I wanted an honest one.
>
>> Without taking into consideration the wider context (the history of
>> posts & this "battle" that's been going on), certainly I found
>> Nik's posts entertaining and a lot of the responses, including your
>> own "yawns" and content-free attacks on "Witoless Maack", boring.
>
> Again you seem to think your monitor is a television or movie screen!
No. I like Usenet because I find it stimulating, interesting and
entertaining. If it didn't fulfil any one of those three criteria, there
would be no point.
The posts I mention failed on all three counts!
> And the fact that you will not take into consideration the "wider
> contexts" of what's put in front of your face is disturbing. Never
> mind the newsgroup now. I just hope I haven't been seeing what kind
> of person you are in your day-to-day life.
Come on now. Peace. That sort of remark is one of those insults that is
cunningly surrounded by padding so it looks innocuous. You should know that
newsgroup presence has little bearing on how a person behaves in real life.
Some people use it as a way of reflecting the darker side of their
personality, an outlet, so to speak. I'm not really doing that.
What I'm trying to say is: the disagreements that you refer to happened, in
the main, before I got here. If Nik has been around here for four years
then there's probably a whole lot of stuff that's been going on that I'm not
party to. I could trawl through Deja and try to work it all out, but...
curiously I lack the motivation.
I agree with you that his posts were unacceptable. However, that doesn't
mean I'm going to condone or join in with attacks on him, justified or not
as they may be. I'm not really interested in being here as part of a
quarrel. In fact, I really just want to talk about surrealism, post some
stuff, read other people's stuff and generally engage in stimulating
discussion.
>> Around that time, you were attacking him just as much as he was
>> attacking you.
>
> No.
Fair enough.
Sven
> In article <B5CF1CA2.19C6%svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Sven <svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> As for the value of Nik's posts: I happen to think he's a talented
>>>> writer.
>>>
>>> I believe a talented writer _creates._
>>
>> He doesn't just destroy, you know. He is very inventive.
>
> If you read the newsgroup long enough, you might see where he gets most
> of his ideas from.
Okay; I'll wait.
>>>> I suppose I'm not viewing this subjectively enough.
>>>
>>> Objectively, you mean? Okay, why aren't you?
>>
>> No, subjectively. Objectively, it's just a quarrel on a medium that
> makes
>> it easy to ignore what your enemies are saying. Subjectively, you get
>> really pissed off that anyone's disparaging you. You have to read
> what
>> they're saying.
>>
>> As I said above, unless I'm party to an event, I find it difficult
>> to judge someone based on it.
>
> Life is a series of judgments; otherwise how do we know to cross on
> green instead of red?
Yes, but you've got to make judgements in your own time. As I've said
before, until the time comes, I don't really want to make one.
>>>> I'll wait until he's insulted me, then I'll decide what to think.
>>>
>>> Because you can't imagine what it's like, or what? I don't
>>> understand this. On various levels, you're not showing what it
>>> takes to be a writer. Listen, a _writer_ makes decisions about
>>> how he or she is going to live. The "what's in it for me"
>>> approach won't cut it.
>>
>> Where's this "how to be a writer" handbook that you're quoting from?
>> A writer is just someone who puts words together in new ways.
>
> Wrong! Writing is not a string of words.
Okay, we appear to differ on definitions. But I'm definitely a writer, so
there! (Sulks in comic fashion to ease tension.)
>> A talented writer is someone who does it well. It has nothing to
>> with your life.
>
> Perhaps you are right. Let's say that what I was talking about was
> the genius. That, frankly, is about all I'm interested in in this
> newsgroup.
>
> Re your writing: I'm not going to give you free advice; I am too
> irritated for that. There are newsgroups that will, however. And
> later on if you like, you can hire me for $35 an hour to help you.
> I've taught at the university level and can do a good job for you,
> but (obviously) expect a lot.
I'm sorry if talking to me has irritated you. I hope it is merely
difference of opinion and not anything more than that.
