Terminators of Endearment ripoff
Mike Schilling
------------------------------------------------------
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies features the original text of Jane
Austen's beloved novel with all-new scenes of bone-crunching zombie
action. As our story opens, a mysterious plague has fallen upon the
quiet English village of Meryton-and the dead are returning to life!
Feisty heroine Elizabeth Bennet is determined to wipe out the zombie
menace, but she's soon distracted by the arrival of the haughty and
arrogant Mr. Darcy.
------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, some miscreant with a time machine has plagiarized
_Terminators of Endearment_ in advance.
Sean O'Hara
declared:
I wonder how many editors thought it was one of their pranks where
some twit tries to show that editors are idiots by sending them a
classic novel and crowing when they get a standard rejection letter.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
I know that most of the friends that I have
Don't really see it that way
But if you can give 'em each one wish
How much do you wanna bet?
They'd which success for themselves and their friends
And that would include lots of money
-Liz Phair
"Shitloads of Money"
Kurt Busiek
> In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Mike Schilling declared:
>> http://www.chroniclebooks.com/index/main,book-info/store,books/products_id,7847/title,Pride-and-Prejudice-and-Zombies/
------------------------------------------------------
Pride
>>
>> and Prejudice and Zombies features the original text of Jane Austen's
>> beloved novel with all-new scenes of bone-crunching zombie action. As
>> our story opens, a mysterious plague has fallen upon the quiet English
>> village of Meryton-and the dead are returning to life! Feisty heroine
>> Elizabeth Bennet is determined to wipe out the zombie menace, but she's
>> soon distracted by the arrival of the haughty and arrogant Mr. Darcy.
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Clearly, some miscreant with a time machine has plagiarized
>> _Terminators of Endearment_ in advance.
>
> I wonder how many editors thought it was one of their pranks where some
> twit tries to show that editors are idiots by sending them a classic
> novel and crowing when they get a standard rejection letter.
Probably only the ones who didn't read the cover letter; considering
Grahame-Smith's credits, I doubt this was submitted through the slush
pile.
kdb
Gene
54....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com:
> Pride and Prejudice and Zombies features the original text of Jane
> Austen's beloved novel with all-new scenes of bone-crunching zombie
> action.
So who gusts eaten-Lady Catherine De Bourgh or George Wickham?
Mike Schilling
Wickham had nothing for a zombie to eat.
Gene
$pr6....@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com:
>> So who gusts eaten-Lady Catherine De Bourgh or George Wickham?
>
> Wickham had nothing for a zombie to eat.
For sure, Lydia Wickham didn't. Perhaps a comic scene where the zombies
attempt to eat the Wickhams would be in order.
Mike Schilling
"What 'Wickham' mean in human, diet food?"
htn963
wrote:
> http://www.chroniclebooks.com/index/main,book-info/store,books/produc...
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Pride and Prejudice and Zombies features the original text of Jane
> Austen's beloved novel with all-new scenes of bone-crunching zombie
> action. As our story opens, a mysterious plague has fallen upon the
> quiet English village of Meryton-and the dead are returning to life!
> Feisty heroine Elizabeth Bennet is determined to wipe out the zombie
> menace, but she's soon distracted by the arrival of the haughty and
> arrogant Mr. Darcy.
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Clearly, some miscreant with a time machine has plagiarized
> _Terminators of Endearment_ in advance.
Seeing this makes me kinda wish there ought to be some legal
restriction (or at least moral prohibition) on the use of classics in
public domain. Apparently any two-bit hack can take the whole text of
any public domain work, append or mix any junk to it, then make a buck
off of it under the guise of promoting the public's awareness of a
classic. Pride & Prejudice does not need any help here, especially
from zombies, though Wuthering Heights might.
--
Ht
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>On Jan 31, 9:47 am, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> http://www.chroniclebooks.com/index/main,book-info/store,books/produc...
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> Pride and Prejudice and Zombies features the original text of Jane
>> Austen's beloved novel with all-new scenes of bone-crunching zombie
>> action. As our story opens, a mysterious plague has fallen upon the
>> quiet English village of Meryton-and the dead are returning to life!
>> Feisty heroine Elizabeth Bennet is determined to wipe out the zombie
>> menace, but she's soon distracted by the arrival of the haughty and
>> arrogant Mr. Darcy.
