RANT: Dave's Late Rant: No Justice, No Piece!
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
David Van Domelen (dva...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: Dave's Late Rant:
: No Justice, No Piece!
: Spoilers....
: "Sailor's Wife": A two-page vignette about keeping the courage of one's
: convictions against both popular opinion and the harsh realities of life.
: The plot twist is that the sailor in question is a woman, although it's made
: clear from the story that the main reason for the difficulty of the wife's
: choice is that the sailor is a sailor.
Yep.
: The one real problem I had with this
: story was the use of names, and how it didn't mesh with the art. Pat, Terry
: and Robin are pretty much English/Irish names, but I'll be scuppered if that
: ain't a Viking boat. Okay, maybe Norman instead, but it would have helped
: the story (IMO) if it were set a little farther forward in time so the boat
: could be unmistakably English. The house construction looks like 1300s
: vintage, and I'm pretty sure the English were using multiple sails and had
: dropped the dragon prows by that point. Okay, I'm nitpicking, but in a story
: this short, even a small detail can have a large effect.
Nope.
Dave, it's a FANTASY story, not a historical one. It's not supposed to be
English/Irish names; I needed to use androgynous names to make the
(admittedly not-that-much-of-a-surprise) twist work, and those happened to
be the first three that came to mind. Do you know many English/Irish
places in the 1300s which accepted same-sex couples? If it helps, think
of this story as not taking place on Earth, as I did when I wrote it.
- Elayne
--
"Very few people possess true artistic ability. It is therefore both
unseemly and unproductive to irritate the situation by making an effort.
If you have a burning, restless urge to write or paint, simply eat
something sweet and the feeling will pass." - Fran Lebowitz
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
: [my stuff snipped, the topic is her story "A Sailor's Wife"]
: >Dave, it's a FANTASY story, not a historical one. It's not supposed to be
: >English/Irish names; I needed to use androgynous names to make the
: >(admittedly not-that-much-of-a-surprise) twist work, and those happened to
: >be the first three that came to mind. Do you know many English/Irish
: >places in the 1300s which accepted same-sex couples? If it helps, think
: >of this story as not taking place on Earth, as I did when I wrote it.
: Problem is, nothing in either the art or the writing said it wasn't set
: on a "historical fiction" Earth.
Why did there have to be? It wasn't the point of the story.
: The art was all pretty solidly Norman-era
: England, or maybe the Danelaw before it. The names were all from various
: parts of the British Isles.
No, actually Terry is Latin, I believe; I think Robin may be Germanic or
something. Robin, you know more about name origins than I do, at least
for your immediate family <g>; can you elucidate?
: The idea that this was supposed to be a
: completely fantastic world which was merely similar in ways to Earth didn't
: come across in the story.
I didn't think it was needed. It's background atmosphere. It's beside
the point.
David Van Domelen
In article <63iqe0$f...@panix.com>,
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
[my stuff snipped, the topic is her story "A Sailor's Wife"]
>Dave, it's a FANTASY story, not a historical one. It's not supposed to be
>English/Irish names; I needed to use androgynous names to make the
>(admittedly not-that-much-of-a-surprise) twist work, and those happened to
>be the first three that came to mind. Do you know many English/Irish
>places in the 1300s which accepted same-sex couples? If it helps, think
>of this story as not taking place on Earth, as I did when I wrote it.
Problem is, nothing in either the art or the writing said it wasn't set
on a "historical fiction" Earth. The art was all pretty solidly Norman-era
England, or maybe the Danelaw before it. The names were all from various
parts of the British Isles. The idea that this was supposed to be a
completely fantastic world which was merely similar in ways to Earth didn't
come across in the story. Perhaps if it had been a full 8 or 16 page story,
the other-ness would have come across. But in two pages, the differences
aren't as obviously intentional. Something like a caption or a subtitle in
the first panel would have gone a long way towards helping that, kinda like
Barry Hughart's "A Tale of a China That Never Was" subtitle tells readers of
his novel _A Bridge of Birds_ not to expect his world to be quite the one
they know.
Anyway, as you point out, the social stuff is plausible, and as I
pointed out, the names are fine for 1300's England. But that ship ain't.
And sitting as it does in several of the more important panels, it creates a
sense of wrongness which isn't obviously intentional.
Dave Van Domelen, wouldn't want to be near Robin's (the sailor's, not
the artist's) hair after it being loose on the open sea for months....
ERoy486
Robin wrote:
>In this specific instance; should the time and place have been >spelt out?
>Would that have made it a better piece? I think the ambiguity of >setting
>was intrinsic to the narrative which was likewise ambiguous as to >gender.
I don't believe so. The time and place, IMO was irrelevant to the purpose of
the story. I liked it just the way it was, and the intent, the meaning (at
least for me) was clear, irregardless of where or when the story was set in.
Good work, you two. :-)
Eric
Robin
In article <63n68f$lhm$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) wrote:
(snipped research into first names)
>(I just confirmed this by looking it up in the American Heritage Dictionary.)
Well if you're interested enough to look it up you may want to check with
the root sources for the Dictionary of Firstnames (Ernest Weekley, London,
1939) that I got my reference from.
These sources include;
Searle, W.G., Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum (Cambidge, 1897).
Bjšrkman,E., Nordische Personennamen in England (Halle a. S., 1910).
John of Gaunt's Register, 1372-76 (London, 1911).
Camden, W., Remains concerning Britain (London, 1605, 7th ed., 1674).
Littleton,A., Latin-English Dictionary, containing "The most usual names of
men and women rendred into Latine" (London 1678).
Yonge, Charlotte M., History of Christian Names (2nd ed., London, 1884).
Bardsley, C.H., Curiosities of Puritan Nomenclature (London, 1888).
Dawson, L.H., A Book of Saints (London, 1908).
Partridge,E., Name This Child (2nd ed. London, 1938).
Century Dictionary of Names (New York, 1895).
Chambers' Biographical Dictioary (Edinburgh, London, New York, 1929).
Concise Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 1930).
Harvey, Sir P., Oxford Companion to English Literature (2nd ed., Oxford,
1938).
Good hunting.
Robin.
ma...@po.cwru.edu
In article <B084E1EE9...@0.0.0.0>, Robin says...
>
>In article <63n68f$lhm$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
>fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) wrote:
>
>(snipped research into first names)
>
>>(I just confirmed this by looking it up in the American Heritage Dictionary.)
>
>Well if you're interested enough to look it up you may want to check with
>the root sources for the Dictionary of Firstnames (Ernest Weekley, London,
>1939) that I got my reference from.
Your source material was written ten years before most of the Indo-Europea
languages were classified. In other words, it is *woefully* out of date.
C.
On 2 Nov 1997 22:13:52 -0500, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>David Van Domelen (dva...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>: In article <63iqe0$f...@panix.com>,
>: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>: [my stuff snipped, the topic is her story "A Sailor's Wife"]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>: The idea that this was supposed to be a
>: completely fantastic world which was merely similar in ways to Earth didn't
>: come across in the story.
>
>I didn't think it was needed. It's background atmosphere. It's beside
>the point.
And while yes, it is besides the point, it's also important for
establishing a clear story. Background details, reference pieces, all
of these things (usually) aren't the point of a story, but they help
to guide and keep the reader in a fantasy world. When several of these
background details don't mesh, they really can jolt the reader out of
a story.
For example, the point of Fighting American #1 was that a foreign
menace was threatening America. It happened to be Russia during WW][.
Now, while Russia was actually an ally of America In WW][, it wasn't
the point of the story. However, it was jarring enough for everyone
who read the book to comment on and speak out against.
Background details and proper historical reference are important to a
story. And if it is set on a world with a slightly different history
than our own earth, then I think it's important to let the reader know
this because otherwise you end up with readers being jarred out of the
story, like Dave was with the story "A Sailor's Wife", and like many
people were with "The Fighting American".
C.
+ Off Colour, Computerized Cover Colouring
+ Specializing in Cover Colours for Small Press and Independent
+ Books, at prices you can actually Afford! For Samples, please:
+ www.aracnet.net/~cro2 or e-mail: cr...@aracnet.net
RAGING ELF
>And while yes, it is besides the point, it's also important for
>establishing a clear story. Background details, reference pieces, all
>of these things (usually) aren't the point of a story, but they help
>to guide and keep the reader in a fantasy world. When several of these
>background details don't mesh, they really can jolt the reader out of
>a story.
Elayne wrote a great story. It wasn't like she had 100 plus pages to explain
everything. What ever happened to suspending belief? These are comics,
right? Do we now need everything spelled out for us? I'm beside myself
reading all these posts disecting and tearing this story apart. Give it a
rest!! It was a short piece that got the message across. Elayne did a great
job.
Tony Furtado
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
RAGING ELF (ragi...@aol.com) wrote:
: >And while yes, it is besides the point, it's also important for
Thanks, Tony. But honest, Dave wasn't dissecting and tearing *that* much
apart. He admitted he was nitpicking, but I get the feeling he still
enjoyed the story, and I could ask no more. In fact, I'm quite pleased
with the overall reaction my first published comics work has gotten among
this usually-tough crowd. Obviously the bribes worked. (KIDDING!)
the_implicit_talon_pejorative
In article <63tajc$1...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com says...
>Thanks, Tony. But honest, Dave wasn't dissecting and tearing *that* much
>apart. He admitted he was nitpicking, but I get the feeling he still
>enjoyed the story, and I could ask no more. In fact, I'm quite pleased
>with the overall reaction my first published comics work has gotten among
>this usually-tough crowd. Obviously the bribes worked. (KIDDING!)
Historically, this crowd has only been tough on *full-time* pros.
Sim, Hudnall, Waid, David, etc.
Face it, you are RACM's Rose. How 'bout another kiss? :)
Talon T M
cr...@aracnet.net
In article <19971106203...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
ragi...@aol.com (RAGING ELF) wrote:
> Elayne wrote a great story. It wasn't like she had 100 plus pages to explain
> everything. What ever happened to suspending belief? These are comics,
> right? Do we now need everything spelled out for us? I'm beside myself
> reading all these posts disecting and tearing this story apart. Give it a
> rest!! It was a short piece that got the message across. Elayne did a great
> job.
Speaking of Besides the point.
Mr. Elf, I haven't read the story. I wasn't discussing the story. On your
point, that if a story is good then you should overlook some of the more
minor inconsistancies, I agree whole-heartedly. If a story is greater
than the sum of it's parts, then that's what's important.
However, the poster I had refered to was actually jarred out of the story
by to him a major mistake. If I had read the story, I would never have
caught the mistake, as I'm not particularly versed in 12th century
sailing vesels. I probably would have enjoyed the story. However, this
reader didn't. And that's my point. If the background details were
"wrong" enough for a reader to be distracted by them, then it IS
important to get these details correct. It goes back to my fighting
american example.
My post was not a comment on the quality of any Story in No Justice, No
Peace. My post was a comment on the importance of background details to
keep readers from being booted out of the story.
C.
Fun Fact: A few of the soldiers in Ben Hur are wearing TImex's.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
C. (cr...@aracnet.net) wrote:
: On 2 Nov 1997 22:13:52 -0500, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
: Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
: >David Van Domelen (dva...@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: >: In article <63iqe0$f...@panix.com>,
: >: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
: >: [my stuff snipped, the topic is her story "A Sailor's Wife"]
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >: The idea that this was supposed to be a
: >: completely fantastic world which was merely similar in ways to Earth didn't
: >: come across in the story.
: >
: >I didn't think it was needed. It's background atmosphere. It's beside
: >the point.
: And while yes, it is besides the point, it's also important for
: establishing a clear story.
I didn't think the story was unclear at all.
: Background details and proper historical reference are important to a
: story.
Not, IMHO, if the story isn't historical in nature.
Robin
In article <8788774...@dejanews.com>,
cr...@aracnet.net wrote:
>My post was not a comment on the quality of any Story in No Justice, No
>Peace. My post was a comment on the importance of background details to
>keep readers from being booted out of the story.
I agree with you, Chris. Background details are extremely useful, they can
work on an almost subliminal level. Even if you don't conciously notice
them they can just make things "feel" right.
Robin.
cr...@aracnet.net
In article <B088DF6B9...@am100.du.pipex.com>,
Robin Ri...@dial.pipex.com (Robin Riggs) wrote:
> I agree with you, Chris. Background details are extremely useful, they can
> work on an almost subliminal level. Even if you don't conciously notice
> them they can just make things "feel" right.
Thanks Robin. Just want to make is clear that I'm not ragging on the
story that you and Elayne did. Like I said, I haven't read it yet. It
does sound like something I'd enjoy though. What I did have a problem
with was Elayne's defence, in which she stated that it didn't matter that
it was the wrong kind of ship, because the point was still the same.
Anyhow, continued success...
C.
cr...@aracnet.net
http://www.aracnet.net/~cro2
cr...@aracnet.net
In article <63v9sv$4...@panix.com>,
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
> : And while yes, it is besides the point, it's also important for
> : establishing a clear story.
>
> I didn't think the story was unclear at all.
Neither did I. However, David did express confusion at the boats of the
different time periods. He also had no idea this story was anything but
historical in nature, let alone on a paralell earth. Or whatever. Sure,
it isn't like Roman Gladiator's wearing Timex Watches in Ben Hur, but if
a mistake enough to be noticed, then it's too big a mistake to include.