I'm not demanding free writing advice, either. As far as how I actually
write, I'd like people to judge me by my short stories and one (and a half,
so far) novels, not by my posts on Usenet, which are usually posted before I
can think about them too much! As far as that goes, I'm managing fine and
will no doubt evolve in my own way at my own time. Thank you for the offer,
though.
What I was really interested in was feedback on how my writing made readers
react. But then, if nobody's reacting much (because they don't like it, or
because it doesn't excite them), perhaps it's not surprising that I haven't
had any.
Sven
>>>> (Sven) Without taking into consideration the wider context (the history of
>>>> posts & this "battle" that's been going on), certainly I found
>>>> Nik's posts entertaining and a lot of the responses, including your
>>>> own "yawns" and content-free attacks on "Witoless Maack", boring.
>>>
>>> Again you seem to think your monitor is a television or movie
> screen!
>>
>> No. I like Usenet because I find it stimulating, interesting and
>> entertaining. If it didn't fulfil any one of those three criteria,
>> there would be no point.
>>
>> The posts I mention failed on all three counts!
>
> I don't feel an obligation to stimulate, interest or entertain.
I wasn't saying you had to! Never mind. This part of the discussion is
boring, and pointless. Let's jettison it.
> Plus, a lot of people thought Hitler was stimulating and interesting.
He was; you ever wonder why so many people are fascinated by him? That
doesn't mean he wasn't evil and deluded.
>>> And the fact that you will not take into consideration the "wider
>>> contexts" of what's put in front of your face is disturbing.
>>> Never mind the newsgroup now. I just hope I haven't been seeing
>>> what kind of person you are in your day-to-day life.
>>
>> Come on now. Peace. That sort of remark is one of those insults
>> that is cunningly surrounded by padding so it looks innocuous.
>
> It wasn't meant as an insult, and there's no cunning in what I write.
> Dale, I think, knows that; maybe he will tell you...
> While I can be reactive and hot-tempered, I mean what I say and
> don't disguise it.
It is good to know this.
> And unlike Nik with his "funny" posts about people, I don't try to
> weasel out of what I write (or in person, say) by calling it a joke.
I suppose I do that sometimes; mind you, it usually is *very* obvious when
I'm making (or trying to make) a joke. I can be straightforward, and
devious. It's chameleon-like though. In honest surroundings, I'm honest.
>> You should know that newsgroup presence has little bearing on how
>> a person behaves in real life.
>
> This _is_ real life you know. And we're accountable for our behavior,
> both to other people, and to ourselves, one hopes. I don't go for
> this idea that anything we write on usenet is okay because it's not
> face-to-face or to our friends and families. That's crap.
All right; but it doesn't mean that you have to be yourself in a newsgroup.
Why else would we post (as we do) under assumed names?
I'm sure it's been done, but the bogus postings recently by "friends" of a
friend reminded me that it would be so easy, for example, to set up a
fictitious sycophant called "Gerald" who agrees with your every word.
>> Some people use it as a way of reflecting the darker side of their
>> personality, an outlet, so to speak. I'm not really doing that.
>
>> I agree with you that his posts were unacceptable.
>
> You are the new first person after me, and then Parry, to have said
> that in almost a whole year.
> And I don't defend everything I've written to Nikolaus. I don't trust
> him and that colors how I perceive him. I can't be impartial even
> when he's not attacking me personally.
CycloTron
>I was going to apologize for "getting off on the wrong foot" but you
>really seem like you might enjoy flaming.
>
>CycloTron wrote:
>> I don't need Breton to tell me what surrealism is, it seems you do...
>
>Its a good start. Where would you start? Gandhi? Jesus Christ? Stalin?
>Andy Warhol? Bob Vila?
>
>> I don't think that was a well thought and educated statement,
>> you don't know me , I could call you "Goof" but i won't ...
>
>Can we nickname you "High-horse." I mean, your so good at
>identifying "educated" statements. Just read Nik's posts. They are full
>of "educated" statements.
>
>HA!
>
>> You'll never understand surrealism unless you're one yourself...
>
>Huh?
