REVIEW: Russell's Reviews Volume One # 9
Tom Russell
and curl up with
___________
/ \ __
/ / ___ ___ ___ \/ ___
/____________/ / //__ /__ /__ / / / /__
/ \ /__/___/___//___ /__ /__ ___/
___________
/ \ .
/ / ___ ___ ___
/____________/ /__ | / / /__ | //__ VOL. 1
/ \ /___ |/ / /___ |/\/___/ NO. 9
58.5 # 27 [FEB 22, 2008], Martins
So, in the wake of Locked Room's death, the
remaining New Misfits and the Crime Empire decide to
attack the Evil LNH. Luckily, the remainders of our
LNH reappear. Parradox knew this would happen, and
Analytic becomes suspicious of this fact at issue's
end.
That's it, really-- the plot in brief, and it is
brief. It's more difficult when you're only given a
small part of a story, and that's probably why I've
had some difficulty giving feedback on series like
this and Sporkman, where plot developments are doled
out piecemeal.
Now, I'm not exactly a plot person-- I'm fine with
an issue where not much happens in terms of physical
action. At the same time, I'm a very strong proponent
of the idea that each installment in a work of serial
literature, while forming part of the over-arching
structure, storyline, and characterization, should
stand on its own, as a piece unto itself, as much as
possible.
And I'm not just talking about matters of clarity.
That's tremendously important-- every issue is
someone's first issue-- but what I'm talking about are
not the qualities that make a work accessible but
rather those that make it cohesive. I'm talking about
theme and texture, about characterization and style.
I'm talking about the single most important question
in a work of serial literature, which is: Why is this
an episode?
What happens, or what is revealed, or what is
explored that could not have taken place in the
episode before this one or after? Why does this
chapter begin where it begins and end where it ends?
I understand why the twenty-sixth issue of this
series ended where it did. Locked Room has just
sacrificed herself to wrest the Ultimate Gnab from the
Evil LNH. That entire issue revolved around the Gnab,
and the conflict surrounding it was resolved at the
story's conclusion. And that's why it was an episode.
This one begins where the other one left off, which
is perfectly fine. But it ends with a somewhat
arbitrary cliffhanger. I mean, sure, the cavalry's
coming, big fight next issue-- all very exciting
stuff.
But I was left wondering, why does it end here?
Why couldn't the "we're really pissed off, let's go
kick ass" and "our LNH is here" be part of the same
issue with that big fight? It didn't make sense to me
to end it here, and that's basically because this
episode lacks the same kind of cohesion that was
present in its predecessor.
I mean, what is this issue, all on its lonesome,
about? In the end, it's about reacting to last issue
and setting things up for the next issue. And, for
me, that lacks cohesion. The only two reasons I can
see to end it where Lalo did and the way he did are,
one, to have a cliffhanger ending of sorts, and two,
to keep the story under a certain line-count.
And for me, neither of those reasons are
particularly compelling.
NEW EXARCHS # 11 [FEB 22, 2008], Van Domelen
This is another issue where not much happens, but
here the _texture_ of the writing really makes up for
the sort of episode-cohesiveness I was talking about
above. Summarizing what little plot there is doesn't
sound very convincing, but the way in which the story
unfolds makes it enjoyable.
It all comes down to the details, my friends, and
as usual, Dvandom dutifully delivers details: Paul's
arguments against him being held in a VR environment
and Sung's counterarguments; the story of the clay
squirrels and their various observations about other
species; Jonkatta's musings about the unpleasant
stench of humans: all these things contribute mightily
to a reader's enjoyment.
DEREK RADNER'S PRIVATE JOURNAL # 3 [FEB 24, 2008], Van
Domelen
Derek's musings this time around are centered less
around ambiguous moral issues and more about
practical, pragmatic concerns. The Derek of 2023 has
settled the philosophical quandaries that plagued him
in 2017, or at the very least he isn't bothered by
them at this point in the game. He's no longer asking
"what should I do?" but rather, "how am I going to do
it?"
This sets the stage for a discussion of warfare,
and the ways in which it has evolved with the
introduction of air power, atomic power, and-- at
least in the case of the ASH universe-- super power.
And, dividing superhumans into tactical and strategic
assets-- a chillingly analytical word that gives this
installment its title and provides some insight into
the way Derek's mind works-- Derek places himself in
the former category and expresses his desire to be
part of the latter. Here is a man, then, who is
coolly aware of his own limitations and sets about
figuring out ways to overcome them.
This is a far cry from the almost insane
megalomania that possesses most supervillains and many
real-word despots. One might not agree with Derek, or
with what he does-- but no one can ever call him a
stupid man.
DEPARTMENT OF APOLOGIES
In our last issue, I compared Derek Radner to
William F. Buckley, the American conservative also
noted for his intellectual rigor. Well, as some of
you may know, Buckley passed away this week, and as a
result I was reminded of some of his intellectually
indefensible positions-- such as, for example, wanting
to brand people with HIV to warn the rest of us. I
had often in the past regarded him with a begrudging
sense of respect, but that statement-- coupled with
other instances of gay-bashing and race-baiting--
makes doing so morally indefensible. He might have
been well-spoken and in possession of a fine
vocabulary, but he was a stupid bigot.