> : Background details and proper historical reference are important to a
> : story.
>
> Not, IMHO, if the story isn't historical in nature.
Well then, it's a good thing the story we're talking about, that takes
place in the 12th century is, eh?
C.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
cr...@aracnet.net wrote:
: fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
: > : Background details and proper historical reference are important to a
: > : story.
: >
: > Not, IMHO, if the story isn't historical in nature.
: Well then, it's a good thing the story we're talking about, that takes
: place in the 12th century is, eh?
The story I wrote? "Sailor's Wife?" The one you haven't read? How do
you know when it takes place?
Robin
In article <8790336...@dejanews.com>,
cr...@aracnet.net wrote:
>In article <B088DF6B9...@am100.du.pipex.com>,
> Robin Ri...@dial.pipex.com (Robin Riggs) wrote:
>
>> I agree with you, Chris. Background details are extremely useful, they can
>> work on an almost subliminal level. Even if you don't conciously notice
>> them they can just make things "feel" right.
>
>Thanks Robin. Just want to make is clear that I'm not ragging on the
>story that you and Elayne did. Like I said, I haven't read it yet. It
>does sound like something I'd enjoy though. What I did have a problem
>with was Elayne's defence, in which she stated that it didn't matter that
>it was the wrong kind of ship, because the point was still the same.
>Anyhow, continued success...
Many thanks, Chris. I also agree with Elayne's assertion that it didn't
matter that it was "the wrong kind of ship". Confused? I'll explain. :)
Although I agree with you that the use of historically accurate background
details can help tremendously, in this specific case I made the decision to
leave it ambiguous. I didn't want it pinned to a historical time and place.
(Nobody mentioned that it's a Viking type of longboat but the village isn't
in the fjords) I also didn't want it to be obvously not set on Earth. I
didn't want it to be obviously anywhere.
Many people have told me that they enjoyed the piece. Even the few who said
that they would have preferred the setting to be historically accurate have
said that they enjoyed the story anyway. You can't please everyone and
seeing how many people seem to have got so much from just a two page story
I'm happy that the decision I made was valid for this piece.
Robin.
Agreeing with everyone today. :)
Robin
cr...@aracnet.net wrote:
: fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
: > : Background details and proper historical reference are important to a
: > : story.
: >
: > Not, IMHO, if the story isn't historical in nature.
: Well then, it's a good thing the story we're talking about, that takes
: place in the 12th century is, eh?
No it isn't. I don't know *where* you got that figure, Chris. The apparent
mismatch that was being discussed was a 10th century ship with 14th century
architecture with names that would probably sit more comfortably a few
hundred years later still.
I designed it to be visually ambiguous, to go with the ambiguous genders of
the names in the story. Whatever else this piece was, it was not, and was
never meant to be, historical in context.
Robin.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
cr...@aracnet.net wrote:
: What I did have a problem
: with was Elayne's defence, in which she stated that it didn't matter that
: it was the wrong kind of ship, because the point was still the same.
Well, if my artist didn't mind your criticism, neither did I. :)
cr...@aracnet.net
In article <B08B5AC09...@0.0.0.0>,
Robin Ri...@dial.pipex.com (Robin Riggs) wrote:
> Many thanks, Chris. I also agree with Elayne's assertion that it didn't
> matter that it was "the wrong kind of ship". Confused? I'll explain. :)
Please do. Someone should.
> Although I agree with you that the use of historically accurate background
> details can help tremendously, in this specific case I made the decision to
> leave it ambiguous. I didn't want it pinned to a historical time and place.
> (Nobody mentioned that it's a Viking type of longboat but the village isn't
> in the fjords) I also didn't want it to be obvously not set on Earth. I
> didn't want it to be obviously anywhere.
It was a concious decision then?
Can I ask why exactly? I understand that you felt it important decision
to leave it ambiguous, but why exactly? It's my feeling that the story
was probably hurt by a historically ambiguous setting, at least that's
what I garner from the people who've taken the time to respond. Granted,
most of the responses were "it didn't matter" rather than "I thought the
ambiguity added to the story", but I've only heard people saying it
didn't matter and that it "jarred" them, rather than that it somehow
enhanced the story... I'd like to hear why you thought it important to
not pinpoint setting? Personally I could see it tying in with the
ambiguous nature of the story (same sex relationships, etc.), but I don't
see how it enhances it at all.
> Many people have told me that they enjoyed the piece. Even the few who said
> that they would have preferred the setting to be historically accurate have
> said that they enjoyed the story anyway. You can't please everyone and
> seeing how many people seem to have got so much from just a two page story
> I'm happy that the decision I made was valid for this piece.
Hmm... Well I suppose in the end it's more important that you be happy
with your work. Seeing as we've already settled the idea of background
details, I don't suppose that there's much else to say.. :). However, I
would like to hear why you thought it was important to have ambiguous
location.
Chris
cr...@aracnet.net
http://www.aracnet.net/~cro2
"Cos your mornings will be brighter,
Break the lines, tear up rules,
Make the most of a million times 'no'."
- Bahaus, "hope"
cr...@aracnet.net
In article <B08BD9219...@0.0.0.0>,
Robin Ri...@dial.pipex.com (Robin Riggs) wrote:
> No it isn't. I don't know *where* you got that figure, Chris. The apparent
> mismatch that was being discussed was a 10th century ship with 14th century
> architecture with names that would probably sit more comfortably a few
> hundred years later still.
That? I took the average. :)
Well from my last post then, appropriate apologies to Elayne. The stuff
about her post being a petty snipe still stands, as does most of the rest
of it really, but I do take back the sentence I wrote about knowing when
the story took place. Granted, it's still besides the point as I'm trying
to argue the merit of background details with Elayne, rather than
anything about the story at all, but I feel an apology should be made.
Sorry.
C.
cr...@aracnet.net
http://www.aracnet.net/~cro2
"Cos your mornings will be brighter,
break the lines, tear up rules,
make the most of a million times 'no'."
cr...@aracnet.net
In article <6447kj$p...@panix.com>,
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
> The story I wrote? "Sailor's Wife?" The one you haven't read? How do
> you know when it takes place?
The Short Answer-
Cuz the guy who the thread is named after, Dave, said as much in his
review and subsequent comments. If you'd like, I can find dejanews
reference numbers for you.
Long Answer-
Wow, you're pretty defensive aren't you? Isn't there something in one of
those faq's about Not clipping and ignoring part of a discussion you
don't like in favour of going for a slam? I could cut and paste those for
you too.
Listen, I have no problem with your story, so take your attitude back two
steps. What I do have a problem with is your comment on Novemeber Second
that stated:
not you:
>: The idea that this was supposed to be a
>: completely fantastic world which was merely similar in ways to Earth didn't
>: come across in the story.
You:
>I didn't think it was needed. It's background atmosphere. It's beside
>the point.
Because it's totally and utterly false. It relegates art to a subservient
role, when comics is by nature equally art and story. I'll spell this out
for you. If ONE reader found confusion in the story, because something
was not explained clearly enough for him, than you have in some capacity
failed, as perhaps has your artist.
While the point of the story may still be intact, it comes off as sloppy.
Your artist agreed that yes, background details are important to the
story. I have been, since the beginning of the thread only been arguing
the same point, that background details are important. So why can't you
see this?
Further, next time you want to do this juvenile little sniping take it to
e-mail. It's pretty obvious why I would know when the story is set,
considering it's been the main topic of conversation for the thread. This
was just petty and stupid of you, and while I understand you may feel a
need to protect yourself from my critisism, I think that rationally
arguing the points involved rather than "you haven't even read the
story!" is probably the way to go.
If you want beside the point, your story in this matter is totally beside
the point. I have a problem with your point of view, not your work. I
can't argue your work, I haven't read it. However your point of view is
incredibly evident, to a fault even.
It's been swell.
C.
cr...@aracnet.net
http://www.aracnet.net/~cro2
"Cos your mornings will be brighter,
break the line, tear up rules,
make the most of a million times 'no'"
- Bahaus, "Hope"
Robin
In article <8792195...@dejanews.com>,
cr...@aracnet.net wrote:
>In article <B08B5AC09...@0.0.0.0>,
> Robin Ri...@dial.pipex.com (Robin Riggs) wrote:
>
>> Many thanks, Chris. I also agree with Elayne's assertion that it didn't
>> matter that it was "the wrong kind of ship". Confused? I'll explain. :)
>
>Please do. Someone should.
Well, there's a nice, non aggressive opener.
>> Although I agree with you that the use of historically accurate background
>> details can help tremendously, in this specific case I made the decision to
>> leave it ambiguous. I didn't want it pinned to a historical time and place.
>> (Nobody mentioned that it's a Viking type of longboat but the village isn't
>> in the fjords) I also didn't want it to be obvously not set on Earth. I
>> didn't want it to be obviously anywhere.
>
>It was a concious decision then?
Of course it was a bloody concious decision. When you've read my work I
don't mind if you don't like the decisions I've made, that's part of the
job, but I find the implication that I don't think about what I draw
insulting.
>Can I ask why exactly? I understand that you felt it important decision
>to leave it ambiguous, but why exactly? It's my feeling that the story
>was probably hurt by a historically ambiguous setting, at least that's
>what I garner from the people who've taken the time to respond. Granted,
>most of the responses were "it didn't matter" rather than "I thought the
>ambiguity added to the story", but I've only heard people saying it
>didn't matter and that it "jarred" them, rather than that it somehow
>enhanced the story... I'd like to hear why you thought it important to
>not pinpoint setting? Personally I could see it tying in with the
>ambiguous nature of the story (same sex relationships, etc.), but I don't
>see how it enhances it at all.
If I really thought you cared, Chris, I might bother. If you want to know
the reasons why an artist makes the choices he does, it's probably not a
good idea to openly insult both him and his partner right before you ask.
You're quite welcome to retain any preconceived notions you may harbour
about my work and how I approach it, I honestly no longer care what you
think.
>> Many people have told me that they enjoyed the piece. Even the few who said
>> that they would have preferred the setting to be historically accurate have
>> said that they enjoyed the story anyway. You can't please everyone and
>> seeing how many people seem to have got so much from just a two page story
>> I'm happy that the decision I made was valid for this piece.
>
>Hmm... Well I suppose in the end it's more important that you be happy
>with your work. Seeing as we've already settled the idea of background
>details, I don't suppose that there's much else to say.. :). However, I
>would like to hear why you thought it was important to have ambiguous
>location.
Yes, I'm happy with my work, Chris. It entertained people. That's what it
was meant to do, and that's what it did.
Robin.
Robin
In article <8792188...@dejanews.com>,
cr...@aracnet.net wrote:
>In article <6447kj$p...@panix.com>,
> fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>>
>> The story I wrote? "Sailor's Wife?" The one you haven't read? How do
>> you know when it takes place?
>
>The Short Answer-
>
>Cuz the guy who the thread is named after, Dave, said as much in his
>review and subsequent comments. If you'd like, I can find dejanews
>reference numbers for you.
Yeah, good point, Chris, the reviewer almost always has a better handle on
the staging of a story than the writer or artist do.
>Long Answer-
>
>Wow, you're pretty defensive aren't you? Isn't there something in one of
>those faq's about Not clipping and ignoring part of a discussion you
>don't like in favour of going for a slam? I could cut and paste those for
>you too.
Just who is being defensive, Chris? Elayne asked you some simple
questions.You're the one who wrote a nine paragraph answer to two lines of
questions.
>Listen, I have no problem with your story, so take your attitude back two
>steps. What I do have a problem with is your comment on Novemeber Second
>that stated:
>
>not you:
>>: The idea that this was supposed to be a
>>: completely fantastic world which was merely similar in ways to Earth didn't
>>: come across in the story.
>
>You:
>>I didn't think it was needed. It's background atmosphere. It's beside
>>the point.
>
>Because it's totally and utterly false. It relegates art to a subservient
>role, when comics is by nature equally art and story.
How on earth do you make that leap? For your information, the way we worked
on this story was an experiment. Elayne's script consisted of the captions,
I supplied the art based on what those captions evoked. Where do you get of
making assumptions about how people work together?
>I'll spell this out
>for you. If ONE reader found confusion in the story, because something
>was not explained clearly enough for him, than you have in some capacity
>failed, as perhaps has your artist.
Chris, you're being just plain stupid here. There is NO WAY you can ever
satisfy everyone. It's impossible. All you can do is produce a story to the
best of your ability. There's ALWAYS going to be some who aren't satisfied
with what you do for some reason. Most will do you the courtesy of reading
the story rather than slamming you because your repy to a review of your
work doesn't match with their THEORETICAL NOTIONS of how stories should be
told.
>While the point of the story may still be intact, it comes off as sloppy.
Thank you for calling my work sloppy, Chris, even though you haven't seen
it.
>Your artist agreed that yes, background details are important to the
>story. I have been, since the beginning of the thread only been arguing
>the same point, that background details are important. So why can't you
>see this?
Chris, I was responding to your GENERAL point as you couldn't talk
specifically about our work as you hadn't seen it. You can't have rules
about stories and just apply them to everything in a blanket fashion. Every
story is different and it's treatment should be decided on it's individual
merits. Why do have trouble seeing this?
>Further, next time you want to do this juvenile little sniping take it to
>e-mail.
It wasn't sniping, Chris, you just decided to take it that way. You have a
short fuse when people don't agree with you and you know it. You're way out
of line here.