>
>> And the way i see things, you sound more like a frustrated young man
>> who pleases in blasting people, please get a life...
>
>Actually, I am a bit frustrated. I'm frustrated with individual who are
>new to alt.surrealism coming in and acting like Sheriff by declaring NO
>MORE DIRTY WORDS and NO MORE PICKING ON NIK MAACK!
>
>Give me a break, Sheriff. I never broke no law.
>
>> "Would you do the world a favor ? Why don't you pull your lips over
>> your head and swallow it "
>
>Is this one of those "educated" statements.
>
>> By the way, I'm a vivid fan of Dali ...
>
>That's your problem.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Since everything's beens said about Maack, let's smoke the peace pipe.
I didn't know much about Nik until barrett brought some light,....
Sorry if i said anything "uneducated" , that was not intentionned,
but when one's attacked, one defends himself, right ?
Which reminds me, i need to go finish one of my "surreal" paintings...
Have a great day !!!
(`'·.,¸¸,ø¤°Cyclo{-_-}Tron°¤ø,¸¸,.·'´)
The more we live, the more we learn, the more we know.....
The more we give, the more we love, the more we grow.
(Squire, Sherwood ..... YES)
CycloTron
<bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote:
>but we're not talking about some vague and personal _concept_ of "spiritual
>enlightenment" in alt.general.chat.
>
>we're talking about a word -- "surrealism" -- that refers to a real movement
>that effectively began 1919 and continues today around the world among real
>surrealists.
>
>even when the word is badly abused, as in the popular press, or at a
>"personalist's" keyboard, the usage still clearly has its antecedent in the
>attitudes and perceptions of this specific movement.
>
>and here in a place called "alt.surrealism", a place set aside for the
>discussion of "surrealism", don't you think surrealists themselves (living
>or dead) are the one "source material" that everyone should be expected to
>accept when it comes to discussions about the attitudes and perspectives of
>surrealists -- that is, when defining "surrealism"?
>
>surrealists do disagree. but when surrealists challenge each other over
>something major, the discussion quickly centers around clarifying and
>extending surrealist theory.
>
>when a "personalist" is challenged here, any attempt to center the
>discussion on surrealist theory is met with strident accusations of trying
>to impose an "orthodox surrealism" on the group.
>
>
>
>-- barrett
>
Wow, thanks again barrett, for clarifying a lot of stuff....
I couldn't have said it better myself, well, being french doesn't help
either, i constantly have to look in my dictionnary for words...
Anyhow, i still think that brandon still needs to apologize for
calling me (and others) flies ... he's not a surrealist,... more like
a jerk to me...
Dale Houstman
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8obuop$466$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> It wasn't meant as an insult, and there's no cunning in what I write.
> Dale, I think, knows that; maybe he will tell you...
I think I can agree to that! Compared to cythera I'm a real reptile when it
comes to scheming and manipulation. Not a good thing, but a relative one.
Nik is a form of scale-coated fatigue.
dmh
Dale Houstman
"CycloTron" <shi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39a9d151...@allnews.nbnet.nb.ca...
dmh
CycloTron
>In article <8ocaac$glr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> 'Bye SnoroTron.
>
>(With apologies to CycloTron for playing with your name).
>
>Let's rock and roll!
>
>cythera
>
haha !!! no problems ...
I think i'm gonna like this group afterall =:o)
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Since everything's beens said about Maack, let's smoke the peace pipe.
No problem, and I'm glad you suggested it.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Anyhow, i still think that brandon still needs to apologize for
> calling me (and others) flies ... he's not a surrealist,... more like
> a jerk to me...
I was refering to Nik's "tactics" as his flies, not those who empathize
with him. But I will apologize anyway:
I'm sorry.
Randall Wright
- In article <B5CF2C05.1AF1%svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
- Sven <svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
- > cythera wrote:
- >
- > > In article <B5CF17B8.19C3%svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
- > > Sven <svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
- > >> cythera wrote:
- > >>
- > >>> In article <39a94231$0$72530$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
- > >>> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
- > >>>
- > >>> I find myself wondering why he's taken such a dislike to some of
- > >>> us. I don't understand this urge of his to write what he has in
- > >>> these circumstances.