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Clearly, some miscreant with a time machine has plagiarized
>> _Terminators of Endearment_ in advance.
>
>Seeing this makes me kinda wish there ought to be some legal
>restriction (or at least moral prohibition) on the use of classics in
>public domain.
That would be what the Mouse is aiming for - infinite copyright. Moral
prohibition? Goes out the window as soon as there's money or fun
involved.
>Apparently any two-bit hack can take the whole text of
>any public domain work, append or mix any junk to it, then make a buck
>off of it under the guise of promoting the public's awareness of a
>classic. Pride & Prejudice does not need any help here, especially
>from zombies, though Wuthering Heights might.
Yes, that's legally possible.
And the public is perfectly within its rights not to read it.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
It's time to light the candles!
It's time to chant the rites!
It's time to summon Satan on the Muppet Show tonight!
Mike Schilling
.
>
> Seeing this makes me kinda wish there ought to be some legal
> restriction (or at least moral prohibition) on the use of classics
> in
> public domain. Apparently any two-bit hack can take the whole text
> of
> any public domain work, append or mix any junk to it, then make a
> buck
> off of it
That's what "public domain" means, yes.
> under the guise of promoting the public's awareness of a
> classic.
Or for any other reason.
Gene
news:6dtbo41df64es2opf...@newsposting.sessile.org:
> That would be what the Mouse is aiming for - infinite copyright. Moral
> prohibition? Goes out the window as soon as there's money or fun
> involved.
And Amazon says it's a pre-order bestseller.
Bryan Derksen
> Seeing this makes me kinda wish there ought to be some legal
> restriction (or at least moral prohibition) on the use of classics in
> public domain.
Apparently you're misunderstanding what "public domain" means.
> Apparently any two-bit hack can take the whole text of
> any public domain work, append or mix any junk to it, then make a buck
> off of it under the guise of promoting the public's awareness of a
> classic.
Yes. And?
A lot of great classics have lifted pieces from earlier works, and
today's two-bit hack might be tomorrow's Shakespeare or Dickens. This is
how culture grows and evolves. Attempting to lock up ideas behind
artificial walls forever is perverse.
htn963
> htn963 wrote:
> > Seeing this makes me kinda wish there ought to be some legal
> > restriction (or at least moral prohibition) on the use of classics in
> > public domain.
>
> Apparently you're misunderstanding what "public domain" means.
Er, no, which is why I said I "kinda wish." It's like wishing
democracy wouldn't be so democratic as to have elected a boob to
office for the past 8 years.
> > Apparently any two-bit hack can take the whole text of
> > any public domain work, append or mix any junk to it, then make a buck
> > off of it under the guise of promoting the public's awareness of a
> > classic.
>
> Yes. And?
>
> A lot of great classics have lifted pieces from earlier works, and
> today's two-bit hack might be tomorrow's Shakespeare or Dickens. This is
> how culture grows and evolves. Attempting to lock up ideas behind
> artificial walls forever is perverse.
<Stands up to clap>
Very nice, but save the speech for your ACLU meetings.
Let's not kid ourselves that any creative evolution is going on in
this instance. We're talking about lifting an author's entire text
wholesale, appending crap, and adding your name as co-author. And,
yeah, like an author whose previous books are about porn and horror
films is to become the next Shakespeare.
--
Ht
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>Let's not kid ourselves that any creative evolution is going on in
>this instance. We're talking about lifting an author's entire text
>wholesale, appending crap, and adding your name as co-author. And,
>yeah, like an author whose previous books are about porn and horror
>films is to become the next Shakespeare.
Why does it matter to you?
Occasionally there's a gem, and that might lead to a new author being
published. Well worth the "risk" that someone might edit and (fail to)
resell Withering Heights With Daleks.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
220 mail.sessile.org ESMTP Sendmail 8.13.4 ICBM ENABLED ; Wed, 23 Jun 2005 15:04:40 GMT
HELO spammers.org
250 mail.sessile.org
MAIL FROM:<scum...@spammers.org>
550 you have four minutes to say goodbye to your family
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
IIRC, Wuthering Heights has been INTERPRETED as a vampire novel more
than once.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Mike Ash
<aca20c78-e2ca-4ee7...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
> Very nice, but save the speech for your ACLU meetings.
>
> Let's not kid ourselves that any creative evolution is going on in
> this instance. We're talking about lifting an author's entire text
> wholesale, appending crap, and adding your name as co-author. And,
> yeah, like an author whose previous books are about porn and horror
> films is to become the next Shakespeare.