>It's pretty obvious why I would know when the story is set,
>considering it's been the main topic of conversation for the thread. This
>was just petty and stupid of you, and while I understand you may feel a
>need to protect yourself from my critisism, I think that rationally
>arguing the points involved rather than "you haven't even read the
>story!" is probably the way to go.
We don't need to defend ourselves from your criticism, Chris. Both of us
are just pointing out that in this case you have no idea what you're
talking about. You're basing your general argument on things you've gleaned
from a review and applying them to work when you have no idea of the
context. Everything depends on the context.
>If you want beside the point, your story in this matter is totally beside
>the point. I have a problem with your point of view, not your work. I
>can't argue your work, I haven't read it. However your point of view is
>incredibly evident, to a fault even.
So you're just arguing the toss for the sake of it? Charming.
>It's been swell.
I wish I could say the same.
Robin.
Mike Chary
Robin Riggs <Robin Ri...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>cr...@aracnet.net wrote:
>
>>In article <6447kj$p...@panix.com>,
>> fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>>>
>>> The story I wrote? "Sailor's Wife?" The one you haven't read? How do
>>> you know when it takes place?
>>
>>The Short Answer-
>>
>>Cuz the guy who the thread is named after, Dave, said as much in his
>>review and subsequent comments. If you'd like, I can find dejanews
>>reference numbers for you.
>
>Yeah, good point, Chris, the reviewer almost always has a better handle on
>the staging of a story than the writer or artist do.
Sometimes he does, because the writer and artist know where they meant
the story to take place. The reviewer (or reader) gets to decide how
well they managed to communicate that to anyone else.
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
In Memoriam Richie Ashburn, the Greatest Defensive Center Fielder of All
Time. A hell of a hitter and the best announcer this biased Phillies fan
ever heard. We'll miss you Whitey. :'(
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Chris Butcher <cr...@aracnet.net> wrote:
: fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
: >
: > The story I wrote? "Sailor's Wife?" The one you haven't read? How do
: > you know when it takes place?
: The Short Answer-
: Cuz the guy who the thread is named after, Dave, said as much in his
: review and subsequent comments.
You're basing your criticisms about a story you haven't read on someone
else's review of it?
Ooooo-kay...
: Long Answer-
: Wow, you're pretty defensive aren't you?
Short answer: No, I'm not. I was asking you a question, not giving you
attitude. Right now you're making me regret I unkillfiled you, Chris.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Tom Vincent (SPAMBLO...@capital.net) wrote:
: I haven't yet read No Justice, No Piece! because my local store only
: ordered a couple of copies...
We'll give you one of our comps when we see you in December, dear. We'll
even autograph it for you. :)
: TWO PAGES? TWO FUCKING PAGES?
: All this because Chris can't find enough backround, historical refrences,
: explanation of time and place in TWO FUCKING PAGES??
Not even a matter of not finding it. How can you find or not find
something in a story you haven't even seen? :)
: Cripes. If this ain't a prime example of an assinine nitpick and ball
: busting for the pure joy of ball busting, then one doesn't exist.
Chris has announced his pride in doing just this very thing before.
Oftimes he has a reason to rant. Here I don't think he does. He's taking
offense where none was intended, misconstruing questions as "attitude."
As I said elsewhere, I'm very happy with the response this story has
gotten from the people who've actually read it. Chris' opinion of the
story doesn't really have any weight until he reads it, IMHO. And,
judging by the way he's jumped down my throat, perhaps not even then. :)
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Chris Butcher <cr...@aracnet.net> wrote:
: Well from my last post then, appropriate apologies to Elayne.
Conditionally accepted, since you decided I merited an apology only after
my partner reiterated the same thing I'd said. :)
: The stuff
: about her post being a petty snipe still stands, as does most of the rest
: of it really...
The snipe is all in your head, I assure you. You're taking offense where
none was intended.
Robin
In article <649nvr$37o$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) wrote:
>>>Cuz the guy who the thread is named after, Dave, said as much in his
>>>review and subsequent comments. If you'd like, I can find dejanews
>>>reference numbers for you.
>>
>>Yeah, good point, Chris, the reviewer almost always has a better handle on
>>the staging of a story than the writer or artist do.
>
>Sometimes he does, because the writer and artist know where they meant
>the story to take place. The reviewer (or reader) gets to decide how
>well they managed to communicate that to anyone else.
No, the reviewer can only determine how well something was communicated to
him, not to anyone else. Whether it was something the creators intended to
convey is another matter, but the reviewer can only offer his own reactions
based on his own perceptions. He may try and anticipate how others will
react to the work he's reviewing but again that's a determination based
upon his own perceptions.
Robin.
Tom Vincent
I haven't yet read No Justice, No Piece! because my local store only
ordered a couple of copies, it was a small ship week so the book got wall
space and sold out instantly. All I know is what I've been reading here off
and on.
Having said that:
I snipped a whole bunch of stuff going back and forth and distilled it down
to this-
In article <8792195...@dejanews.com>,
cr...@aracnet.net wrote:
TWO PAGES? TWO FUCKING PAGES?
All this because Chris can't find enough backround, historical refrences,
explanation of time and place in TWO FUCKING PAGES??
Cripes. If this ain't a prime example of an assinine nitpick and ball
busting for the pure joy of ball busting, then one doesn't exist.
---Tom Vincent
Her eyes brimmed with tears. "The Princess is dead, and now the Mother is
gone too. Who will care for all those people? Who will care for the infirm
and the unwanted? Who will do the good works now?" The simplicity of the
answer startled her. "Us", came the reply, "all of us."
RAGING ELF
>
>TWO PAGES? TWO FUCKING PAGES?
>
>All this because Chris can't find enough backround, historical refrences,
>explanation of time and place in TWO FUCKING PAGES??
>
>Cripes. If this ain't a prime example of an assinine nitpick and ball
>busting for the pure joy of ball busting, then one doesn't exist.
>---Tom Vincent
Tom, thank you. You took the words right out of my mouth!! Elayne and Robin
managed to get a mesage across in a two page story. Not easy to do. Trust
me. I had four and found it just as tough. Persoanlly I found Sailors Wife
to be my favorite piece of the whole book. Great job!!
Tony Furtado
Robin
In article <64avbt$c...@eyrie.org>,
dva...@eyrie.org (Dave Van Domelen) wrote:
> What we have here is the central question of "Is a reviewer's opinion
>generalizable to the reading population with any validity?" Or to use more
>familiar terms, "Who cares what reviewers say?"
> Robin seems to be taking one extreme position, that no one's experience
>has any substantial bearing on anyone else's experience. I could review a
>piece until I'm blue in the face and say nothing to the creator about how
>good the piece is. Not only is there no such thing as objective quality (and
>in a work of art, there isn't, not really), but there's also not even a
>shared consensus on subjective quality.
> On the other hand, as Mike claims, a *trained* (whether self-taught or
>apprenticed to someone else) critic has the ability to determine whether a
>work will appeal to its intended audience (or, for that matter, any audience)
>even if he's not part of that audience.
You're misreading my position, Dave. Mike was claiming that a reviewer's
opinion of the work can be **MORE** valid that that of the creator's
because the reviwer gets to decide if the creator's conveyed their ideas to
anyone else. What I'm saying is that there's no way the reviwer's opinion
is any **MORE** valid than that of the creator.
I'm not saying that reviews have no validity, I'm saying that any reviewer
who thinks that their reviews reflect an entire population is being
arrogant and condescending, not just to the people whose work they are
reviewing but to those who read the reviews as well. All the reviwer can do
is offer THEIR opinion on the work, this may or may not coincide with
anyone else's.
The thing I find offensive in Mike's claims, is the idea that those who
earn their living from doing something know less about their intended
readers than a reviewer "trained" or otherwise. It's part of our job to
study our market and know how to communicate with them. You may have an
opinon on how well we communicate but, given that we are making a living
from doing it, the chances are we're doing it well most of the time.
Robin.
Who wonders how anyone could think he was anti-reviewer considering
who his partner is. :) (Cue cheap shot from Chary about Elayne's "essays"
not being "reviews")
Mike Chary
Dave Van Domelen <dva...@pacific.mps.ohio-stae.edu> wrote:
>>>him, not to anyone else.
>>
>>to others.
>
> What we have here is the central question of "Is a reviewer's opinion
>generalizable to the reading population with any validity?" Or to use more
>familiar terms, "Who cares what reviewers say?"
> Robin seems to be taking one extreme position, that no one's experience
>has any substantial bearing on anyone else's experience. I could review a
>piece until I'm blue in the face and say nothing to the creator about how
>good the piece is. Not only is there no such thing as objective quality (and
>in a work of art, there isn't, not really), but there's also not even a
Yes, there is, Dave. YOu can tell how straight a line is. You can
demonstrate that inking a page makes it easier to reproduce. You can tell
that Superman isn't supposed to have green skin.
The questions are which particular qualities matter and what are those
objective standards, but they still exist. I can criticize Copybook
Tales as boring and irrelevant because it talks about high school life
amongst normal teenagers and we get that all over the place, so why
bother again? You can disagree on any number of grounds, but you can't
say that it doesn't cover that particular subject matter or that it is
alone in doing so.
THe problem here is that you claim not to believe in such standards, and
yet you act like they exist.
>shared consensus on subjective quality.
> On the other hand, as Mike claims, a *trained* (whether self-taught or
>apprenticed to someone else) critic has the ability to determine whether a
>work will appeal to its intended audience (or, for that matter, any audience)
>even if he's not part of that audience.
Yes, because people have reasons, generally, for liking or disliking
something. The other approach seems to relegate such decisions to whim.
> Obviously, I side with Mike, otherwise I wouldn't be spending several
>hours a week on reviewing. I don't claim to have much in the way of
>training, but in five years of just doing it, I'm bound to have picked up
>some skill in determining whether a work is well-crafted or not. It's more
>than just opinion of like/dislike, which I'm often in the minority on, it's
>also a matter of knowing what sorts of things work and don't work.
Thinking critically about something for a while usually allows some
revelation :)
>not all of the ones who know give a damn. On the other hand, when I
>complained about stilted dialogue and stupid heroes in Starman #38, that was
>a concern I felt (correctly) would be shared by a great many readers. I've
I wrote a letter to DC telling them I thought Starman 38 was a
dissappointment, and I'm Starman's biggest fan.
Mike Chary
>
>>Wrong. A trained critic can recognize how well an artifact communicates
>>ridden bunk, but I recognize that for people who wanted to read those
>>stories, it communicated them well. I just didn't happen to think they
>>were worth communicating to begin with.
>
>Strange as it may seem, Mike, it's been known for a trained writer or
>artist to be able to judge how people will view their work too. The idea
Is that how that works? You might try it sometime then, because people
are now *telling* you how they perceived your particular work, and you
seem determined to wash it away.
>that your perceptions of Scare Tactics are any more valid than those of the
>creative team on the book is incredibly arrogant.
I never said my perception of Scare Tactics was more valid. I said I
didn't find their stories to be worth telling. What I said about Scare
Tactics that was actually germane to reader response communication, otoh,
was it did communicate its intent.
And it wouldn't be "arrogant" even if that's what I did say. As
subjective as the opinions of a given audience member are, the author
actually *knows* what he intended, and he can't help but be influenced by
that. The proper (now *that's* arrogant :)) response to "I didn't get
that." from a reader is "Sorry it didn't work for you. I'll try harder next
time." and maybe add some explanation in. See Priest for examples. The
wrong response is "Well, I'm the author, and I know what I meant, and
what makes you think a reader knows more?"
>>Nope, sorry, a good critic can step outside his perceptions and attack as
>>an agent for a wider audience.
>
>He may give his opinion (which can include his opinion on how others will
>view the work) and that is ALL. Anything else is self delusion.
Sort of like what you're doing now, huh?
The position that "All opinions are relative" is inherently
contradictory in that it itself is an absolute statement.
Mike Chary
>>generalizable to the reading population with any validity?" Or to use more
>>familiar terms, "Who cares what reviewers say?"
>> Robin seems to be taking one extreme position, that no one's experience
>>has any substantial bearing on anyone else's experience. I could review a
>>piece until I'm blue in the face and say nothing to the creator about how
>>good the piece is. Not only is there no such thing as objective quality (and
>>in a work of art, there isn't, not really), but there's also not even a
>> On the other hand, as Mike claims, a *trained* (whether self-taught or
>>apprenticed to someone else) critic has the ability to determine whether a
>>work will appeal to its intended audience (or, for that matter, any audience)
>>even if he's not part of that audience.
>
>opinion of the work can be **MORE** valid that that of the creator's
>because the reviwer gets to decide if the creator's conveyed their ideas to
>anyone else. What I'm saying is that there's no way the reviwer's opinion
>is any **MORE** valid than that of the creator.
Yes, there is, because what we are discussing is how well a work speaks
to the audience. The reaction of the audience becomes an important part.
The reviewer, whatever else he might be, *IS PART OF THE AUDIENCE!* Get
it? You seem to think that the author, who one hopes knows what he
meant, is totally objective in his ability to decide if the reader
understood what the work is conveying. It does not work that way. Once
the work is out of your hands, the reader is working on his own.