I offer my very sincere apologies to Mr. Radner.
LEGION OF NET.HEROES VOL. 2 # 25 [FEB 24, 2008],
Brenton
::blinks::
A new Saxon Brenton story?
... and it's short?
But seriously, this was an amusing little vignette
with the sort of extremely dark humour you seldom find
around these parts. I especially liked the bit about
the laser death ray execution.
This story was written as an answer to my
newsgroup-wide challenge for an Idiot Plot ("Throwing
Down the Gaulnaut" Department, RR # 4). Saxon notes
that it "runs the outer edge of the story criteria",
as it lacks the requisite happy ending. But it was
still an gleefully manic story, equipped with its own
demonic charm.
SPORKMAN # 15 [FEB 25, 2008], Fishbone
The concluding chapter to "Lemurs on a Dirigible"
brings it all together quite nicely. All the jokes
work-- especially the extended episode with Howard and
the bit about the emergency wings.
More importantly, the characterization of young
Mickey coalesces in ways that were not immediately
present in the previous installments that I've read.
While he's been hesitant and unsure of himself
previously, here these feelings are foregrounded,
forming the basis of the action and the heart of the
story. It's really a trial, a test of Mickey's
abilities-- and it's a test that he does not pass, at
least to his own satisfaction.
These feelings-- very potent and accessible
feelings of failure-- were obscured somewhat by the
number and variety of the other characters. It was
nice, at least for this episode, to have them more or
less take a backseat, allowing us to spend time alone
with the title character-- alone with him and his
doubts.
ANTHOLOGY2 # 52 [FEB 25, 2008], Corgan
This story is tremendously interesting to me in my
role as a critic, though perhaps less so as a reader.
What makes it interesting is its extremely short
length, and the reason why that's interesting is that
it affords me an opportunity to take an extremely
close look at the nuts and bolts of the writing:
sentence-by-sentence and line-by-line.
Now, it's not that I never get the chance to get
into the grammatical nitty-gritty. From time to time,
I'm able to wax somewhat poetical on a particularly
resonant word choice, troubling sentence structure,
and a paragraph that I hold in high esteem. But-- the
adventures of Drabble Girl aside-- one very seldom
gets the opportunity to look this closely at an entire
story.
The opening sentence is also the longest, and it's
fairly densely packed with adjectives:
"The pressure of millions of gallons of water crushing
against Schezerade's control cabin was resounded by
warning lights flaring to life, sparks pelting her hot
skin, and ozone pervading her nostrils."
Ashley Corgan, the author, goes for baroque with
the sensory details. He or she tries to make the
reader feel, as acutely as possible, what the
character is going through.
I'm not sure if it altogether works. It's a
difficult thing to do under normal circumstances, and
trying it at the beginning of a story, in the first
sentence no less, is fairly transparent and quite in
earnest. A little too emo for my tastes.
Part of that is because of the length of the
sentence. Many actions scenes in prose attempt to
show a number of things happening at once, or to
describe a number of things happening very quickly and
fluidly, by putting them all into one breathless
sentence. I personally don't think this works all too
well.
In an action film, you can see all the various
actions happening in something approximating real
time; it's as much a temporal medium as it is a visual
one. In comics, the temporal element is not as
present, but you still get physical representations of
all the actions, presented concisely and concretely.
This concreteness is vitally important to most
action scenes, which are generally concerned with
visible dangers and the suspense generated by their
presence. Other action scenes might be more about
interior states or feelings of confusion, and the
creator can change his methods accordingly.
But in an action scene where you want the audience
to _understand_ everything and _follow_ everything,
it's extremely important that each event and each step
is understandable, easy to follow, and concrete.
Folding several events or details together in a single
sentence makes them less so on all three counts, and
longer sentences also fail, in most instances, to
mimic the temporal element. In fact, a longer
sentence makes time feel more languid; shorter and
choppier sentences give the feeling that time is
passing very rapidly. By the time you get to the end
of a longer sentence in an action scene, you might
have forgotten where it started: which, again, gets in
the way of being concrete.
I do want to say, before moving on, that the use of
the word "resounded" in the first sentence is a very
interesting one. Resound, which means quite literally
"to sound again", or to echo or to ring with sound, is
an auditory word. Here, it is used to link the
auditory detail (the water CRASHING against the cabin)
with details appealing to sight, touch, and smell.
It's not the crashing noise that resounds, but the
flaring of warning lights, the pelting of sparks
against her skin, and the pervading of ozone in her
nostrils. Or, more properly, the crashing noise is
resounded through those other phenomenon. It's a very
nifty usage.
"Her mind panicked, reeling with apocalyptic flashes."
I think this sentence would be stronger if "panicked"
was removed and "reeling" changed from a gerund to a
past-tense verb form:
"Her mind reeled with apocalyptic flashes.",
or, perhaps,
"She reeled with apocalyptic flashes.",
which has the same meaning with the added connotation
of physical distress. The use of "panicked" in
Corgan's original sentence is a bit redundant, and its
removal would change the structure of the sentence
from the more complex two-clause structure to
something simpler. It's not that the first structure
is bad, per se-- I use it all too often in my own
writing (especially my nonfiction), and my reliance on
dashes, parenthetical asides, colons, and semicolons
is a bit troubling-- but I think a more direct
structure would appeal that much more directly to the
reader's emotions.