Two points:
1) You might be wrong about this author. That you feel certain doesn't
mean you're right.
2) If there are actual legal restrictions put in place, you can bet that
the law WILL be wrong in many cases.
Perversion of the classics by modern reinterpretation is at worst an
extremely minor annoyance. Just ignore them if you don't like them.
On the other hand, restrictions on what can be published are evil, pure
and simple. I think the choice is clear.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Kurt Busiek
> Very nice, but save the speech for your ACLU meetings.
>
> Let's not kid ourselves that any creative evolution is going on in
> this instance. We're talking about lifting an author's entire text
> wholesale, appending crap, and adding your name as co-author.
And you know this, without having seen the book, because it's
described, credited and presented as exactly that -- allowing for you
using the word "crap" to mean "humor you don't like." So no dishonesty
is involved.
> And,
> yeah, like an author whose previous books are about porn and horror
> films is to become the next Shakespeare.
Well, by all means, staple him down, then. Whatever he's done so far
shall define the rest of his output, and he should be stifled by moral
(if not legal) bounds.
And science fiction is all brainrot, since society thought so once, and
once an opinion is formed, there's no need to be open to anything ever
changing.
Not to mention that he doesn't need to be the next Shakespeare. He
doesn't even need to be the next Irwin Shaw for there to be value in
the ability to play around with the public domain even in ways you
don't think will be funny enough to exist.
I thinkit's a funny idea. If you don't, no problem -- you probably
like stuff I'm not interested in, too. And there are a lot of bad
booksthat are published every year. If this one's one of them, there's
no harm done, and if it's not, good.
Jane Austen's novel will continue to exist either way, and I doubt its
sales or reputation will be harmed.
kdb
Sean O'Hara
>
> Let's not kid ourselves that any creative evolution is going on in
> this instance. We're talking about lifting an author's entire text
> wholesale, appending crap, and adding your name as co-author.
So, not a fan of Tom Stoppard?
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
Fry: Hey, you have no right to criticize the 20th Century. We gave
the world the lightbulb, the steamboat, and the cotton gin.
Leela: Those things are all from the 19th Century.
Fry: Yeah, well, they probably just copied us.
-Futurama
Sean O'Hara
> >
> restriction (or at least moral prohibition) on the use of classics in
> public domain.
So you want to get rid of:
The Seven Per-cent Solution
West Side Story
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Anno Dracula
The Antarctic Mystery (Jules Verne's sequel to Arthur Gordon Pym)
Flashman
Lupin III
The Barnstormer of Oz
Wicked
Even if this one book sucks, I don't want to preclude a brilliant
future novel about Scaramouche vs. the Scarlet Pimpernel or Solomon
Kane vs. Ayesha.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
Cheryl: This is a hand lotion, so don't put it on any other part of
your body, even if that part needs lubrication. We try to keep
frivolous lawsuits to a minimum, unless, of course, the customer is
at fault.
-The Good Girl
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful htn963 declared:
>> > Seeing this makes me kinda wish there ought to be some legal
>> restriction (or at least moral prohibition) on the use of classics in
>> public domain.
>
> So you want to get rid of:
>
> The Seven Per-cent Solution
Eh. It wasn't a bad story, except for all that complete inconsistency.
> West Side Story
> The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
You'll get a separation here between the movie and comic people.
> Anno Dracula
> The Antarctic Mystery (Jules Verne's sequel to Arthur Gordon Pym)
> Flashman
> Lupin III
I have no opinion on the middle two, but the first and last would be
something of a loss.
> The Barnstormer of Oz
> Wicked
These two I'd definitely get rid of. _Polychrome_ is in part a response
to these... VERY annoyingly bad re-imaginings -- even if I doubt I'll
ever get it published. (then there's the stunning fact that Sci-Fi's
"Tin Man", which LOOKED to be about as bad as a re-imagining could get,
turned out to be an excellent one)
>
> Even if this one book sucks, I don't want to preclude a brilliant future
> novel about Scaramouche vs. the Scarlet Pimpernel or Solomon Kane vs.
> Ayesha.