>I'm not saying that reviews have no validity, I'm saying that any reviewer
>who thinks that their reviews reflect an entire population is being
>arrogant and condescending, not just to the people whose work they are
>reviewing but to those who read the reviews as well. All the reviwer can do
>is offer THEIR opinion on the work, this may or may not coincide with
>anyone else's
Riggs, a reviewer can generalize to an audience. Elayne, makes this effort
every time she reviews, practically. For example her claims that
"Cyberfrog" is misogynistic and not funny weren't about a personal
reaction, but a claim about inherent qualities of the work.
>The thing I find offensive in Mike's claims, is the idea that those who
>earn their living from doing something know less about their intended
>readers than a reviewer "trained" or otherwise.
What I find offensive in your attitude is the idea that the *readers*
don't know their reactions. Newsflash, a reviewer is a reader. You're being
told by readers how they reacted.
You get paid to do one thing, Riggs. Draw. Well enough that whoever your
editor is pays you. Your living isn't dependent on whether the reader
understands what you are trying to get across. You get more if lots of
readers buy it. But your living is made on advance work not on reader
reaction. Have you never had an editor tell you that your work was too
muddy? When he did, did you say "Well, what do you know? That's only one
opinion? The other readers will get it?"
>It's part of our job to
>study our market and know how to communicate with them. You may have an
>opinon on how well we communicate but, given that we are making a living
>from doing it, the chances are we're doing it well most of the time.
Really? How much time do you devote to this? What do you get paid if you
don't? Does it affect your page rate? Do you poll individual readers?
Your reaction in this thread to how individuals have reacted to your
work borders on rage. YOu do realize that one gauge for how readers
understand your work is reviews?
Steve Lieber
> >
> >You're misreading my position, Dave. Mike was claiming that a reviewer's
> >opinion of the work can be **MORE** valid that that of the creator's
> >because the reviwer gets to decide if the creator's conveyed their ideas to
> >anyone else. What I'm saying is that there's no way the reviwer's opinion
> >is any **MORE** valid than that of the creator.
I disagree, Robin. I've seen a lot of work out there by cartoonists who
can't seem to correct even the most basic problems in their drawing and
storytelling. When someone tries to draw a chase sequence without
following the central axis rule or clearly tagging the characters, a
reviewer's opinion that the scene doesn't work is a lot more valid than
the creator's opinion that it does.
Another example: suppose that Dick Van Dyke believes that his
chimneysweep in Mary Poppins was an accurate imitation of the speech of
London's working poor. How valid would Dick's opinion be compared to
that an actual Londoner?
Lieber
Bradly E. Peterson
SPAMBLO...@capital.net (Tom Vincent) done said this here
deal:
>TWO PAGES? TWO FUCKING PAGES?
>All this because Chris can't find enough backround, historical refrences,
>explanation of time and place in TWO FUCKING PAGES??
>Cripes. If this ain't a prime example of an assinine nitpick and ball
>busting for the pure joy of ball busting, then one doesn't exist.
HEY! You left out the hyphen on "ball-busting", you ignorant
slut! I can't believe you'd do this! Why, Tom? Why???
(PSSST! Tom! There's you another one. heh...)
Bradly E. Peterson, Psychodrama Press
(Remove SPAMBLOCK from address to reply)
<http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama>
"You can't go home again,
they might pull off your skin."
(Shawn Hill on "The Invisibles")
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: >
: >>Wrong. A trained critic can recognize how well an artifact communicates
: >>to others. For instance, I personally hated Scare Tactics as cliche
: >>were worth communicating to begin with.
: >
: >Strange as it may seem, Mike, it's been known for a trained writer or
: >artist to be able to judge how people will view their work too. The idea
: Is that how that works? You might try it sometime then, because people
: are now *telling* you how they perceived your particular work, and you
: seem determined to wash it away.
Point of clarification: Chris Butcher wasn't telling Robin how he
perceived "Sailor's Wife." Chris Butcher has never seen the work in
question.
: The proper (now *that's* arrogant :)) response to "I didn't get
: that." from a reader is "Sorry it didn't work for you. I'll try harder next
: time." and maybe add some explanation in.
Not always. I would agree that the first sentence should be uttered, but,
for instance, if just this one reader didn't get something that others
did, and if the creator feels he or she *did* put that something in the
work, I would stop after "sorry." I might add "Hope you like another
project I've done/I'm doing better than you liked this," but I wouldn't
say "I'll try harder" if I thought I'd succeeded in general with others.
"I'll try harder" implies a failing on my part rather than a failing on
the reader's part. And as an avid reader who has been known to fail at
times <g>, I have to imagine others occasionally misread as well.
As Robin has said, you can't hope to connect perfectly with everyone when
you create a story. You can hope that the story will come out to your own
satisfaction, which "Sailor's Wife" certainly has in my and Robin's case;
and you can hope people derive enjoyment out of it, which also appears to
be the case. Just as you can't fool all of the people all of the time,
you can't please all of the people all of the time. People's tastes,
expectations, desires, etc. are just too disparate for that.
: The position that "All opinions are relative" is inherently
: contradictory in that it itself is an absolute statement.
I don't understand this. Do you mean to say that people's subjective
tastes and expectations DON'T actually differ? That would seem facially
absurd. Of course they do.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
My beloved partner Robin Riggs (Robin...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
: What I'm saying is that there's no way the reviwer's opinion
: is any **MORE** valid than that of the creator.
I think it can be, in the absence of an opinion from the creator. I don't
have direct communication with the creators on at least half of the books
I review, so I can only guess at their opinions of their work. (I'm sure
some feel they're only in it for the money, some feel they've created
masterpieces, some feel they're just funnybooks and folks are reading too
much into it, etc.) In fact, absent an opinion from the creator, and
assuming the work *doesn't* "speak for itself," one is left with little
choice than to use one's own interpretive faculties.
I assume you're talking about the intent of the story, rather than the
quality thereof? Because lord knows we've seen enough writers and artists
who think their stuff is nifty, and enough readers for whom it makes their
eyes bleed. :)
Mike Chary
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>: Robin Riggs <Robin Ri...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>: >fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) wrote:
>: >
>: >>Wrong. A trained critic can recognize how well an artifact communicates
>: >>to others. For instance, I personally hated Scare Tactics as cliche
>: >>ridden bunk, but I recognize that for people who wanted to read those
>: >>stories, it communicated them well. I just didn't happen to think they
>: >>were worth communicating to begin with.
>: >
>: >Strange as it may seem, Mike, it's been known for a trained writer or
>: >artist to be able to judge how people will view their work too. The idea
>
>: Is that how that works? You might try it sometime then, because people
>: are now *telling* you how they perceived your particular work, and you
>: seem determined to wash it away.
>
>Point of clarification: Chris Butcher wasn't telling Robin how he
>perceived "Sailor's Wife." Chris Butcher has never seen the work in
>question.
I wasn't just referring to Butcher. He's one guy, and I used the plural :)
>: The proper (now *that's* arrogant :)) response to "I didn't get
>: that." from a reader is "Sorry it didn't work for you. I'll try harder next
>: time." and maybe add some explanation in.
>
>Not always. I would agree that the first sentence should be uttered, but,
>for instance, if just this one reader didn't get something that others
>did, and if the creator feels he or she *did* put that something in the
>work, I would stop after "sorry." I might add "Hope you like another
>project I've done/I'm doing better than you liked this," but I wouldn't
>say "I'll try harder" if I thought I'd succeeded in general with others.
>"I'll try harder" implies a failing on my part rather than a failing on
>the reader's part. And as an avid reader who has been known to fail at
>times <g>, I have to imagine others occasionally misread as well.
Okay, well, if not those exact words, then at least *something to
indicate you aren't ignoring a potential reader.
>: The position that "All opinions are relative" is inherently
>: contradictory in that it itself is an absolute statement.
>
>I don't understand this. Do you mean to say that people's subjective
>tastes and expectations DON'T actually differ? That would seem facially
>absurd. Of course they do.
No, I am saying that "All opinions are relative." is itself an opinion
and an absolute statement. So it would seem that at least one opinion is
not relative, the opinion that all opinions are relative. That is
inherently contradictory
JohannaLD
From: fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput)
>Right now you're making me regret I unkillfiled you, Chris.
Now, this threat lends an interesting perspective to the Killfiles
thread going on next door.
Johanna
David Van Domelen
In article <64c69j$6pu$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
>>in a work of art, there isn't, not really), but there's also not even a
>
>demonstrate that inking a page makes it easier to reproduce. You can tell
>that Superman isn't supposed to have green skin.
Whoops, sorry. I've been too mired lately in discussions of objective
reality from a scientific viewpoint on a mailing list I'm on. What I meant
by "no such thing as objective quality" was that, frankly, the universe
doesn't care if you colored Superman green, or if the line is bent. I'm
including things like "Superman shouldn't have green skin" under subjective
matters. Heck, to a Coluan, a green-skinned Superman would finally be
getting it right! }->
Dave Van Domelen, doesn't think Superman should be blue-skinned either,
but that's even further from objective....
Robin
In article <64asf6$jgk$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) wrote:
>Wrong. A trained critic can recognize how well an artifact communicates
>to others. For instance, I personally hated Scare Tactics as cliche
>ridden bunk, but I recognize that for people who wanted to read those
>stories, it communicated them well. I just didn't happen to think they
>were worth communicating to begin with.
Strange as it may seem, Mike, it's been known for a trained writer or
artist to be able to judge how people will view their work too. The idea
that your perceptions of Scare Tactics are any more valid than those of the
creative team on the book is incredibly arrogant.
>Nope, sorry, a good critic can step outside his perceptions and attack as
>an agent for a wider audience.
He may give his opinion (which can include his opinion on how others will
view the work) and that is ALL. Anything else is self delusion.
Robin.
Denise L. Voskuil
In article <B08F13259...@0.0.0.0>, Robin...@dial.pipex.com says...
>You're misreading my position, Dave. Mike was claiming that a reviewer's
>opinion of the work can be **MORE** valid that that of the creator's
>because the reviwer gets to decide if the creator's conveyed their ideas to
>is any **MORE** valid than that of the creator.
This isn't necessarily true - if the creators _think_ that they are conveying
their messages, but much of their intended audience completely miss them, then
perhaps the creator has not succeeded in their work.
To use another example since Diamond didn't ship _No Justice, No Piece_ to my
shop, Zander Cannon's art in _The Replacement God_ has sometimes been compared
to looking at a Rorschach test. Now, it is actually clearer than inkblots and
has certainly improved since issue 1. However, when many people complain in
reviews that the story is hard to follow because of problems with the clarity
of the art - including in reviews of the most recent issue - do you think
Cannon's opinion of how well he is telling his story is really more valid than
theirs? If he's one of those comics creators who doesn't necessarily care what
the reader thinks, but wishes to simply create a work and put it out there to
be read or not, then yes, his opinion could be more valid.
>The thing I find offensive in Mike's claims, is the idea that those who
>earn their living from doing something know less about their intended
>readers than a reviewer "trained" or otherwise. It's part of our job to
>study our market and know how to communicate with them. You may have an
>opinon on how well we communicate but, given that we are making a living
>from doing it, the chances are we're doing it well most of the time.
Clearer communication, if enough readers seem to desire it, could improve that
living; I'd wager Cannon's sales would increase if he could work on making his
art a bit easier to understand, and I know I wouldn't ponder dropping the book.
I'll note that even though I do not make a living from drawing or writing,
that's partly by choice, and even if I had no creative ability myself, it would
not mean I am unable to properly distinguish skill from lack thereof. I'll
also add the aside comment here that it's important to remember neither sales
nor communication clarity necessarily translate to quality - witness the list
of top selling comics for the first example here.
- Denise
--
Denise L. Voskuil - dvoskuil@: uic.edu/mcs.com/eden.com
I'm too low in the hierarchy here to officially even
*have* an opinion.
Mike Chary
>: >Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>: >: time." and maybe add some explanation in.
>: >
>: >Not always. I would agree that the first sentence should be uttered, but,
>: >for instance, if just this one reader didn't get something that others
>: >did, and if the creator feels he or she *did* put that something in the
>: >work, I would stop after "sorry." I might add "Hope you like another
>: >project I've done/I'm doing better than you liked this," but I wouldn't
>: >say "I'll try harder" if I thought I'd succeeded in general with others.
>: >"I'll try harder" implies a failing on my part rather than a failing on
>: >the reader's part. And as an avid reader who has been known to fail at
>: >times <g>, I have to imagine others occasionally misread as well.
>
>: Okay, well, if not those exact words, then at least *something to
>: indicate you aren't ignoring a potential reader.
>
>you want people to read your stuff, it doesn't hurt to be nice to them"
>anyway, something I didn't think needed to be said.
I didn't either until I read Riggs' responses.
>: >: The position that "All opinions are relative" is inherently
>: >: contradictory in that it itself is an absolute statement.
>: >
>: >I don't understand this. Do you mean to say that people's subjective
>: >tastes and expectations DON'T actually differ? That would seem facially
>: >absurd. Of course they do.
>
>: No, I am saying that "All opinions are relative." is itself an opinion
>: and an absolute statement.
>
>Why? If you have evidence that person A has a different opinion than
>person B and person C, doesn't that make the statement "all opinions are
>relative/subjective/whatever" a statement of fact?
I'm of the opinion that 2+2=4 in base 10 mathematics.