If extremely short fiction has any impact on a
reader at all, it's from being direct; elegant
variation just gets in the way.
"I'M GONNA DIE! I'M GONNA DIE! I'M GONNA DIE!"
Now _that's_ direct, and it's rhythmic, and it sets
up the twist that's coming in the sentence after next.
"Cramps wracked her insides as a defiant roar of
adrenaline cut a burning trail through her arteries
and veins."
Now, in this case, I think the linking of the two
details works. First of all, it's not an extremely
long sentence. Secondly, the first detail-- the
cramps-- is both concise and, yes, concrete.
However, I think the second half of the sentence is
a little top-heavy. The images evoked in that second
half-- the sound of a roar, the cutting of a trail,
and burning-- aren't perfectly complementary. "A
defiant roar of adrenaline" cutting "a burning trail
through" one's arteries and veins is a little muddled.
You could say instead, for example, that the roar
"burned through her arteries and veins". However,
that doesn't evoke the motion implied by a trail being
cut. "Burned" could mean that everything's boiling.
If the author wants a sense of movement, of something
starting deep inside her and spreading outwards,
"burned" doesn't quite do it.
Neither does "blaze a trail", the obvious
combination of the two, for the simple reason that its
overuse has robbed it of all meaning. Simply taking
out the burning doesn't work; "cutting a trail" sounds
very slow and tedious.
But dispelling with both of these and putting the
emphasis on the sound, you could have
"Cramps wracked her insides as adrenaline roared
through her arteries and veins."
The roar, which starts deep inside and echoes
outwards, communicates both the speed with which it
spreads and its primal power. And without other words
and details to slow it down, the sense of speed is
emulated in the sentence itself.
Once could make it even stronger by taking out the
"and veins", which is already implied by the presence
of arteries. Also, arteries-- moving blood away from
the heart, moving it from deep within outwards-- also
resounds the type of motion evoked.
"I'm gonna die... and I'm gonna take this bastard with
me."
And there's the aforementioned twist, communicated
clearly, efficiently, and forcibly.
"She jammed a neural remote into the small cavity at
the base of her skull before triggering the EVS of her
skinsuit. Her entire form quickly enveloped by a nigh
impervious nano-weave."
Here, the sentences get a bit clunky with technical
words. This is actually a very good choice, because
it emphasizes the physical actions. If the two
sentences previous formed a bridge leading away from
the character's apocalyptic flashes of despair-- of an
interior state-- then these two sentences, with their
added attention to the exterior world, is where that
bridge was leading.
And while I think those first few sentences could
be cleaned up a bit, and while I also think the
attempts to get the reader involved fell a little
flat, this basic aspect of the story, this movement
from headspace to realspace, was pulled off quite
well.
The last two sentences,
"Helrot pumped one of his armor's mechanized, ebony
fists into the air.
'I'M THE MOTHERF***IN' MAN!!'",
leave something to be desired. Because we're not sure
exactly what Schezerade's accomplished-- because we
don't know how this is going to take him down with
her, and because we never see him taken down-- it's
unsatisfactory. If we knew what she was doing, then
the ending would be ironic; he doesn't know what's
going to hit him.
But since we don't-- and, in fact, we're not even
sure where he is in relation to her-- the story really
requires some form of closure that's simply not
provided.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Saxon Brenton
[...]
> In our last issue, I compared Derek Radner to
> William F. Buckley, the American conservative also
> noted for his intellectual rigor. Well, as some of
> you may know, Buckley passed away this week, and as a
> result I was reminded of some of his intellectually
> indefensible positions-- such as, for example, wanting
> to brand people with HIV to warn the rest of us.
Hmmm.
On a level both other-than-personal and relating-to-RACC
I find this disappointing, for a complicated reasons. I
need to ask a question about this, but will first need
to explain the context. I ask you to bear with me on
this.
Longtime readers of my work will know that I try to
include a wide variety of characters with a wide variety
of backgrounds and outlooks. Admitedly these are
sometimes painted in very broad strokes (or for a less
charitable description: they tend to be cliches).
Traditionally I have focused on giving people different
faiths.
Anal-Retentive-Archive Kid I know is a conservative.
Unfortunately having identified him as such I find that
I've painted myself into a corner, since as an interested
outsider I only have a superficial idea of what
conservatism in the United States actually looks like.
I'm not sure that that I even trust the idea of using
Australian conservatism as a substitute, partly because
of differences in culture, partly because the US is
further to the right than Australia.
There are further constraints. ARAK is a member of a
minority religion, so there's no way that he'd be a
member of the evangelical wing of the Republicans (and
certainly not considering the specifics of the way he
was attacked with a HIV infected needle back in Flame
Wars 4). Moreover, from the moment of his creation as
a character ARAK has been a thinker and an intellectual,
so there is also no way he'd be interested in those
commentators whose methods involve noisy stunts and
appeals to prejudice.