- > >>>
- > >>> But the most shocking aspect of all this to me is the number of
- > >>> people who read him and either post no objection to him, or tell
- > >>> us that we're boring and he's funny.
- > >>>
- > >>> I hope that just one of these people will respond -- directly --
- > >>> to what I'm saying here.
- > >>>
- > >> What sort of a response do you want?
- > >
- > > I wanted an honest one.
- > >
- > >> Without taking into consideration the wider context (the history of
- > >> posts & this "battle" that's been going on), certainly I found
- > >> Nik's posts entertaining and a lot of the responses, including your
- > >> own "yawns" and content-free attacks on "Witoless Maack", boring.
- > >
- > > Again you seem to think your monitor is a television or movie
- screen!
- >
- > No. I like Usenet because I find it stimulating, interesting and
- > entertaining. If it didn't fulfil any one of those three criteria,
- > there would be no point.
- >
- > The posts I mention failed on all three counts!
-
- I don't feel an obligation to stimulate, interest or entertain.
-
- Plus, a lot of people thought Hitler was stimulating and interesting.
-
- > > And the fact that you will not take into consideration the "wider
- > > contexts" of what's put in front of your face is disturbing.
- > > Never mind the newsgroup now. I just hope I haven't been seeing
- > > what kind of person you are in your day-to-day life.
- >
- > Come on now. Peace. That sort of remark is one of those insults
- > that is cunningly surrounded by padding so it looks innocuous.
-
- It wasn't meant as an insult, and there's no cunning in what I write.
- Dale, I think, knows that; maybe he will tell you...
- While I can be reactive and hot-tempered, I mean what I say and
- don't disguise it.
- And unlike Nik with his "funny" posts about people, I don't try to
- weasel out of what I write (or in person, say) by calling it a joke.
-
- > You should know that newsgroup presence has little bearing on how
- > a person behaves in real life.
-
- This _is_ real life you know. And we're accountable for our behavior,
- both to other people, and to ourselves, one hopes. I don't go for
- this idea that anything we write on usenet is okay because it's not
- face-to-face or to our friends and families. That's crap.
-
- > Some people use it as a way of reflecting the darker side of their
- > personality, an outlet, so to speak. I'm not really doing that.
-
- > I agree with you that his posts were unacceptable.
-
- You are the new first person after me, and then Parry, to have said
- that in almost a whole year.
- And I don't defend everything I've written to Nikolaus. I don't trust
- him and that colors how I perceive him. I can't be impartial even
- when he's not attacking me personally.
-
- cythera
-
-
Is being unwilling to slog through diatribes such as the one elsewhere in
this thread that begins "A long time ago I realized that the reason my
father yells and swears" the same thing as finding it unacceptable? I think
you probably meant morally unacceptable. Is it shocking that some people
simply ignore such crap?
I have appreciated the discussions on what actually is surreallism. If any
of these occured in response to Nik they might not have taken place
otherwise. Other than that, I wouldn't miss it if he didn't post anymore.
There are you happy now? He is; he loves the attention.
Randy
- Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
- Before you buy.
jsday
> ca314159 <ca31...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>> curiously, that's also what some people they say about zen
>> masters: they're a real pain in the noodle.
>
> Considering that Zen Buddhists are pacifists, why have you compared
> Nik to a "Zen master"? Which ones have you read?
In a group that consistently fails to allow wallowing metaphysical
excuses for Buddhist writings, it'd be difficult to explain Nansen's
cutting the cat in two as pacifist.
Then again, it's difficult to imagine Nik as a zen master, too.
_
Dale Houstman
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> >
> > There are many groups dedicated to this sort of thing. But surrealism is
not
> > about aesthetics and style, or about mere poetics.
>
> Hmm. Well, I can see that if you're still talking about politics, that
> might be the case. But if we're talking about art: I don't see how you
can
> claim that style has nothing to do with art. Granted, surrealism may not
be
> *about* style, but I don't see how you can dismiss it as being
unnecessary.