Carl Fink
On 12 Nov 1997 12:09:23 GMT, Mike Chary <fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>THe problem here is that you claim not to believe in such standards, and
>yet you act like they exist.
Mike, I read Dave not as claiming the standards are non-existent, but
rather that they are not objective.
That is, yes, you can tell a straight line from a shaky one (or a
punch line :)), but you can't objectively say that straight is
*better* than shaky.
>I wrote a letter to DC telling them I thought Starman 38 was a
>dissappointment, and I'm Starman's biggest fan.
Wow, the biggest Starman *and* Wildfire fan in the world.
Interesting, especially since the characters are so different.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
"With some technology, you get the feeling that the designers weren't fully
considering ease of use. With ISDN, you get the feeling that the designers
hate your friggin' guts." -Scott Adams
Tom Vincent
>You get paid to do one thing, Riggs.
Diana's around? i *love* her. Decked out in all that leather inthose old
Avengers episodes...
>Draw.
Oh. I guess you mean Robin.
>Well enough that whoever your
>editor is pays you. Your living isn't dependent on whether the reader
>understands what you are trying to get across.
Actually, Mike, his living *is*. If his editor starts getting complaints
that there's a problem with the artwork, Robin (or any other artist) is
hitting the pavement PDQ. That's what happens in the entertainment
industry- you fail to entertain well, you fail to get your next paycheck.
>Robin wrote:
>>It's part of our job to
>>study our market and know how to communicate with them. You may have an
>>opinon on how well we communicate but, given that we are making a living
>>from doing it, the chances are we're doing it well most of the time.
>
>Really? How much time do you devote to this? What do you get paid if you
>don't? Does it affect your page rate? Do you poll individual readers?
Well actually, reader feedback is our market research. that reader feedback
occurs in many places, like the comic shop, the place where you buy your
art supplies, conventions, usenet....
No, we don't get paid for it. If I'm not mistaken, it actually _costs us
money_. I mean, I could swear that I see a posting from Capital Net every
month on my mastercard statement. I'm pretty sure that when I went to the
Make A Wish con in Syracuse last spring, I sprung for gas and tolls on the
NYS Thruway. I'm pretty sure that my last trip to the comic store involved
some outlay of cash, as did my last trip to Arlene's Artist Supply in
Albany.
I suspect that "Riggs" has similar expenses.
>Your reaction in this thread to how individuals have reacted to your
>work borders on rage. YOu do realize that one gauge for how readers
>understand your work is reviews?
It's refreshing to know I'm not the only pro you've got it in for.
Oh, yeah... yer not readin'. (hee, hee)
NYAH, NYAH!
sense and damonsense
Mike Chary wrote:
> >Why? If you have evidence that person A has a different opinion than
> >person B and person C, doesn't that make the statement "all opinions are
> >relative/subjective/whatever" a statement of fact?
>
> I'm of the opinion that 2+2=4 in base 10 mathematics.
[1] so the answer's relative to base 10 mathematics.
[2] it's a derivation from a definition, more
than an opinion.
--
"Oh no, i think i'll call it, i feel a false alarm...well, i've
opened my eyes, just, just, just to refuse/ well, if i just held
back, back, back, and listened to your cues." Yo La Tengo,
"False Alarm" 38 IS DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mark Schlesinger
In article <64di64$r4t$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
Mike Chary <ma...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Why? If you have evidence that person A has a different opinion than
>>person B and person C, doesn't that make the statement "all opinions are
>>relative/subjective/whatever" a statement of fact?
>
>I'm of the opinion that 2+2=4 in base 10 mathematics.
>
Mark
--
Mark Schlesinger When criminals in this world appear
schl...@primenet.com And break the laws that they should fear
Typical Boring Sig And frighten all who see and hear
The cry goes up both far and near for Underdog
Mike Chary
Carl Fink <ca...@dm.net> wrote:
>On 12 Nov 1997 12:09:23 GMT, Mike Chary <fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>>THe problem here is that you claim not to believe in such standards, and
>>yet you act like they exist.
>
>Mike, I read Dave not as claiming the standards are non-existent, but
>rather that they are not objective.
>
>That is, yes, you can tell a straight line from a shaky one (or a
>punch line :)), but you can't objectively say that straight is
>*better* than shaky.
You can in context.
>>I wrote a letter to DC telling them I thought Starman 38 was a
>>dissappointment, and I'm Starman's biggest fan.
>
>Wow, the biggest Starman *and* Wildfire fan in the world.
>Interesting, especially since the characters are so different.
I like both Buddy Guy and Glenn Gould too :)
cr...@aracnet.net
In article <B08E5E379...@0.0.0.0>,> In article <649nvr$37o$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
> fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) wrote:
>
> >>>Cuz the guy who the thread is named after, Dave, said as much in his
> >>>review and subsequent comments. If you'd like, I can find dejanews
> >>>reference numbers for you.
> >>
> >>Yeah, good point, Chris, the reviewer almost always has a better handle on
> >>the staging of a story than the writer or artist do.
> >
> >Sometimes he does, because the writer and artist know where they meant
> >the story to take place. The reviewer (or reader) gets to decide how
> >well they managed to communicate that to anyone else.
>
> convey is another matter, but the reviewer can only offer his own reactions
> based on his own perceptions. He may try and anticipate how others will
> react to the work he's reviewing but again that's a determination based
> upon his own perceptions.
I disagree (surprised?). When I review a work, or at least gush openly
about it, I do so speaking not only for myself, but also others at the
store who've told me their feelings on a book. I do agree though that
reviewers do have to do some anticipitory work when reccomending books to
others, but personally I can do both.
They say that whenever somebody writes a letter to a company, that person
speaks for 100 other people. I'd like to think that a Usenet review is
along the same wavelength, but on a proportionally smaller scale. There
are at least 20 people out there who share the same feelings of the
reviewer. While they may not be on Usenet, or they may not be POSTING on
usenet (hi, lurkers!) they are still out there.
Summary Point: Some Reviewers offer more than their own perceptions up in
reviews. Personally I offer my own ideas/comments as well as those of
people at work (comic store).
C.
cr...@aracnet.net
http://www.aracnet.net/~cro2
(apologies for bad typing, cut finger, big band-aid)
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
cr...@aracnet.net
In article <B08DE0509...@af251.du.pipex.com>,
Robin Ri...@dial.pipex.com (Robin Riggs) wrote:
> >The Short Answer-
> >
> >Cuz the guy who the thread is named after, Dave, said as much in his
> >review and subsequent comments. If you'd like, I can find dejanews
> >reference numbers for you.
>
> Yeah, good point, Chris, the reviewer almost always has a better handle on
> the staging of a story than the writer or artist do.
Well when the reviewers questions of the work are met with the kind of
answers Elayne gave out, "It doesn't matter that you didn't think the the
portrayal was accurate, it was besides the point." and "It doesn't matter
that you had no idea it was set on a fantasy world because the
writing/art didn't explain this clearly enough, because it was besides
the point." it doesn't exactly paint the picture that anyone is supposed
to have a handle on the staging.
But getting back to the point, since Elayne never chalenged Dave's
assertion of time-setting, and instead told him what he thought was
irrelevant, I had no reason not to believe Dave. Think of it this way.
You go to McDonalds. You ask for a hamburger. It's called a hamburger, so
you assume that there's meat in it. You order a hamburger. The person
your order doesn't say anything, no one says anything about it being real
hamburger. So, you assume that's what it is. Doesn't mean you're not
wrong, just means that no one told you any different.
> Just who is being defensive, Chris? Elayne asked you some simple
> questions.You're the one who wrote a nine paragraph answer to two lines of
> questions.
if you gotta go, go with style. That, and considering that Elayne met all
of MY questions with "You haven't even read the story", I felt that
better outlining my point of view was necessary. Speaking of which, she
has yet to respond. To either this post, or properly to the first one.
> >Elayne:
> >>I didn't think it was needed. It's background atmosphere. It's beside
> >>the point.
> >
> >Because it's totally and utterly false. It relegates art to a subservient
> >role, when comics is by nature equally art and story.
>
> How on earth do you make that leap? For your information, the way we worked
> on this story was an experiment. Elayne's script consisted of the captions,
> I supplied the art based on what those captions evoked. Where do you get of
> making assumptions about how people work together?
The way anyone else does... Listening to them, hearing about their
working relationship, how people react to the stories... That's how I
learned how Preist and Bright worked together... Why, how do YOU get off
making assumptions about how people work together?
As for the first question, how I make the leap. If you'll note, Elayne's
sentence when put into context means "It doesn't matter that you couldn't
understand why we used 10th and 14th century background artwork, because
it was beside the point of the story." This to me denotes that the art in
question wasn't important, only the point (writing) of the story was. If
you don't see this, or you're okay with this, then you're welcome to your
opinion, because it's your art she's calling into question the importance
of. I couldn't work in a similar situation, but then I don't have to.
> Chris, you're being just plain stupid here. There is NO WAY you can ever
> satisfy everyone. It's impossible. All you can do is produce a story to the
> best of your ability. There's ALWAYS going to be some who aren't satisfied
> with what you do for some reason. Most will do you the courtesy of reading
> the story rather than slamming you because your repy to a review of your
> work doesn't match with their THEORETICAL NOTIONS of how stories should be
> told.
Okay... I'm not going to say anything particularly inflamitory here,
because in some capacity I'd like to think this is a still a debate,
rather than pointless flaming/flame batiting. So, to respond, no I don't
think I'm stupid, yes it is important to work to the best of your ability
but sometimes that simply isn't enough. Also, while there are some people
that are going to be displeased with the story, that isn't the issue at
all. The issue is (and has been) the importance of background details
relevant to not only your story, but others. I say that they're
particularly important in establishing setting, mood, etc. Elayne says
that they're not particularly important. You say that they're important,
and clearly explained your point of view and choices for your work, which
if it had been the original reply instead of "that's not important" would
have superceded this whole argument. The only thread in existence would
be the one where I asked you why you chose a deliberatly ambiguous
setting, instead of this mess. But that's pretty much besides the point.
> >While the point of the story may still be intact, it comes off as sloppy.
>
> Thank you for calling my work sloppy, Chris, even though you haven't seen
> it.
Not work, attitude. A sense of carelessness was conveyed. However, I'd
like to reform this opinion and say that it was instead a belligerent
attitude, mixed with a string of ineffective and terse answers. It only
took 6 days for you to step in and go "no, this is why we did it" instead
of "it wasn't important anyway", when all I asked for was the why...
> Chris, I was responding to your GENERAL point as you couldn't talk
> specifically about our work as you hadn't seen it. You can't have rules
> about stories and just apply them to everything in a blanket fashion. Every
> story is different and it's treatment should be decided on it's individual
> merits. Why do have trouble seeing this?
I don't. I'd hate to relegate the whole discussion to being on different
play fields. My blanket generalities are just that, generalities. I then
specifically applied it to several pieces of work, yours included, using
means at hand. Specifically, reader reaction and commentary from one of
it's own creators. I know full well that a generality can't be applied to
everything. So now we come to the cruxt. Either:
a) I was speaking generalities, and Elayne was discussing only "Sailor's
Wife". THis would mean that she was indeed relegating your artwork to a
second and "unimportant" role, one that I know to be untrue because your
artwork was a deliberate choice...
or
b) I was talking generalities, and Elayne was arguing generalities, in
which case I am right, and I've got you to back me up because you said
two days ago that art and details are indeed important.
Which is it? Ask Elayne too, because I'd honestly like to know.
> It wasn't sniping, Chris, you just decided to take it that way. You have a
> short fuse when people don't agree with you and you know it. You're way out
> of line here.
I am out of line, but not that far. I'm a reactive jerk, but that doesn't
preclude me from being right, specifically in this instance. I ask
specific questions about the nature/construction of the story, your
working relationship (how do YOU get off making ssumptions about working
relationships.. I do it by asking questions), as well as questions about
the larger role of stories vs. art, and I'm met with "you didn't even
read the story!" and I'm supposed to accept this as a reasoned, balanced
answer that isn't sniping, belligerent, or inflamitory? Hell, she could
have said "Fuck Off" and not only made more sense, but done away with the
whole charade of impartiality and even attempting to intelligently answer
my questions. Instead I got that, and if you want to say that was a
non-inflamitory answer, then you're going to have to lie.
> We don't need to defend ourselves from your criticism, Chris. Both of us
> are just pointing out that in this case you have no idea what you're
> talking about. You're basing your general argument on things you've gleaned
> from a review and applying them to work when you have no idea of the
> context. Everything depends on the context.
I'll save you the trouble of combing through my last ten days posts
looking for the sentence "Your story doesn't work because of the things
I've pointed out", because you won't find it. You'll find me asking a
whole lot of questions as to why you (general you, not specific you)
chose to do things certain ways, why you said so many stupid things, why
you refused to explain yourself, and why you (again, collective you as
you appear to be speaking for Elayne here) decided to take this ugly tone
with me.
And I know that in some instances, you (Robin) have answered some
questions thoughtfully and succinctly, Elayne has in the same instances
NOT, and since you answer my questions for Elayne, I'm going to have to
keep it in generalities. I hope this doesn't confuse the argument any
further.
> So you're just arguing the toss for the sake of it? Charming.
No. Sigh. I'm arguing because I am in posession of a certain point of
view, and that point of view was challenged. Rather than acede my point
of view, I argued it, and as inevetibly happens with most Rac arguments
it turned into this ungodly mess that has nothing to do with my original
argument, despite NUMEROUS attempts by me to get it back on topic.