So when I heard of William F. Buckley and his reputation
as a thinking US conservative, I thought I had found a
role model for Anal-Retentive Archive Kid, but hadn't
gotten around to doing any research yet. Now Tom has
disabused me of that notion. I doubt me if a true
conservative in the minimum-government-intervention/let-
people-just-get-on-with-their-own-affairs mold would
support the stance that Tom describes of Buckley - and
moreso since FW4 as the issue would now be personal.
So I throw this question to the people on RACC who are
reasonably knowledgeable on the subject: Given the type
of personality that Anal-Retentive Archive Kid has, which
conservative intellectuals would he be likely to be
influenced by?
-----
Saxon Brenton
Arthur Spitzer
> So I throw this question to the people on RACC who are
> reasonably knowledgeable on the subject: Given the type
> of personality that Anal-Retentive Archive Kid has, which
> conservative intellectuals would he be likely to be
> influenced by?
>
> -----
> Saxon Brenton
Maybe Barry Goldwater...
Arthur "Getting back to Beige Countdown..." Spitzer
Martin Phipps
> There are further constraints. ARAK is a member of a
> minority religion, so there's no way that he'd be a
> member of the evangelical wing of the Republicans
No, but he'd make a perfectly good Libertarian.
From http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml
"What is a Libertarian?
"Let's start with Webster's definition:
"Libertarian: A person who upholds the principles of individual
liberty especially of thought and action. Capitalized: a member of a
political party advocating libertarian principles.
"Libertarians believe in, and pursue, personal freedom while
maintaining personal responsibility. The Libertarian Party itself
serves a much larger pro-liberty community with the specific mission
of electing Libertarians to public office.
"Libertarians strongly oppose any government interfering in their
personal, family and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all
Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their
interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.
"In a nutshell, we are advocates for a smaller government, lower taxes
and more freedom.
"Are Libertarians liberal or conservative?
"Libertarians are neither. Unlike liberals or conservatives,
Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic
liberty. For example, Libertarians advocate freedom in economic
matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic
regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government --
welfare. But Libertarians are also socially tolerant. We won't demand
laws or restrictions on other people who we may not agree because of
personal actions or lifestyles.
"Think of us as a group of people with a "live and let live" mentality
and a balanced checkbook.
"In a sense, Libertarians "borrow" from both sides to come up with a
logical and consistent whole -- but without the exceptions and broken
promises of Republican and Democratic politicians. That's why we call
ourselves the Party of Principle."
That sounds like what you are looking for.
I'm not endorsing the Libertarian Party, by the way. My own political
views are more along the lines of Bill Maher's who describes his own
tacit support for the Libertarian Party as "not an easy fit".
Better yet, you could try modeling ARAK on Larry Elder who calls
himself a "Republitarian".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Elder
Martin
Martin Phipps
> Saxon Brenton wrote:
> > So I throw this question to the people on RACC who are
> > reasonably knowledgeable on the subject: Given the type
> > of personality that Anal-Retentive Archive Kid has, which
> > conservative intellectuals would he be likely to be
> > influenced by?
>
> > -----
> > Saxon Brenton
>
> Maybe Barry Goldwater...
That works too.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater
Martin
Lalo Martins
> I mean, what is this issue, all on its lonesome,
> about? In the end, it's about reacting to last issue and setting things
> up for the next issue. And, for me, that lacks cohesion. The only two
> reasons I can see to end it where Lalo did and the way he did are, one,
> to have a cliffhanger ending of sorts, and two, to keep the story under
> a certain line-count.
> And for me, neither of those reasons are
> particularly compelling.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one then :-) for me both reasons
are extremely compelling. I'm trying with this series to emulate a
"real" (call it "professional" or "commercial" if you want) serial.
Space being constant is absolutely mandatory in that case, and ending in
a cliffhanger is pretty much necessary...
best,
Lalo Martins
--
So many of our dreams at first seem impossible,
then they seem improbable, and then, when we
summon the will, they soon become inevitable.
-----
http://lalomartins.info/
GNU: never give up freedom http://www.gnu.org/
Tom Russell
> Also spracht Tom Russell (Sat, 01 Mar 2008 07:01:18 +0000):
> > particularly compelling.
>
> We'll have to agree to disagree on this one then :-) for me both reasons
> are extremely compelling. I'm trying with this series to emulate a
> "real" (call it "professional" or "commercial" if you want) serial.
You know, I _had_ thought of that. But it's that same tendency that
bugs me about many comic books from the Big Two, and if I was
reviewing their stories, I would probably have made the same
points. :-)
==Tom
Tom Russell
I think, as Arthur suggested, that Goldwater is generally a better
fit, though you could certainly base ARAK on the popular *perception*
of Buckley, even among liberal circles, as the pithy intellectual who
isn't evil. Just because you're influenced by someone doesn't mean
that you necessarily agree with them or their more unsavory
viewpoints.
Martin's suggestion of the Libertarian party might work, though I must
be impish and add that, while they claim to be neither Democrats or
Republicans, they vote almost exclusively for the latter party, who,
in turn, try to restrict their rights. It reminds me a bit of the Log
Cabin Republicans-- the gay wing of the gay-bashing party.