I don't claim that "style" has nothing to do with art. That's another
discussion. But I am saying that the main thrust of surrealism has nothing
to do with discussions of "style." I don't dismiss it, just inform you that
discussions on style aren't of particular interest HERE.
>
> Here's an idea: a man with thirteen heads is impaled against an iceberg
with
> a steak knife. Now is it a painting, a story, a poem, or what?
>
> >> I would value commentary from anyone on the things that I write. I
tend
> > to
> >> write them quickly; they come "straight from my brain", with a few
> >> corrections afterwards. Therefore, you get varying quality. I'd
prefer
> >> some constructive criticism, though, rather than plain dismissal.
> >>
> > What could one possibly say in the context of the group's focus? By all
> > means keep on writing if it pleases you, but automatic writing -
dedicated
> > only to the pursuit of style or a writing "career" - strikes me as
> > pointless. For myself I learned a long time back that surrealism demands
a
> > certain looking "beyond" the product, or the text. This emphasis of
yours
> > upon improving your "style" is not intriguing, but - as I said - if this
is
> > what you are mainly interested in - there are groups dedicated to it.
>
> OK, certainly look beyond the product, but in a newsgroup environment, all
> people are going to see is the product. And I believe it is better to
> convey ideas well than badly.
Yes: but again I am not saying what you seem to think I am (could be my
fault: some days I am more coherent than others!): certainly all we see here
is the "product" of your machinations. Well and good. But I am referring to
your initial "exploitation" of automatic writing as "merely" a path to good
poetry. In my experience of it (and I think I have quite a bit in this area
as a practical matter) it is really best to think - in the composition
stage - beyond the production, because what automatic writing - in the
main - seems to do is to "train" your imagination toward different brands of
openness. The less concern you show for the "preciousness" of the text, the
more you will gather from the process over time. It's my experience, at any
rate.
dmh
Parry
> >> Fair enough; but surely the best way to get rid of a troll is to
> > ignore one?
> >
> > Good point, but we've tried. You see Nik doesn't care about if people
> > respond to him, only that he takes up space. He also is a prime example
> > of someone who hasn't read much about Surrealism (except for via out-
> > dated art history books) but proclaims to know everything about it. He
> > fails to see the differences between Surrealism and mysticism,
> > Surrealism and Taoism, Surrealism and psuedo-Surrealism, Surrealism and
> > psychoanalysis, and he continues to shout out common misunderstandings
> > for the very sake of hearing us correct him. Not only that but he's
> > extremely conservative in his views and claims that any disagreement is
> > an attack against him with a b-b gun. After trying to discuss things
> > with I realized that the only way to get any kind of response out of
> > him was to insult him.
>
> All this may well be true; I'm not sure yet. What strikes me, though, is
> that the newcomer (e.g. me, CycloTron) enters the newsgroup and sees
> invective directed towards one person, whose opinions do not seem to be
> unreasonable enough to deserve it (if you see what I mean). If he truly is
> a troll, and doesn't even necessarily believe what he's saying, then this is
> surely exactly what he wants; such newcomers will side with him, or at least
> against those who seem to be being unpleasant.
Newcomers won’t be accommodated in this way. It’s standard advice for
newcomers that they should monitor a group for a month or two before
posting to it; that way they avoid sticking their nose in business they
don’t understand. If you saw two people you didn’t know arguing in the
street, you wouldn’t walk up to them and hastily choose a side as a way
of getting to know them. Well, maybe you would if you were drunk, but
the point is it’s not a good idea.
> >> And art is an unfortunate by-product?
> >
> > Art as an access to freedom (via chance and automatism).
>
> I still think CycloTron's use of the word was justified.