I'd again like to note that if your response, where you explained that
the art was deliberate choice, or if a piece of your above message "We
don't feel the need to defend ourselves from your critisism" had been the
original responses to my questions, that none of this would have
happened. If you (general you) had explained, or at least decided not to
explain, there would be none of this name-calling flame-baiting bullshit.
Tell Elayne to think about that, would you?
> I wish I could say the same.
me too. I'd like to have an intelligent argument one day, but everyone
seems to think a pre-emptive flame attack is necessary when dealing with
me, and silly me I always sink to their level. Maybe if I didn't bother
think as highly of some people as I do, they wouldn't consistantly
disapoint?
C.
cr...@aracnet.net
http://www.aracnet.net
(Apologies for spelling, cut my finger, big band-aid, hard to type)
cr...@aracnet.net
In article <6447iq$o...@panix.com>,
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
> cr...@aracnet.net wrote:
>
> : What I did have a problem
> : with was Elayne's defence, in which she stated that it didn't matter that
> : it was the wrong kind of ship, because the point was still the same.
>
> Well, if my artist didn't mind your criticism, neither did I. :)
I'd like to remind you that up until this point, your artist maintained
that it wasn't the wrong ship, but a concious decision. I'd also like to
offer up that Robin didn't mind the critisism for other reasons, like he
thought I was totally off the mark. Not that I was correct, and that you
actually thought his art didn't matter.
Thanks for clearing that up Elayne. You've answered many of the questions
I just posed to Robin and yourself in my last message.
C.
cr...@aracnet.net
http://www.aracnet.net/~cro2
cr...@aracnet.net
In article <64cfp4$g...@panix.com>,
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
> Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
> : Robin Riggs <Robin Ri...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> : >
> : >>Wrong. A trained critic can recognize how well an artifact communicates
> : >>to others. For instance, I personally hated Scare Tactics as cliche
> : >>ridden bunk, but I recognize that for people who wanted to read those
> : >>stories, it communicated them well. I just didn't happen to think they
> : >>were worth communicating to begin with.
> : >
> : >Strange as it may seem, Mike, it's been known for a trained writer or
> : >artist to be able to judge how people will view their work too. The idea
>
> : are now *telling* you how they perceived your particular work, and you
> : seem determined to wash it away.
>
> Point of clarification: Chris Butcher wasn't telling Robin how he
> perceived "Sailor's Wife." Chris Butcher has never seen the work in
> question.
Point of Clarification: Chris Butcher wasn't refering to Chris Butcher in
his messages either. Chris had never refered to a personal
dissatisfaction with the story, Chris always refered to the
dissatisfaction felt on the part of Dave, the reviewer of the work (See:
Original Dave's Rants posts). Chris would like to point out that Chris
has said this in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 different times, and for some
reason neither Elayne or Robin can grasp it.
Chris hopes that all parties now concerned can get it through their thick
skulls as to what exactly Chris has and hasn't said, has and hasn't read,
and hopefully realize that Mike is making an excellent point with this
message, which in and of itself surprises the hell out of Chris.
Thank you,
Chris. cr...@aracnet.net http://www.aracnet.net/~cro2 (Chris would
apologive for wierd spelling mistakes, as Chris has a rather large
band-aid on his ndex finger that is making typing rather Chris'n
difficult.)
cr...@aracnet.net
Posted/Mailed. Reply to either/both.
In article <64a20t$r...@panix.com>,
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
> Not even a matter of not finding it. How can you find or not find
> something in a story you haven't even seen? :)
Or if it's not there?
> Chris has announced his pride in doing just this very thing before.
When?
> Chris' opinion of the
> story doesn't really have any weight until he reads it, IMHO. And,
> judging by the way he's jumped down my throat, perhaps not even then. :)
I was going to go off on a tangent about how you treat nothing I say as
if it matters anyway, but I think that I'll stick to the point that I've
never made a quality judgement on the story...
C.
cr...@aracnet.net
http://www.aracnet.net/~cro2
> - Elayne
> --
> "Very few people possess true artistic ability. It is therefore both
> unseemly and unproductive to irritate the situation by making an effort.
> If you have a burning, restless urge to write or paint, simply eat
> something sweet and the feeling will pass." - Fran Lebowitz
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
cr...@aracnet.net
In article <64a1h9$q...@panix.com>,
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
> : Cuz the guy who the thread is named after, Dave, said as much in his
> : review and subsequent comments.
>
> You're basing your criticisms about a story you haven't read on someone
> else's review of it?
>
> Ooooo-kay...
Say it with me now... "critisisms of my point of view"... Unless you can
prove where I critisized a story I admitted to not reading, and have
frequently tried to maintain this, despite successful attempts to move
away from this topic.
You might also note, that all critisisms of the story presented were
given due credit as those of the reviewer, and not my own. Frequently.
Why are you saying the above as if it were a surprise.
Further, we all make critisisms based on other peoples reviews, formally
or informally. "I want to go see the Starship Troopers." No, I heard it
sucked."
> : Wow, you're pretty defensive aren't you?
>
> Short answer: No, I'm not. I was asking you a question, not giving you
> attitude. Right now you're making me regret I unkillfiled you, Chris.
Asking a question.. Heh, allright. I've asked you and RObin to take me at
my word a couple times today, I'll return the favour. If you do honestly
maintain that you meant no offence, then I'll accept that. I apolgize for
calling you a liar in this matter. This doesn't excuse several other
points I've made, but if you honestly meant your "question" in an honest
manner, then I aplogize for mis-interpretting it, and attacking you based
on my mis-interpretation.
As for unkillfiling me? I don't particularly care if you regret it or
not. I frequently post some excellent stuff all over the newsgroup. If
you can't handle what you perceive to be the "bad" parts of my posting
with the obvious good ones, then you're only going cheat yourself. But
we've had this argument before. Do me a favour though, and keep my
killfile update out of the newsgroup, and just let it be your decision
and not a bargaining chip hmm?
C.
cr...@aracnet.net
http://www.aracnet.net/~cro2
C.
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:56:31 +0000, Robin Ri...@dial.pipex.com (Robin
Riggs) wrote:
>Since you asked so nicely in e-mail, Chris, I'll give it one more try.
Is this sarcasm?
[All pertinent information snipped]
>All my artistic decisions were concious and made for what I believe to be
>valid reasons. Feel free to disagree with my approach by all means, but it
>seems to have worked for more people than not so I am content with the
>work.
Hey, thanks for the insight! I ask because I'm working on stuff like
that myself, where I've got a fantasy story that does have connections
to real-world events, and I wanted to know if you felt comfortable
flubbing the architecture, and whether you thought it worked.
(Note: Above is not sarcasm. Above was original response to what I
thought would be an explanation one of my original questions. Thanks
for answering Robin.)
C.
cr...@aracnet.net
http://www.aracnet.net/~cro2 - Off Colour Digital Design
"Cos your mornings will be brighter,
Break the lines, tear up rules,
Make the most of a million times 'No'!"
- Bahaus, "Hope".
julio
> No, I am saying that "All opinions are relative." is itself an opinion
> and an absolute statement. So it would seem that at least one opinion is
> not relative, the opinion that all opinions are relative. That is
> inherently contradictory
I like this :-)
And FTR, I think you are absolutely right in this thread, and I can't
believe the point needs to be argued so hard. If a *reader* who's not an
idiot tells a writer or artist that something in a story did not work for
him, it is certainly not for the writer/artist to dismiss that with a
"that's irrelevant", "that's beside the point", or "you just didn't get
it". If Elayne persists in this attitude, she may find herself writing
exclusively for herself and a few friends who are just too nice to let her
know what they *really* think about her work.
Julio
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Brandon Blatcher (nomadicS...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Quick question. Was the story idea influenced by the short story by Joan
: Vinge "Tin Solider", which also turned the "wife waiting for sailor" idea
: on its head?
Nope, never read it that I recall.
: Either way, "Tin Solider" is an excellent story both of you might want to
: look up for "oh that's another interesting take on the theme" purposes.
Thanks for the recommendation; I like the other stuff of Vinge's I've read
as well.
sense and damonsense
Mike Chary wrote:
>
> Carl Fink <ca...@dm.net> wrote:
> >On 12 Nov 1997 12:09:23 GMT, Mike Chary <fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>THe problem here is that you claim not to believe in such standards, and
> >>yet you act like they exist.
> >
> >Mike, I read Dave not as claiming the standards are non-existent, but
> >rather that they are not objective.
> >
> >That is, yes, you can tell a straight line from a shaky one (or a
> >punch line :)), but you can't objectively say that straight is
> >*better* than shaky.
>
> You can in context.
possibly.
but that means [1]the standards aren't objective so much as they are
relative.
[2] that the context in which you are judging is idiosyncratic.
simsciple_solecistalon
In article <64i0nu$9...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com says...
>
>julio (jgea...@comp.uark.edu) wrote:
>
>: If a *reader* who's not an
>: idiot tells a writer or artist that something in a story did not work for
>: him, it is certainly not for the writer/artist to dismiss that with a
>: "that's irrelevant", "that's beside the point", or "you just didn't get
>
>Oh, come ON, Julio. My response of "that's irrelevant" was to a specific
>NITPICK that ONLY DAVE HAD about ONE ASPECT OF the art. I don't know 10th
>century from 14th century architecture, I know nothing about boat styles,
>etc. Art is Robin's department, especially in this case as I gave no
>panel directions. Dave never said the story didn't work for him; in
>fact, most people who've reviewed it said it worked very well, and Robin
>and I thank them for the compliment.
>
>It has never been my intention to be dismissive (well, perhaps in
>retaliation to Chris' inexplicable attacks on me), only to offer my
>viewpoint on the work as the writer of the story. I was, and still am,
>looking forward to discussing my work with rac* folks.
Yeah, *that's* obvious.
I told you guys, concerning Elayne's Cyberfrog myopia, that karma would take
care of everything.
Talon T M
"Pot...Kettle...Black...Hut...HUT!"
"Stop it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
"Heh"
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
julio (jgea...@comp.uark.edu) wrote:
: If a *reader* who's not an
: idiot tells a writer or artist that something in a story did not work for
: him, it is certainly not for the writer/artist to dismiss that with a
: "that's irrelevant", "that's beside the point", or "you just didn't get
: it". If Elayne persists in this attitude...
Oh, come ON, Julio. My response of "that's irrelevant" was to a specific
NITPICK that ONLY DAVE HAD about ONE ASPECT OF the art. I don't know 10th
century from 14th century architecture, I know nothing about boat styles,
etc. Art is Robin's department, especially in this case as I gave no
panel directions. Dave never said the story didn't work for him; in
fact, most people who've reviewed it said it worked very well, and Robin
and I thank them for the compliment.
It has never been my intention to be dismissive (well, perhaps in
retaliation to Chris' inexplicable attacks on me), only to offer my
viewpoint on the work as the writer of the story. I was, and still am,
looking forward to discussing my work with rac* folks.
- Elayne
Spooon
:
In article <B08F13259...@0.0.0.0>, Robin...@dial.pipex.com
says...
>You're misreading my position, Dave. Mike was claiming that a reviewer's
>opinion of the work can be **MORE** valid that that of the creator's
>because the reviwer gets to decide if the creator's conveyed their ideas to
>anyone else. What I'm saying is that there's no way the reviwer's opinion
>is any **MORE** valid than that of the creator.
I disagree. Let's use a very poor analogy. The only one that comes
to mind at the moment. You are playing charades. You are giving
clues. No one can figure out what in the ding dong heck you are
trying to say. Your team loses. Who is to say if your pantomimes
were ineffectual and a failure? Well, duh, your teammates are.
Re:SPOOONses are always welcome
Spooon, who sometimes goes by the name James R. Henry
Spo...@juno.com
Hen...@uakron.edu
Robert Smithers, { k...@gnc.net and k...@badlands.globe-net.net },
Tom Clark { TClar...@aol.com }, and
Jason Pruitt ( prui...@esva.net ) have been gullib.. uh, kind and
generous enough to offer my reviews a home on the net.
Their individual web pages are located, respectively, at:
http://gnc.net/~kds/review.htm
http://www.tiac.net/users/sal/comicflashes/comicmap.html.
http://www.jason-world.com/
cr...@aracnet.net
In article <64iaf9$k...@drn.zippo.com>,
Simsciple SolecisTalon wrote:
> In article <64i0nu$9...@panix.com>, fire...@panix.com says...
> >
> >julio (jgea...@comp.uark.edu) wrote:
> >
> >: If a *reader* who's not an
> >: idiot tells a writer or artist that something in a story did not work for
> >: him, it is certainly not for the writer/artist to dismiss that with a
> >: "that's irrelevant", "that's beside the point", or "you just didn't get
> >: it". If Elayne persists in this attitude...
> >
> >Oh, come ON, Julio. My response of "that's irrelevant" was to a specific
> >NITPICK that ONLY DAVE HAD about ONE ASPECT OF the art.
Hey, looks like I finally did it. She got it through her thick skull that
I was indeed not critisizing the work, only Dave was... A minor victory,
but I'm sure one that Elayne can ignore as she has so many times before.
Still... it is nice.
C.
(Inexplicable attacks... bahaha.)
C.