>
One of my favorites in this odd subgenre has always been Monteleone's
"The Secret Sea", a continuation/derivation from Verne's 20,000 Leagues
Under the Sea.
htn963
wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 06:18:43 -0800 (PST), htn963 <htn...@live.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Let's not kid ourselves that any creative evolution is going on in
> >this instance. We're talking about lifting an author's entire text
> >wholesale, appending crap, and adding your name as co-author. And,
> >yeah, like an author whose previous books are about porn and horror
> >films is to become the next Shakespeare.
>
> Why does it matter to you?
Because it is a book dear to my heart, and one does not like to see
things dear to one's heart pointlessly copied and desecrated for
filthy lucre.
> Occasionally there's a gem, and that might lead to a new author being
> published.
What are you talking about? Under this system, legions of new
"authors" can get published by piggybacking on the classics, and I've
never heard of any such gems.
>Well worth the "risk" that someone might edit and (fail to)
> resell Withering Heights With Daleks.
Why don't you do it yourself then, Smartypants, and prove me wrong?
It's all available to you without fuss or legal repercussions. (Use a
subscription-by-the-chapter service like Watt-Evans to recoup costs if
you have to.) Strike another blow for bad taste.
--
Ht
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>On Feb 2, 6:24 am, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
>wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 06:18:43 -0800 (PST), htn963 <htn...@live.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Let's not kid ourselves that any creative evolution is going on in
>> >this instance. We're talking about lifting an author's entire text
>> >wholesale, appending crap, and adding your name as co-author. And,
>> >yeah, like an author whose previous books are about porn and horror
>> >films is to become the next Shakespeare.
>>
>> Why does it matter to you?
>
>Because it is a book dear to my heart, and one does not like to see
>things dear to one's heart pointlessly copied and desecrated for
>filthy lucre.
The original book is *utterly* unaffected.
>> Occasionally there's a gem, and that might lead to a new author being
>> published.
>
>What are you talking about? Under this system, legions of new
>"authors" can get published by piggybacking on the classics, and I've
>never heard of any such gems.
Under your proposal, "The Eyre Affair" by Jasper Fforde would be
illegal, I think. This would be a bad thing.
>>Well worth the "risk" that someone might edit and (fail to)
>> resell Withering Heights With Daleks.
>
>Why don't you do it yourself then, Smartypants, and prove me wrong?
What, fail to resell Wuthering Hights (alternate type edition)? I'd
rather not. All seems a bit pointless to me.
>It's all available to you without fuss or legal repercussions. (Use a
>subscription-by-the-chapter service like Watt-Evans to recoup costs if
>you have to.) Strike another blow for bad taste.
Oh, get off your high horse. Go check out the list of books Sean
O'Hara came up with, and check them for bad taste.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"We all recall that the difference between a computer salesman and a car
salesman is that the car salesman *knows* he's lying to you"
"... and probably knows how to drive"
- F O'Donnell and M Smith, in afs
Kurt Busiek
> On Feb 2, 6:24 am, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
> wrote:
>> Occasionally there's a gem, and that might lead to a new author being
>> published.
>
> What are you talking about? Under this system, legions of new
> "authors" can get published by piggybacking on the classics, and I've
> never heard of any such gems.
But you've heard of legions of authors doing this?
If it was truly going to lead to legions of new authors editing and
adding to classic texts, without regard for quality, then it could have
been happening for decades already; there's nothing stopping it except
publisher disinterest in publishing bad things they can't sell.
There's lots and lots of examples of authors using public domain works
to make something that a publisher thought they could sell, but it
doesn't seem to be where the new authors regularly come from, or even a
disproportionate percentage of crap material. This particular book
isn't by a new author, and it might be funny; the publisher apparently
thinks it works.
Your love for the original can remain unaffected, just as the movie
CLUELESS didn't affect the novel EMMA.
It seems you're imagining a tidal wave of first-time authors getting
publishing deals by doing bad jobs of using PD material, and declaring
that this imagined threat is worse than the actual uses of PD material
over the years, which seems loopy.
Particularly since what's here at hand isn't a first-time author, and
we have no idea yet whether his prose is good or bad, merely that you
don't find the idea funny.
So don't read it. Don't see CLUELESS, if you don't like that idea.
But declaring that there should be a moral bar to using PD material
because someone might do something with it you don't like is absurd.
Public domain material belongs to everyone, so this guy's got as much
claim on it as you do.