>
> While you're mentioning it: I can see perfectly how automatic writing, etc,
> is a valid form of surrealism, as it allows true freedom of expression
> without the artificial constraints of making sense etc. (Would you say this
> is a valid assessment?) What I am wondering is: to what extent can you
> ignore these constraints? For example, you can write a piece of prose that
> is conventional in its structure and resolution, but which contains
> automatic material. A simple example would be a piece of conventional
> writing in which the nouns were "automatic". On the other hand, by applying
> no constraints whatever, you'll probably just get a line wobbled along
> paper. The translation of ideas into language is a constraint in itself; to
> move further along the line, one would arrive at a string of meaningless
> sounds, then a collection of unrelated words. Further applying rules, you
> can apply punctuation and capital letters to form sentences, or you can
> begin to structure your sentences so that verbs, nouns, prepositions all
> occur in places that allow the sentence to read well. By the time you are
> forming proper sentences, you have necessarily reached for the rulebook many
> times.
>
> Where, in your opinion, does automatic writing begin and end?
It’s misleading to say “making sense” is a constraint; everything makes
sense, one way or another. The constraints automatism is intended to
by-pass are those of self-censorship, convention, rationalization,
forethought, and so on. I think automatism is essential to any creative
work, but it’s demonstrable that not all automatic works are
“presentable” works. That is, the benefits the writer may get from an
automatic text may not necessarily be conveyed to a reader. To make a
text presentable often requires a lot of largely uncreative work.
On the question of style, which you brought up elsewhere: There is no
such thing as a Surrealist style, and the surrealist perspective on art
has never focused on the formal properties of the work but rather on
such concerns as the work’s universality (i.e. “quality of being
universal, esp. of a work of art the significance of which exceeds the
limits of its period”) and the human qualities of the artist.
> > I wrote:
> >> Fine, but I also have the right to tell you that I think your a
> >> fucking idiot. Right?
> >
> > Sven:
> >> Hmm. Bit alienating, no?
> >
> > Yes, but I find it rather ironic that the same people coming in here
> > proclaiming freedom of everyone's opinions is the same person who is
> > protesting everyone's choice of words.
>
> Again, hmm: there's a difference, surely, between freedom of expression, and
> the simple requirement of politeness and civility that allows such
> expression to go on. I don't actually mind being called a "fucking idiot"
> as such, but if called so in a manner that I believe to be unprovoked, my
> opinion of the person doing the calling will drop dramatically.
Brandon isn’t a yahoo, and he didn’t give you half of what you deserved.
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Parry
> > the series here in the UK, whereas it was renamed "Secret Agent"
> > on export to the U.S. Ask David Mackenzie, he sometimes lurks
> > around here...
>
> A friend has a book I can look in to make sure.
Yes, the American run was re-named “Secret Agent” and didn’t include all
the episodes. It was a terrific series in its own right.
> > > Incidentally, places like The Village did or still do exist.
> > > "Colony Three" (or is it "Thirteen"?) in the "Secret Agent"
> > > series has such a place as its setting.
> > >
> > > Maybe someone familiar with spy novels knows of some books that
> > > mention these places?
I’m not up on spy novels, but I doubt anything along the lines of a
Village for ex-spies would be workable or even necessary. The Prisoner
and the Village remind me of nothing so much as Kafka’s “The Castle.”
> > >> I would value commentary from anyone on the things that I write.
> > >> I tend to write them quickly; they come "straight from my brain",
> > >> with a few corrections afterwards. Therefore, you get varying
> > >> quality. I'd prefer some constructive criticism, though,
> > >> rather than plain dismissal.
> > >
> > > I wasn't dismissing your writing, at all. About good commentary
> > > on your pieces, the people you've been going up against thus far
> > > are the ones who could do that for you, but critiques are not
> > > something I've seen happen on this newsgroup.
> > > What particular about your writing would you like a comment on?
>
> If people are amenable in general to it, I think it would be nice if we could all comment on each others'
> writing. That way, it wouldn't feel as if the posts were vanishing into the void... Maybe we could put a
> "CW" in the post name, for "comments welcome", or something...
>
> As to what in particular; well, if the writing sparks anything in anyone, it would be nice to hear about it.
> If it seems flawed in any obvious way, that would be another avenue for comment. You seemed to be
> saying that a lot of the writing recently didn't do anything for you; well, what did it lack?