On 13 Nov 1997 10:36:02 -0500, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>cr...@aracnet.net wrote:
>
>: Point of Clarification: Chris Butcher wasn't refering to Chris Butcher
>: in his messages either. Chris had never refered to a personal
>: dissatisfaction with the story, Chris always refered to the
>: dissatisfaction felt on the part of Dave, the reviewer of the work (See:
>: Original Dave's Rants posts).
>
>Ah, so now you admit you misread Dave's Rant. Because he never claimed
>dissatisfaction. He claimed he was nitpicking. :)
Sigh, if you're too stupid to get it, AGAIN, I'm not going to explain
it to you, AGAIN.
>: Chris would like to point out that Chris
>: has said this in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 different times, and for
>: some reason neither Elayne or Robin can grasp it.
>
>Maybe because Chris doesn't know how to express himself well?
Heh, maybe Elayne's Reading Comprehension is bullshit. Or shall I
bring up the fact Elayne mis-read Invisibles #1 and StormWatch #1, and
then tried to defend her obvious error?
>: Chris hopes that all parties now concerned can get it through their thick
>: skulls...
>
>I see I was wrong to unkillfile you. I don't appreciate insults.
>
>*plonk*
You don't appreciate a lot of things... hell, I'm convinced that you
don't even understand a lot of things, but hey, that's not exactly my
fault.
Read what you want to read, think what you want to think. It's not
like reality is anywhere close to setting in with you.
You're elitist, you've shown your ignorance, and most importantly your
self-importance disgusts me. I hope only two things for you: one, it
gets you in trouble some day soon, rather than some day far down the
road when it will really hurt you, and two, someone quotes this in
full so that you can read this message, and perhaps use it to guide
your life somehow.
At least Robin did me the decency of answering the fucking question.
Petty, petty woman.
C.
(Yeah, this is a flame.)
C.
On 13 Nov 1997 09:37:42 -0800, The Implicit Talon Pejorative wrote:
> Hear ye! Hear ye!
>
>Elayne, RAC's favorite all-time poster, has just publicly *PLONKED!* and
>killfiled Chris for the SECOND TIME.
I'd like to thank the academy, um, I'd like to thank God for giving me
the oppertunity to be killfiled by Elayne... most people are only
blessed enough to receive one public killfiling in their lives, but
two? Oh wow, there are so many people to thank who got me to this
point. Couldn't have done it without Elayne though. I think it truly
was her ignorance and provocative attitude that got me to the point
that got me killfiled... And damon, for teaching me how to annoy
people...
um...
this ISN'T a good thing? Whoops...
>Chris is forever banished to second-class citizenship in this group, and he must
>never make mention of any of Elayne's work again. So declared.
Fuck that. Chris is going to double his "commentary". Before I was
content debating ideological points of view, with no malice intended.
Fuck that shit, I'm going full out now.
>Now, as a Valuable contributor to the community, I would like to make a Public
>Request for Elayne to reveal every name in her Killfile so that we may hold them
>all to the appropriate ridicule and scorn.
Yes, please do. Maybe us poor pathetic idiots can form a support
group, and talk about how much Elayne's reactionary, foolish
commentary meant to us and how we won't be able to live without the
incessent META threads she starts and perpetuates?
> Thank you, you may return to your normal comics discussions.
What comics discussions? I think Elayne's participation in four huge,
off-topic Meta threads has virtually eliminated comics related
discussion. Sure it's not her fault, but hey, if I can be held up for
public scorn for little/no reason, why the hell can't she?
Yeah this is a flame too. Get used to them. If I'm going to be
stereotyped by the ignorant, then I may as well act the part for them.
Petty, petty woman.
C.
C.
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 10:01:22 -0600, cr...@aracnet.net wrote:
>As for unkillfiling me? I don't particularly care if you regret it or
>not. I frequently post some excellent stuff all over the newsgroup. If
>you can't handle what you perceive to be the "bad" parts of my posting
>with the obvious good ones, then you're only going cheat yourself. But
>we've had this argument before. Do me a favour though, and keep my
>killfile update out of the newsgroup, and just let it be your decision
>and not a bargaining chip hmm?
Which, she couldn't even do. Petty. Stupid. Ignorant.
C.
(this is a flame too)
simsciple_solecistalon
In article <346F19...@ucet.ufl.edu>, John Troll says...
>
>The, Implicit, Talon, Egotistical Shithead wrote:
>
>>Now, as a Valuable contributor to the community, I would like to make a >>Public
>>Request for Elayne to reveal every name in her Killfile so that we may >>hold
>>them all to the appropriate ridicule and scorn.
>>
>
>valuable contributor to this community?
The Ten Golden Statues in my image didn't give it away? Damn. I'll have the
sculptor beheaded at once. Thanks for your honesty.
>your incessant posts supporting
>a right-wing christain censorship of comics?
I was thinking more of a Left Wing athiest censorship so that I could drum up a
little more support.
>your total lack of logic?
I had to communicate to you, somehow.
>declare whatever you want, but does it not strike you as weird that no
>one responds to your constanmt planet copmics threads,
That's just your crummy newsfeed kicking in.
>especially when
>you recite a post from weeks earlier just to troll for responses.
I don't do re-posts. You must have just been reading the hundreds of people who
had quoted me.
It's OK...happens all the time to newbees like you.
>who the fuck are you to ask for anything.
Even though you failed to use a question mark, I'll answer anyway.
I am Talon The Merciless. I own this land for as far as the eye can see.
Two dog biscuits if you can figure that one out.
>you attacked tom spurgeon for
>his supposed lack of impartiality, yet refused to tell us anything about
>your own ideological stance:
a) I never attacked Tom...you're just too stupid to see that I was being
sarcastic when I asked him that question. In fact, that's why I just told you
that you were 'too stupid', so you wouldn't miss the point of *this* post.
b)If I refused to tell anything about my own beliefs, how have you got me so
pigeon-holed? Either I did and you're lying, or I didn't and you're wrong.
>so before you ask anymore lame ass questions, answer these:
>
>1. what do you do for a living
Breathe.
>2, how much do you make
Seven.
>3. where do you live
In a house.
>4.why do you support censorship of comics (without resorting to "the
>bible")
Because then maybe comics would get more readers than we have now by making
people purchase That Which Is Forbidden.
>otherwise, just go away, troll-girl
Make me! Thhhppppppppppppttttt!!!!!!
Talon T M
Heh. See? I love playing with these troll-guys, damon! :)
damontegration
JohannaLD wrote:
>
> From: SPAMBLO...@capital.net (Tom Vincent)
>
> >If his editor starts getting complaints
> >that there's a problem with the artwork, Robin (or any other artist) is
> >hitting the pavement PDQ. That's what happens in the entertainment
> >industry- you fail to entertain well, you fail to get your next paycheck.
>
> there's the issue of what if the editor gets compliments and complaints...
> but I'm not really adding much here.
>
> Johanna
dammit woman!!!
inspire us with your wit!!!
--
"well is it really true? I mean I know, or I guess, or not. Well
is it really true, I know, too hard to figure out... I'm gonna
stand my ground, hide behind a fake smile. We can talk about
something else, just for a little while." Yo La Tengo,
damontegration
C. wrote:
>
> On 13 Nov 1997 09:37:42 -0800, The Implicit Talon Pejorative wrote:
>
> > Hear ye! Hear ye!
> >
> >Elayne, RAC's favorite all-time poster, has just publicly *PLONKED!* and
> >killfiled Chris for the SECOND TIME.
took you long enough, son.
> I'd like to thank the academy, um, I'd like to thank God for giving me
> the oppertunity to be killfiled by Elayne... most people are only
> blessed enough to receive one public killfiling in their lives, but
> two? Oh wow, there are so many people to thank who got me to this
> point. Couldn't have done it without Elayne though. I think it truly
> was her ignorance and provocative attitude that got me to the point
> that got me killfiled... And damon, for teaching me how to annoy
> people...
listen asshole, i haven't even begun to teach your little
infant tush how to annoy people yet.
WHEN you get half of this newsgroup ignoring you, THEN we'll talk.
i'd just like to point out now that the
people who have entered elayne's killfile seem to be forming
their own anti-hive mind clique--
me, and cro, and rick [when we feel like laughing at somone]
tom, you're going to have to choose sides pretty soon;
i think there's a guilt by association thing goin' on.
begin secret evihmind transmission:
'vcjkgjlfkdg;hlBDL';n KDnlJNl m,.cv,bmlf;B'
use your special decoders rings, folks.
> this ISN'T a good thing? Whoops...
>
> >Chris is forever banished to second-class citizenship in this group, and he must
> >never make mention of any of Elayne's work again. So declared.
>
> Fuck that. Chris is going to double his "commentary". Before I was
> content debating ideological points of view, with no malice intended.
> Fuck that shit, I'm going full out now.
i'd like to point out that chris has publicly declared flamnity
for elayne.
i want to point this out because i have not, and so
when elayne feels persecuted by chris, her paranoia
will be jusitified. but not when she
feels persecuted by me.
> Yes, please do. Maybe us poor pathetic idiots can form a support
> group, and talk about how much Elayne's reactionary, foolish
> commentary meant to us and how we won't be able to live without the
> incessent META threads she starts and perpetuates?
begin secret evihmind transmission:
'yep'.
end transmission: use you decoder rings.
>
> Yeah this is a flame too. Get used to them. If I'm going to be
> stereotyped by the ignorant, then I may as well act the part for them.
i guess you have learned a thing or two from me.
>
> "Cos your mornings will be brighter,
> Break the lines, tear up rules,
> Make the most of a million times 'No'!"
> - Bahaus, "Hope".
i don't think it's right to be quoting from a band
that was making goth songs when you were 4.
38 IS DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kate the Short
On 16 Nov 1997 12:20:54 -0800, Simsciple SolecisTalon wrote:
>In article <349734fc....@news.concentric.net>, uec...@cris.com says...
>>
>>John F Ronan wrote:
>
>>>hey you fucking loser, what gives you the impression that you are a
>>
>>[rest of unthought-out rant from John Ronan snipped]
>>
>>I think Talon's suggestion is marvelous, don't you have anything to say
>>about it? Don't you even have an insult vaguely related to the
>>suggestion?
>
> Careful, you'll give him a complex. Well, more like a simplex.
>
>Really, I think we need a "Let's all publish our Killfiles" day, where we can
>all compare and contrast loonies. Of course, whether one is a loonie for *being
>in* a killfile or for *having* a killfile is up for debate. ;)
Heh. Mine's easy. Since I just got my new computer and had to get a
NEW copy of Agent. I don't have one. Ha-ha!
kate.
triumphant, but missing a .sigfile.
simsciple_solecistalon
In article <3471c801...@news.enteract.com>, ka...@enteract.com says...
That's like saying that since you just got a new computer, you have TONS of
free, empty, hard drive disk space!
Give it time, Kate! ;)
Talon T M
Tom Vincent
In article <GNsyxTAL...@irw-associates.demon.co.uk>, Andrew Ducker
<and...@irw-associates.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 16 Nov 1997 12:20:54 -0800, Simsciple SolecisTalon wrote:
>>
>>>In article <349734fc....@news.concentric.net>, uec...@cris.com says...
>>>>
>>>>John F Ronan wrote:
>>>Really, I think we need a "Let's all publish our Killfiles" day, where we can
>>>all compare and contrast loonies. Of course, whether one is a loonie for
>>*being
>>>in* a killfile or for *having* a killfile is up for debate. ;)
>
>What we need is a killfile collator that monitors _everybodies_
>killfiles on this newsgroup and when more than 10% of the readers are
>killfiling someone, adds their name to a regularly posted list of
>'people you may wish to consider killfiling'. I could then set my
>killfiler to automatically killfile all people on this list and 'presto'
>a less annoying usenet.
I say let's be like the US Marines- Killfile everybody, and let god sort
'em out.
---Tom Vincent
Her eyes brimmed with tears. "The Princess is dead, and now the Mother is
gone too. Who will care for all those people? Who will care for the infirm
and the unwanted? Who will do the good works now?" The simplicity of the
answer startled her. "Us", came the reply, "all of us."
John F Ronan
Andrew Ducker wrote:
> What we need is a killfile collator that monitors _everybodies_
> killfiles on this newsgroup and when more than 10% of the readers are
> killfiling someone, adds their name to a regularly posted list of
> 'people you may wish to consider killfiling'. I could then set my
> killfiler to automatically killfile all people on this list and 'presto'
> a less annoying usenet.
exactly. why think for yourself when you can let others do it for you.
annoying usenet? that is the whole point of public discourse. it gets
messy when people speak their own minds, rather than reiterate claptrap
they read in the "media" or heard on rush limbaugh....that is why I find
Talon's posts so funny, the attempt to present christian ideology as
something other than childish fantasy demands amazing leaps in logic,
and that kind of mumbo-jumbo is, to me, both hilarious and only
available on the usenet.
ronan
simsciple_solecistalon
In article <GNsyxTAL...@irw-associates.demon.co.uk>, Andrew says...
>What we need is a killfile collator that monitors _everybodies_
>killfiles on this newsgroup and when more than 10% of the readers are
>killfiling someone, adds their name to a regularly posted list of
>'people you may wish to consider killfiling'. I could then set my
>killfiler to automatically killfile all people on this list and 'presto'
>a less annoying usenet.