Obviously, I'm biased and make no bones about it. I'm passionately
Democratic and liberal. For, as a greater man than I once said:
"If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind,
someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who
cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing,
their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil
liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate
and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what
they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
(JFK, of course.)
I was raised a Republican. My family hated Clinton and applauded when
the Starr Report came out. As I got older, though, I got incredibly
wiser. I realized that the things I believed-- freedom of speech and
religion, equal rights for all people, all races, all genders, all
sexualities, leaving people be if they're not hurting anyone-- those
things are in stark opposition with the Republican party as it exists
today.
And while, yes, years before the GOP focused more on economic issues,
there has since the fifties and sixties always been a strand of the
party that is racist, sexist, reactionary, and fascistic.
The difference is, of course, that in the eighties and nineties
especially this wing of the party became the dominant wing. If
Buckley is the father of modern conservativism, it's not only because
of his "smaller government, free market" economics but also because of
stuff like this:
"The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary
question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog
of the rights of American citizens, born Equal--is whether the White
community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are
necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it
does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White
community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the
advanced race."
Or, this charming ditty about Gore Vidal and his homosexuality:
"The man who in his essays proclaims the normalcy of his affliction,
and in his art the desirability of it, is not to be confused with the
man who bears his sorrow quietly. The addict is to be pitied and even
respected, not the pusher."
There are, to be sure, Republicans who believe in equal rights just as
there are many Democrats who believe in the free market and less-
intrusive government. I think excessive partisanship and black-and-
white either-or stances has been largely responsible for the state of
the two parties as they exist today. After the great sweep of 06,
many of the more reactionary Republicans lost their seats in
Congress. If the GOP does make a comeback, it will probably be
comprised less of people like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich and more
of people like ARAK and Goldwater. And maybe that's the kind of thing
to shoot for.
==Tom
EDMLite
I can certainly emphathize with the reaction both you
and Tom have had to Buckley's statements. Yet while I'm
no defender of either Buckley or his work, I feel the
need to note that people are complex creatures, and that
it would be difficult to find any truly admirable person
who hadn't said or done things one might find unsettling.
I have always admired and respected Thomas Jefferson,
for example, and yet I have had to wrestle with the fact
that the author of the Declaration of Independence
owned slaves throughout his lifetime, and that this
Enlightenment sage had some fairly unenlightened views
regarding the native tribes of the American West.
My conclusion is that I respect Jefferson on the whole,
while acknowledging that I can't agree with everything he
said or did. To some degree, I feel that way about
Buckley, too -- I'm appalled by the opinions Tom credits
him as having, yet my impression of Buckley was that his
was a conservative voice in the United States who wasn't
tied to the religious right, a Republican who wasn't
afraid to be an intellectual. I'd like to believe that
aspect of his legacy will be respected and imitated.
> So I throw this question to the people on RACC who are
> reasonably knowledgeable on the subject: Given the type
> of personality that Anal-Retentive Archive Kid has, which
> conservative intellectuals would he be likely to be
> influenced by?
George Will, perhaps? Or Allan Bloom?
--Easily-Discovered Man Lite
--Likes a little revolution now and then
Martin Phipps
[Quoting Buckley]
> "The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary
> question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog
> of the rights of American citizens, born Equal--is whether the White
> community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are
> necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it
> does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White
> community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the
> advanced race."
Three words: "Think about why." Black men in New York city are better
educated than White men in Alabama and score better, on average, on IQ
tests. That's just a fact.
> "The man who in his essays proclaims the normalcy of his affliction,
> and in his art the desirability of it
Most likely he meant to say "in his heart".
Martin
Tom Russell
> [Quoting Buckley]
> > "The man who in his essays proclaims the normalcy of his affliction,
> > and in his art the desirability of it
>
> Most likely he meant to say "in his heart".
No; he was referring to the writing-- i.e. the art-- of Mr. Vidal.
> Martin
==Tom
Tom Russell
> I have always admired and respected Thomas Jefferson,
> for example, and yet I have had to wrestle with the fact
> that the author of the Declaration of Independence
> owned slaves throughout his lifetime, and that this
> Enlightenment sage had some fairly unenlightened views
> regarding the native tribes of the American West.
All this is true, though Jefferson was also a product of his times
and, for those times, quite progressive. One couldn't say the same
thing of Buckley, however, who was espousing white supremacy during
the civil rights movement. As the intelligent product of a more
enlightened age, he should have known better-- a _lot_ better.
> My conclusion is that I respect Jefferson on the whole,
> while acknowledging that I can't agree with everything he
> said or did. To some degree, I feel that way about
> Buckley, too -- I'm appalled by the opinions Tom credits
> him as having, yet my impression of Buckley was that his
> was a conservative voice in the United States who wasn't
> tied to the religious right, a Republican who wasn't
> afraid to be an intellectual. I'd like to believe that
> aspect of his legacy will be respected and imitated.
I understand (and agree) with your general point about people being
complex, neither wholly good nor bad. At the same time, Buckley has a
reputation as "the Good Republican"-- a reputation as simplistic as
"the bad Republican". I'm not trying to prescribe to him either
label, but to rather say that my earlier characterization of him as
the Good Republican was inaccurate.