The lack of feedback here about creative works is natural. Usually, what
can one say that won’t just be vapid, redundant, or a pointless exercise
in aesthetics? That people post works here should be encouragement
enough for others to do the same.
Parry
other guy wrote:
> > I've been reading some of the conversations here and there on this ng,
> > and couldn't help but noticing how much N. Maack is blasted all the
> > time... I've read his and your definition of surrealism and my opinion
> > is that his is much closer than yours to the "real" thing ...
Two definitions of surrealism are represented here (I’m assuming this
definition business refers to Doug Eisenberg’s “Just curious” thread):
Nik’s and everyone else’s. The latter is actually a number of
definitions which were offered, including some from Eluard, Rosemont,
and Aragon (all apparently distant from the real thing). Nik’s, on the
other hand, is just the latest installment of his “I believe everything”
kick.
> > i also
> > couldn't help noticing how rude everyone is and using sometimes vulgar
> > words . Doing so makes me questionning how much your interpretations
> > make sense... I'm not very good in defining words and would have a
> > hard time defining "surrealism" even though i'm a surrealist artist
> > myself.... the only way i can define and express it is through
> > paintings...
> > I think everyone should have the right to his (her) own opinion no
> > matter how different it might be to others...
> > I can just imagine the reaction i'll have about this... probably rude
> > and uncivilized, coming from people who thinks they're better than the
> > rest of the world....
> > Maybe, i did missed something that provoked all this, if so, disregard
> > the above !!!!
>
> I agree 100%.
Gee, Sven, three days earlier you were confessing your scrupulous
ignorance of surrealism and already you’re endorsing Nik Jr.’s
interpretation as being the “‘real’ thing” -- and you still haven’t read
the seminal texts which several people here directed you to when you
asked their assistance.
> Some of the postings of late (a prime example "How to ignore Witoless
> Maack") have been just plain childish.
>
> And boring.
>
> At least Nik's writing is entertaining.
Hurrah for entertainment.
CycloTron
>CycloTron wrote:
>> Anyhow, i still think that brandon still needs to apologize for
>> calling me (and others) flies ... he's not a surrealist,... more like
>> a jerk to me...
>
>I was refering to Nik's "tactics" as his flies, not those who empathize
>with him. But I will apologize anyway:
>
>I'm sorry.
>
>
I apologize too for calling you a jerk, i must've lost my temper too
thinking i was targeted as a fly :)
Anyways, i now know more about what's going on, I'll continue reading
your discussions about surrealism for a while and if i think i can
contribute to anything i will :)
The best thing to do for now i guess is to concentrate on talking
about the surrealist movement and philosophy than talk about Nik.
That's probably what his intentions were, to get attention, so, i rest
my case, let's change subject =:o)
Have a great day !
Sven
Fine; but, then, I thought CycloTron's post was quite tentative, containing
as it did an "I might be missing everything, in which case sorry" clause.
Anyway, they seem to have sorted it out, so all's well that ends well :).
(I'm allowed one smiley per month).
Understood.
>>> I wrote:
>>>> Fine, but I also have the right to tell you that I think your a
>>>> fucking idiot. Right?
>>>
>>> Sven:
>>>> Hmm. Bit alienating, no?
>>>
>>> Yes, but I find it rather ironic that the same people coming in here
>>> proclaiming freedom of everyone's opinions is the same person who is
>>> protesting everyone's choice of words.
>>
>> Again, hmm: there's a difference, surely, between freedom of expression, and
>> the simple requirement of politeness and civility that allows such
>> expression to go on. I don't actually mind being called a "fucking idiot"
>> as such, but if called so in a manner that I believe to be unprovoked, my
>> opinion of the person doing the calling will drop dramatically.
>
> Brandon isn’t a yahoo, and he didn’t give you half of what you deserved.
Then I demand that half!
> -- Parry
Sven
Well, actually, my overenthusiastic agreement was directed towards the
latter paragraph, rather than the former. So it should have been 70%. I
was in a bit of a mood when I wrote it. Artistic temperament, y'know.