Considering that 10% is very high when you add all the lurkers into the mix here
(that is, if you could), what would also be needed is a collator that monitors
everyone that uses killfiles for individual people, and when those people
killfile more than 10% of posters they themselves should be banned from posting
to the group. ;)
Talon T M
For the...*PRESTO*...simple solutions
Tom Vincent
In article <64v9td$b...@drn.zippo.com>, Simsciple SolecisTalon wrote:
if I can handle that capital-less pig,
Ooooooohhhhhh!
That was bad. Funny, but bad.
simsciple_solecistalon
In article <3472FD...@ucet.ufl.edu>, John says...
>
>Andrew Ducker wrote:
>
>> What we need is a killfile collator that monitors _everybodies_
>> killfiles on this newsgroup and when more than 10% of the readers are
>> killfiling someone, adds their name to a regularly posted list of
>> 'people you may wish to consider killfiling'. I could then set my
>> killfiler to automatically killfile all people on this list and 'presto'
>> a less annoying usenet.
>
>
Ronan, You know, I actually agree with you here, even if you don't have a
question mark key. Hey, if I can handle that capital-less pig, damon, I can
deal with unasked questions. ;)
> annoying usenet?
GAH!! You found it!
>that is the whole point of public discourse. it gets
>messy when people speak their own minds, rather than reiterate claptrap
>they read in the "media" or heard on rush limbaugh....that is why I find
>Talon's posts so funny, the attempt to present christian ideology as
>something other than childish fantasy demands amazing leaps in logic,
>and that kind of mumbo-jumbo is, to me, both hilarious and only
>available on the usenet.
Always glad to entertain. And the next time you're amused by my posts, I'll
expect some laughter! Heh.
Talon T M
"In the beginning, *GOD*..."
:)
Andrew Ducker
>On 16 Nov 1997 12:20:54 -0800, Simsciple SolecisTalon wrote:
>
>>In article <349734fc....@news.concentric.net>, uec...@cris.com says...
>>>
>>>John F Ronan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>[rest of unthought-out rant from John Ronan snipped]
>>>
>>>I think Talon's suggestion is marvelous, don't you have anything to say
>>>about it? Don't you even have an insult vaguely related to the
>>>suggestion?
>>
>> Careful, you'll give him a complex. Well, more like a simplex.
>>
>>all compare and contrast loonies. Of course, whether one is a loonie for
>*being
>>in* a killfile or for *having* a killfile is up for debate. ;)
What we need is a killfile collator that monitors _everybodies_
killfiles on this newsgroup and when more than 10% of the readers are
killfiling someone, adds their name to a regularly posted list of
'people you may wish to consider killfiling'. I could then set my
killfiler to automatically killfile all people on this list and 'presto'
a less annoying usenet.
Samael
--
Home: sam...@dial.pipex.com * I'm a brit. Infer Necessary Smileys
Work: and...@irw-associates.demon.co.uk * This is _not_ a rehearsal
damontegration
B. P. Uecker wrote:
>
> damontegration wrote:
>
> >i don't think it's right to be quoting from a band
> >that was making goth songs when you were 4.
>
hmmm.
early goth, yes.
certainly dressed the part.
simsciple_solecistalon
In article <34787836....@news.concentric.net>, uec...@cris.com says...
>
>John F Ronan wrote:
>
>> annoying usenet? that is the whole point of public discourse. it gets
>>messy when people speak their own minds, rather than reiterate claptrap
>>they read in the "media" or heard on rush limbaugh....that is why I find
>>Talon's posts so funny, the attempt to present christian ideology as
>
Something tells me that you are the most perceptive person in RACM. ;)
Talon T M
just a box of chocolates
Andrew Ducker
In article <3472FD...@ucet.ufl.edu>, John F Ronan
<ro...@ucet.ufl.edu> writes
> annoying usenet? that is the whole point of public discourse. it gets
>messy when people speak their own minds, rather than reiterate claptrap
>they read in the "media" or heard on rush limbaugh....that is why I find
>Talon's posts so funny, the attempt to present christian ideology as
>and that kind of mumbo-jumbo is, to me, both hilarious and only
>available on the usenet.
Next time Jehovah's Witnesses turn up on your front doorstep, just ask
them in!
simsciple_solecistalon
In article <SPAMBLOCKtom127-ya023...@news.capital.net>,
SPAMBLO...@capital.net says...
>
>
>That was bad. Funny, but bad.
Yeah, I know. And it's repetitive as well, as I've called him that before.
And I only use it in a loving, brotherly way. :)
Talon T M
John F Ronan
B. P. Uecker wrote:
>
> John F Ronan wrote:
>
> > annoying usenet? that is the whole point of public discourse. it gets
> >messy when people speak their own minds, rather than reiterate claptrap
> >they read in the "media" or heard on rush limbaugh....that is why I find
> >Talon's posts so funny, the attempt to present christian ideology as
>
and your point is?
simsciple_solecistalon
In article <34739C...@ucet.ufl.edu>, John says...
That I'm smarter than you. Duh.
All of a sudden, that's not a compliment anymore...
Talon T M
Heh!
John F Ronan
Andrew Ducker wrote:
> Next time Jehovah's Witnesses turn up on your front doorstep, just ask
> them in!
>
no, the analogy is skewed. a killfile is like living in a gated
community where the jehovah's witnesses can't even get to your door,
versus non-killfile, where whoever comes to your door you decide whether
to talk to or not. If I don't wanna hear the jw, I tell them goodbye, if
I wanna contribute to greeenpeace, I do...
killfiles show the users lack of control, but also their annoyance. so
what?
ronan
Avram Grumer
In article <347465...@ucet.ufl.edu>, John F Ronan <ro...@ucet.ufl.edu>
wrote:
>no, the analogy is skewed.
No analogy survives for long on Usenet.
>a killfile is like living in a gated community where the
>jehovah's witnesses can't even get to your door, versus
>non-killfile, where whoever comes to your door you decide
>whether to talk to or not.
The problem with both of these analogies is that they assume that posting
to Usenet (in which the poster writes one message which millions of people
can then see in the context of delibertaely deciding to spend some time
seeing what's on Usenet) is analogous to knocking on doors (in which
someone has to individually knock on each door, and disturb people who may
be in the middle of doing something else).
>killfiles show the users lack of control, but also their
>annoyance. so what?
Killfiles only show annoyance if the killfiling is publicly announced.
I see by your header that you're using a GUI newsreader (Netscape
Navigator Gold 3.0), which lets you quickly and easily skip over any topic
threads that you don't want to read. Have you ever tried reading news via
an old command line newsreader, via a slow telnet connection? I have. In
a high-traffic group, killfiles make it a lot more convenient.
--
Avram Grumer av...@interport.net
http://www.users.interport.net/~avram/
Information wants to be incorrectly formatted.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
John F Ronan (ro...@ucet.ufl.edu) wrote:
: Andrew Ducker wrote:
: > Next time Jehovah's Witnesses turn up on your front doorstep, just ask
: > them in!
: no, the analogy is skewed. a killfile is like living in a gated
: community where the jehovah's witnesses can't even get to your door,
I disagree. Usenet isn't a gated community, but those of us who use our
killfiles judiciously prefer to lock our front doors or draw the curtains
when we see trouble coming. :)
: killfiles show the users lack of control, but also their annoyance. so
: what?
Drawing your blinds because you don't want to deal with someone is lack of
control? How? I will admit it's a sign that you're annoyed by the
killfiled ones' potential intrusion, but I still don't see how that
equates to lack of control (unless you mean it in the general sense of
"lack of control over some people being trolls and assholes" <g>).
Lemming
Andrew Ducker <and...@irw-associates.demon.co.uk> sayethed:
>>On 16 Nov 1997 12:20:54 -0800, Simsciple SolecisTalon wrote:
>>
>>>In article <349734fc....@news.concentric.net>, uec...@cris.com says...
>>>>
>>>>John F Ronan wrote:
>>>
>>>>>hey you fucking loser, what gives you the impression that you are a
>>>>
>>>>[rest of unthought-out rant from John Ronan snipped]
>>>>
>>>>I think Talon's suggestion is marvelous, don't you have anything to say
>>>>about it? Don't you even have an insult vaguely related to the
>>>>suggestion?
>>>
>>> Careful, you'll give him a complex. Well, more like a simplex.
>>>
>>>Really, I think we need a "Let's all publish our Killfiles" day, where we can
>>>all compare and contrast loonies. Of course, whether one is a loonie for
>>*being
>>>in* a killfile or for *having* a killfile is up for debate. ;)
>What we need is a killfile collator that monitors _everybodies_
>killfiles on this newsgroup and when more than 10% of the readers are
>killfiling someone, adds their name to a regularly posted list of
>'people you may wish to consider killfiling'. I could then set my
>killfiler to automatically killfile all people on this list and 'presto'
>a less annoying usenet.
Because blank screens are ever so relaxing...
I think we should killfile all the boring people. That evil 10% is
all I ever read anyway.
Hep to your jive,
Lemming
writing portfolio and odd opinions at:
http://www2.cybernex.net/~lemming7/
Lemming
uec...@cris.com (B. P. Uecker) sayethed:
>damontegration wrote:
>>> Do you really find Bauhaus to be goth?
>>
>>hmmm.
>>early goth, yes.
>>
>>certainly dressed the part.
>I don't think their music could be characterized as goth, more a
>full-blown surrealism. I do really like "The Sky's Gone Out", a very
>nice album. As for their name, it is good to see that remnants of the
>ultra-German design philosophy are still banging about the cultural
>cranium.
You don't see any serialism influence?
>Just looking weird isn't enough, is it?
It's not the look, it's historical. They were founders of the goth
movement, thus, I consider them goth. The definition changed out from
under them. Hell, nobody calls Kraftwerk industrial anymore. Elvis
Costello, the Replacements, and the Talking Heads were big punk groups
at the time. The trendoid termites came after them and made punk a
caricature of itself.
While I'm thinking about it, what the hell did Nirvana and Pearl Jam
have in common musically? Grunge wasn't a movement, it was a flannel
shirt.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
John F Ronan (ro...@ucet.ufl.edu) wrote:
: the
: hubris of soemone saying "I will no longer read your posts" to everyone
: in the group is pretty intense, like we give a shit who you are, or are
: not reading....
If it's meant that way, yeah. But sometimes it's just meant to serve
notice to the other person, as well as others involved in a discussion,
that, as far as the one doing the killfiling is concerned, the discussion
with the killfiled person is over. So that the killfiled person isn't
wondering why the other person never responded.
Lemming
uec...@cris.com (B. P. Uecker) sayethed:
>damontegration wrote:
>>i don't think it's right to be quoting from a band
>>that was making goth songs when you were 4.
>Do you really find Bauhaus to be goth?
Technically, yeah.
But I don't see the problem. I quote bands that died before my
parents were born. Do quips have a half-life or something?
John F Ronan
Avram Grumer wrote:
> I see by your header that you're using a GUI newsreader (Netscape
> Navigator Gold 3.0), which lets you quickly and easily skip over any topic
> threads that you don't want to read. Have you ever tried reading news via
> an old command line newsreader, via a slow telnet connection? I have. In
> a high-traffic group, killfiles make it a lot more convenient.
>
> --
>
avram, you are absolutley right. it has been a while since I used the
command line as a news reader (now use it for unix talk talk talk, but
that's another story) but I understand, in that case, why killfiles are
cool. I guess I find your point about public announcements key. the
hubris of soemone saying "I will no longer read your posts" to everyone
in the group is pretty intense, like we give a shit who you are, or are
not reading.... anyway, good point, re: wadeing through a pile of crap
to get to a nugget or two, that is exactly what I always thought the
usenet was all abnout....at least the spam in this group is limited to a
few newbies selling their collections...could be worse.
ronan
damontegration
B. P. Uecker wrote:
>
> damontegration wrote:
>
> >
> >early goth, yes.
> >
> >certainly dressed the part.
>
> I don't think their music could be characterized as goth, more a
> full-blown surrealism. I do really like "The Sky's Gone Out", a very
> nice album. As for their name, it is good to see that remnants of the
> ultra-German design philosophy are still banging about the cultural
> cranium.
>
don't have any, haven't heard much.
bela lagosi is gothic.
or was.
like love and rockets lots, tho. wouldn't call them goth.
and i'd almost, but not quite, characterize murphy's
solo albums as goth rock.
damontegration
Lemming wrote:
>
> uec...@cris.com (B. P. Uecker) sayethed:
>
> >damontegration wrote:
>
> >>i don't think it's right to be quoting from a band
> >>that was making goth songs when you were 4.
>
>
>
> But I don't see the problem. I quote bands that died before my
> parents were born.
when you start getting old, it becomes annoying.
ShutUpRob
If you're going to talk about music in a comics newsgroup,
could you at *least* have the decency to talk about Oingo Boingo
and/or Danny Elfman? =)
-- Rob Jensen
=========================================
"Independent comic book universes and incompatible computer
OSes exist so that people who might not have a strong theological
belief system can still be self-righteous and clannish."
-- Todd VerBeek
Lemming
shut...@aol.com (ShutUpRob) sayethed:
> If you're going to talk about music in a comics newsgroup,
>could you at *least* have the decency to talk about Oingo Boingo
>and/or Danny Elfman? =)
OK.
Danny Elfman and Oingo Boingo have nothing to do with this, but...