I too hope that his intellectual approach will be respected and
imitated-- or, rather, that an intellectual approach be imitated if
not the exact brand of intellecutalism practised by Buckley.
Not to be commiting a reductio ad hitlerum here, but praising Buckley
for his intellectual rigor despite the intellectually indefensible
opinions he espoused with that rigor is a little like praising Dr.
Mengele for his attention to the scientific method.
==Tom
Martin Phipps
Strange way of putting it then. If he had said it out loud I would
have been sure he meant "heart". :)
Martin
Tom Russell
> > > [Quoting Buckley]
> > > > "The man who in his essays proclaims the normalcy of his affliction,
> > > > and in his art the desirability of it
>
> > > Most likely he meant to say "in his heart".
>
> > No; he was referring to the writing-- i.e. the art-- of Mr. Vidal.
>
> Strange way of putting it then. If he had said it out loud I would
> have been sure he meant "heart". :)
Buckley was differentiating Gore's nonfiction-- his "essays"-- from
his novels-- his "art". Some of Vidal's essays-- at least, if one can
trust Buckley's interpetations of them (I've never been big on Vidal
myself and so have not read much)-- put forth the (thankfully now-
accepted) idea that homosexuality is not abnormal; some of his art
presents homosexuality as being preferred or desirable compared to
heterosexuality.
It's because Vidal's work "pushes" this whole tolerance thing that
Buckley considers him a "pusher".
(Vidal, for his part, considered Buckley a crypto-Nazi.)
==Tom
Martin Phipps
> On Mar 3, 1:25 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > [Quoting Buckley]
> > > > > "The man who in his essays proclaims the normalcy of his affliction,
> > > > > and in his art the desirability of it
>
> > > > Most likely he meant to say "in his heart".
>
> > > No; he was referring to the writing-- i.e. the art-- of Mr. Vidal.
>
> > Strange way of putting it then. If he had said it out loud I would
> > have been sure he meant "heart". :)
>
> Buckley was differentiating Gore's nonfiction-- his "essays"-- from
> his novels-- his "art". Some of Vidal's essays-- at least, if one can
> trust Buckley's interpetations of them (I've never been big on Vidal
> myself and so have not read much)-- put forth the (thankfully now-
> accepted) idea that homosexuality is not abnormal; some of his art
> presents homosexuality as being preferred or desirable compared to
> heterosexuality.
I never could stand people trying to speak poetically. If he was
distnguishing between Vidal's essays and his fiction then why didn't
he say so? Since when is a well crafted essay not seen as "art"?
Anyway, if I were gay, I'm sure that I would feel the same way as
Vidal. As a heterosexual, I see myself as normal and, in my own
fiction, I portray heterosexual activity as desirable. I don't see
the difference.
> It's because Vidal's work "pushes" this whole tolerance thing that
> Buckley considers him a "pusher".
Ah. To my credit, I couldn't fathom at all what Buckley was talking
about. Most gay men I see don't seem to be particularly sorrowful to
me, Indeed, fifty years ago the term "gay" meant something completely
different. :)
Martin
Saxon Brenton
[2nd posting. Sorry, I have no idea why this vanished into the aether
while other posts have gotten through]
On Sunday 2 March 2008 Rob Rogers replied:
> On Mar 1, 4:21 pm, Saxon Brenton wrote:
>> On Saturday 1 March 2008 Tom Russell wrote, among other things:
[...]
> I can certainly emphathize with the reaction both you
> and Tom have had to Buckley's statements. Yet while I'm
> no defender of either Buckley or his work, I feel the
> need to note that people are complex creatures, and that
> it would be difficult to find any truly admirable person
> who hadn't said or done things one might find unsettling.
>
> I have always admired and respected Thomas Jefferson,
> for example, and yet I have had to wrestle with the fact
> that the author of the Declaration of Independence
> owned slaves throughout his lifetime, and that this
> Enlightenment sage had some fairly unenlightened views
> regarding the native tribes of the American West.
>
> My conclusion is that I respect Jefferson on the whole,
> while acknowledging that I can't agree with everything he
> said or did. To some degree, I feel that way about
> Buckley, too -- I'm appalled by the opinions Tom credits
> him as having, yet my impression of Buckley was that his
> was a conservative voice in the United States who wasn't
> tied to the religious right, a Republican who wasn't
> afraid to be an intellectual. I'd like to believe that
> aspect of his legacy will be respected and imitated.
A very good point. And certainly the impression I have
of Anal-Retentive Archive Kid that I have in my head is
perceptive enough, inquisitive enough and idiosyncratic
enough to synthesise his own opinions without being
slavishly immitative of any other group. That said, out
of the suggestions offered so far 'liberatarian of
conservative' bent probably sums him up this best.