>> Some of the postings of late (a prime example "How to ignore Witoless
>> Maack") have been just plain childish.
>>
>> And boring.
>>
>> At least Nik's writing is entertaining.
>
> Hurrah for entertainment.
So you *do* understand...
Parry
> pa...@zxOMITmail.com wrote:
> > cythera wrote:
> > > Sven <svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > cythera wrote:
> > > > I may be wrong, but I thought that "Danger Man" was the name of
> > > > the series here in the UK, whereas it was renamed "Secret Agent"
> > > > on export to the U.S. Ask David Mackenzie, he sometimes lurks
> > > > around here...
> > >
> > > A friend has a book I can look in to make sure.
> >
> > Yes, the American run was re-named “Secret Agent” and didn’t include
> > all the episodes. It was a terrific series in its own right.
>
> info once I have it. According to the author of this website:
>
> http://www.avalondreamtime.co.uk/dmeg.htm
>
> the Danger Man/Secret Agent series consists of the following:
>
> Season One: 39 monochrome thirty minute episodes.
> Season Two: 32 monochrome sixty minute episodes.
> Season Three: 13 monochrome sixty minute episodes.
> Season Four: 2 colour sixty minute episodes; designed to be viewed
> concurrently.
I didn’t know about this Season Four so I looked it up. Apparently these
two colour episodes were never shown as part of the series, but were
edited together as a tv movie called “Koroshi.”
> (I think) the book I've mentioned calls the first season "Danger Man"
> and the remaining shows, "Secret Agent". There's a confusion of
> terms in that, if I'm not mistaken, what we call a TV "season" in the
> U.S. is called a "series" in Britain.
> Anyway...
>
> > > > > Incidentally, places like The Village did or still do exist.
> > > > > "Colony Three" (or is it "Thirteen"?)
>
> It's "Colony Three".
>
> > > > > in the "Secret Agent" series has such a place as its setting.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe someone familiar with spy novels knows of some books
> > > > > that mention these places?
> >
> > I’m not up on spy novels, but I doubt anything along the lines of a
> > Village for ex-spies would be workable or even necessary.
>
> When the series was aired on San Jose's public television station
> Channel 54 about a decade ago (immediately after it had showed a bunch
> of the hour-long "Secret Agent" episodes), the host, a "Prisoner"
> enthusiast named Scott Appell, spoke at some length about these
> "villages".
> I did a little checking on the web, and while someone with his name
> has some books about flowers available on amazon.com, no "Prisoner"
> books are listed by him.
It’s obviously a front. Just borrow a copy of his “The Atypical Flora of
Belarus” and use your Daffodil Decoder Ring to get the information you
need.
> But the following site for the official
> "Prisoner" club, which has McGoohan as its honorary president, has
> an email address; and so I'm going to write them for some "information"
> on spy colonies.
> These have quite captured my imagination now...
Please post any interesting nuggets you find. Also intriguing is the
actual Prisoner locale of Portmeirion in North Wales, a resort created
by an eccentric architect named Sir Clough Williams-Ellis (more trivia:
his daughter has a line of china called Portmeirion). I wish life were
ironic enough that I could live there someday.
-- Parry
> The Prisoner Appreciation Society.
> http://www.netreach.net/~sixofone/
>
> cythera
Sven
I've been there. It's a beautiful place, but odd; the buildings are all
based on Italian designs, but made to less than full size (I can't remember
the exact ration, 5/8 or something). Everything's in proportion, though;
they look right, it's only when you get up close that you realise they're
not as big as you thought they were...
Sir C. W-E believed that appearances were important, authenticity less so.
Some windows are painted on (again, you only notice when you get closer),
simply because windows looked right in that place, but were architecturally
unfeasible. I also believe that part of the top of the Green Dome (where
No.2 lives in the Prisoner) was made of painted cardboard.
As for living there: well, you can rent the cottages for a week or so (I
stayed in one with David and his family) but I believe it's a bit pricey
nowadays.