(And by weird coinceidence, I was looking through some past
notes this morning for something totally unrelated, and
came across a scrawled suggestion to myself that perhaps
ARAK might be an advocate of a 'no rights without
responsibilities' ethos (which from due to my poor
handwriting I think is communitarianism, but I'm having
trouble matching it up on websearches). I can see why
ARAK might find aestheic appeal with such a notion, but I
also think he's both sufficiently perceptive and paranoid
to see the downside of making individual rights subject to
the social value judgements of a central authority. ARAK
has no problem in comparing the desire for control of the
US Religious Right to both the Tablian and the Soviet
communists.)
---
Saxon Brenton
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Tarq
is enraged!
Time to throw down my half-written review of 'SEVEN STAGES OF
GRIEVING' and write some Possum-Man!
Don't worry, Tom -- I'll make unnecessary work for you. You can count
on me.
~Mitchell.
Martin Phipps
> ROOOAAARGH! No stories for Russell to Review this week?!
He can always go back and review some stuff he missed reading before.
All anybody would ask is that he have something nice to say.
Martin
Tom Russell
>
> ROOOAAARGH! No stories for Russell to Review this week?!
That's quite alright, actually.
I should mention that the cut-off day for stories to be reviewed is
Thursday; anything posted on a Friday will be reviewed the following
week.
On Mar 7, 6:24 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> He can always go back and review some stuff he missed reading before.
> All anybody would ask is that he have something nice to say.
Sometimes I say things people want to hear, and sometimes I don't.
It's called honesty, and if someone doesn't want my honest opinion,
it's probably best that I offer no opinion at all.
==Tom
Dave Van Domelen
Tom Russell <milos_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Sometimes I say things people want to hear, and sometimes I don't.
>It's called honesty, and if someone doesn't want my honest opinion,
>it's probably best that I offer no opinion at all.
"If you don't have anything nice to say, then...well, Usenet is right
over there."
Dave Van Domelen, has outlined the next ASH, and Andy has pieces of at
least three stories in various stages of completion. ;)
Martin Phipps
> On Mar 7, 6:24 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > He can always go back and review some stuff he missed reading before.
> > All anybody would ask is that he have something nice to say.
>
> Sometimes I say things people want to hear, and sometimes I don't.
> It's called honesty, and if someone doesn't want my honest opinion,
> it's probably best that I offer no opinion at all.
Heh. Honesty. That would have been nice.
Martin
Tom Russell
Hold on, that can't be right. Let me juxtapose your two statements
above.
> > > All anybody would ask is that he have something nice to say.
> Heh. Honesty. That would have been nice.
Okay, so that _is_ what you said. "Only say nice things" and "be
honest".
Your logic is truly air-tight.
Tom Russell
We have fundamentally different and perhaps mutually exclusive ideas
on art, criticism, and human beings. If you find my advice to be so
backwards and wrong-headed, why on earth do you want me to give it?
Just about every time I review one of your stories, we have an
argument. And it's not the fact that we have an argument that's bad;
argument is healthy. It's that it's the same argument, over and over
and over (and over) and over and over* again.
[*-- and over.]
An argument that's ceased to be helpful or in any way illuminating.
I'm tired of being called (or inferred) a hypocrite or a liar or some
kind of egotistical self-styled guru; I'm also tired of the bizarre
accusation that my reviews are the result of some strange and
apparently long-held grudge. And all that leads me to ask-- why on
earth would I want to review one of your stories again?
Why spend my time and effort on doing something that is so
unrewarding?
I'm done with this, Martin. I'm not reviewing your stories. That's
it. Finito. Donezo.
Since my advice is so wrong-headed and dishonest, I don't think you'll
mind.
==Tom
Martin Phipps
"All anybody would ask is that he have something nice to say" does not
mean "Only say nice things". It means "Don't be a complete asshole".
Can you do that?
Martin
Martin Phipps
> Martin,
>
> We have fundamentally different and perhaps mutually exclusive ideas
> on art, criticism, and human beings. If you find my advice to be so
> backwards and wrong-headed, why on earth do you want me to give it?
Why would it be so hard for you to be honest? You've claimed that
you've been honest and that you've never used reviews to simply attack
people and that simply isn't true. If you are truly incapable of
offering constructive criticism then I guess that would be the end of
it.
> Just about every time I review one of your stories, we have an
> argument. And it's not the fact that we have an argument that's bad;
> argument is healthy. It's that it's the same argument, over and over
> and over (and over) and over and over* again.
>
> [*-- and over.]
>
> An argument that's ceased to be helpful or in any way illuminating.
> I'm tired of being called (or inferred) a hypocrite or a liar or some
> kind of egotistical self-styled guru; I'm also tired of the bizarre
> accusation that my reviews are the result of some strange and
> apparently long-held grudge. And all that leads me to ask-- why on
> earth would I want to review one of your stories again?
>
> Why spend my time and effort on doing something that is so
> unrewarding?
>
> I'm done with this, Martin. I'm not reviewing your stories. That's
> it. Finito. Donezo.
>
> Since my advice is so wrong-headed and dishonest, I don't think you'll
> mind.
The question was whether you could manage to not be a complete
asshole. The answer would appear to be "No". That's settled then.
Martin
Martin Phipps
"It's a nice direction for Martin and, with a little
bit more time spent in the editing stage, I cannot think of any
reason
why Superfreaks won't be remembered as one of the great RACC series."
Tom Russell, Nov. 12, 2006
"I think the problem is, if I can carry Martin's television
metaphor a bit further-- it's that Superfreaks is being produced with
syndication in mind. Series produced for syndication-- or with an
eye
towards it-- whether they be sitcoms or dramas-- often have 20+
episodes per season. In a batch of 20-24 episodes, you'll have two
or
three really great ones, a handful of decent ones, and a lot of
clunkers." Tom Russell, May 22nd, 2007
Martin
Tarq
> I should mention that the cut-off day for stories to be reviewed is
> Thursday; anything posted on a Friday will be reviewed the following
> week.
So... I guess I don't have to push at Relinquished #5, then.
Huh.
See you guys on the other side of a 'Seven Stages of Grieving' review,
my Extension English Major Work proposal, the collection of several
post modern texts to study (hell YES I'm grabbing as many LNH pieces
as I can!), a two page Extension Maths assignment, and a Related Text
Folio for Advanced English.
I guess... I guess I'll talk later?
~M...
(At least I've finished my Physics?)
Tom Russell
> The question was whether you could manage to not be a complete
> asshole. The answer would appear to be "No". That's settled then.
Outside of Jesse Willey, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone
who would agree with you in your assessment of my character.
For the record, I think my critical style-- pointing out what I like,
pointing out what I dislike, explaining why in both cases if I can,
and offering suggestions when I find something lacking-- is
constructive.
You obviously disagree. But there's no need to call me an asshole.
That hurts, Martin. And I don't think _anything_ I've ever written
about any of your stories equals your responses to those stories for
sheer bile.
Good-bye, Martin.
==Tom
Martin Phipps
> On Mar 7, 6:41 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The question was whether you could manage to not be a complete
> > asshole. The answer would appear to be "No". That's settled then.
>
> Outside of Jesse Willey, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone
> who would agree with you in your assessment of my character.
"In my first review of this series, I might have come down a little
too
hard on Martin for the transparency of some of his character
analogues.
I was still smarting, also, from the way he took the behind-the-
scenes
Eightfold stuff into the public sphere in a way that I thought,
personally, reflected negatively and untruthfully on Eightfold, and
Jamie and I. So that might also explain the degree of my
smart-ass-ness." Tom Russell, Nov 12, 2006
Martin
Tom Russell
fifteen issues of Superfreaks; ample time for an opinion to change,
yes?
> So that might also explain the degree of my
> smart-ass-ness." Tom Russell, Nov 12, 2006
>
> Martin
Because smart-ass and asshole are exactly the same thing. Welcome to
my killfile, Martin; I do believe you're the first and you'll probably
be the only.
==Tom
EDMLite
> On Mar 8, 1:35 am, Tom Russell <milos_par...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> See you guys on the other side of a 'Seven Stages of Grieving' review,
> my Extension English Major Work proposal, the collection of several
> post modern texts to study (hell YES I'm grabbing as many LNH pieces
> as I can!), a two page Extension Maths assignment, and a Related Text
> Folio for Advanced English.
>
You know, I've never really thought of the LNH as
postmodern before... but I suppose stories that
include talking footnotes, self-aware fictional
characters and battles that take place on the
surface of the fourth wall probably qualify.
I'm just curious... what's the thesis of your
study, and which LNH stories will you use?
--Easily-Discovered Man Lite
--More post-traumatic than postmodern
Tarq
> On Mar 7, 8:57 pm, Tarq <mitchell_cro...@caladrius.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 8, 1:35 am, Tom Russell <milos_par...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > See you guys on the other side of a 'Seven Stages of Grieving' review,
> > my Extension English Major Work proposal, the collection of several
> > post modern texts to study (hell YES I'm grabbing as many LNH pieces
> > as I can!), a two page Extension Maths assignment, and a Related Text
> > Folio for Advanced English.
>
> You know, I've never really thought of the LNH as
> postmodern before... but I suppose stories that
> include talking footnotes, self-aware fictional
> characters and battles that take place on the
> surface of the fourth wall probably qualify.
Oh yeah. The definition they gave us in class (which was three pages
long, but says not much else than what you've outlined above) was
pretty much *exactly* the LNH; of course, the example that we have to
study is 'Shrek', but the LNH... well, it's the LNH. Bugger off,
Shrek.
> I'm just curious... what's the thesis of your
> study, and which LNH stories will you use?
We just had to assemble a list of texts which were self-aware to show
that we understood the concept; I had 'LNH' written in giant letters
across the page (it wasn't an assessment task) with the URL of issue
#1 of Jamas' Drabble Girl miniseries.
The assessment task for this topic is a 5,000 word story that shows
postmodernism, sophistication of language and conveys the values and
beliefs of modern/postmodern society. My original proposal was an
appropriation of 'The Little Mermaid' into an epic poem with
dinosaurs, but it was knocked back because the teacher didn't feel I
would be able to show enough modern values so many million years ago.
So instead it's a short story set in a vaguely dystopian world after
the collapse and re-emergence of social class. With superheroes (and
zombies??).
> --Easily-Discovered Man Lite
~Mitchell.
> --More post-traumatic than postmodern
rofl.