None of this replaces the original, so what you love (and I'm with you
on that, I think P&P is one of the best novels ever written) is still
there, unaffected.
kdb
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <6upds7F...@mid.individual.net>):
> In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful htn963 declared:
>>>
>> Seeing this makes me kinda wish there ought to be some legal
>> restriction (or at least moral prohibition) on the use of classics in
>> public domain.
>
> So you want to get rid of:
>
> The Seven Per-cent Solution
And many, many others. Plus items where Holmes, Watson, and other characters
from the ACD books featured in roles ranging from cameos (at least one H.
Beam Piper story) to main characters (including at least one Randall Garret
story).
> West Side Story
And several other stories, as well.
> The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
No comment.
> Anno Dracula
And not a few others, too. Ranging all the way to Anita Blake books.
> The Antarctic Mystery (Jules Verne's sequel to Arthur Gordon Pym)
Haven't read that one.
> Flashman
And all the many other Flashman stories, not all by GMF. Including "The
Charge of Lee's Brigade", wherein SM Stirling kills off Harry Flashman.
> Lupin III
Haven't read that one.
> The Barnstormer of Oz
Haven't read that one in 20 years.
> Wicked
Now, to not have _that_ book would be a crime.
>
> Even if this one book sucks, I don't want to preclude a brilliant
> future novel about Scaramouche vs. the Scarlet Pimpernel or Solomon
> Kane vs. Ayesha.
My money's on Ayesha.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>> Wicked
>
> Now, to not have _that_ book would be a crime.
>
And HERE is why we DON'T have such laws, because of such disagreements.
Me, I think the existence of "Wicked" IS a crime. But one I can't prosecute.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>
> Because it is a book dear to my heart, and one does not like to see
> things dear to one's heart pointlessly copied and desecrated for
> filthy lucre.
I love Pride and Prejudice. And I intend eventually to finish
Terminators of Endearment. I don't consider this a desecration, and even
if it is, so what? It's not really affecting the original, and never will.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>Even if this one book sucks, I don't want to preclude a brilliant
>future novel about Scaramouche vs. the Scarlet Pimpernel or Solomon
>Kane vs. Ayesha.
I'm actually writing a series where Scaramouche winds up as the
Scarlet Pimpernel's smartass sidekick. I changed the names, though,
so I wouldn't need to worry about historical accuracy.
This is what Heinlein called "filing off the serial numbers," as when
he lifted plots from Kipling and Cabell.
Solomon Kane vs. Ayesha is a really cool idea. Kane isn't in the
public domain, though.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Kurt Busiek
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:28:00 -0500, Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Even if this one book sucks, I don't want to preclude a brilliant
>> future novel about Scaramouche vs. the Scarlet Pimpernel or Solomon
>> Kane vs. Ayesha.
>
> I'm actually writing a series where Scaramouche winds up as the
> Scarlet Pimpernel's smartass sidekick. I changed the names, though,
> so I wouldn't need to worry about historical accuracy.
>
> This is what Heinlein called "filing off the serial numbers," as when
> he lifted plots from Kipling and Cabell.
>
> Solomon Kane vs. Ayesha is a really cool idea. Kane isn't in the
> public domain, though.
No, but Dark Horse (if it's comics) or someone else with the Kane
license (in other forms) could do it even so.
kdb
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 18:28:00 -0500, Sean O'Hara wrote
> (in article <6upds7F...@mid.individual.net>):
>
>
> Haven't read that one.
>
Not one of Verne's best works, but then again, Pym isn't Poe's. The
most interesting aspect is that it reveals that Pym's dog is still
alive. In Poe's novel, he isn't mentioned after the tempest, so
presumably he died during the storm. However, if he survived, that
means that Pym and the others opted for cannibalism rather than
eating the dog.
>> Lupin III
>
> Haven't read that one.
>
Actually it's an anime series (and maybe a manga as well), nominally
about Arsene Lupin's grandson though the connection is very slight.
Still, it's the most appropriate example since Leblanc published
several stories where Lupin faced off against Sherlock Holmes, until
ACD forced him to change the name of the Great Detective.
>> Even if this one book sucks, I don't want to preclude a brilliant
>> future novel about Scaramouche vs. the Scarlet Pimpernel or Solomon
>> Kane vs. Ayesha.
>
> My money's on Ayesha.
>
Well, it's a foregone conclusion that Ayesha will survive since she
has to be around to menace Allen and wossisname from She. But that
doesn't mean Kane couldn't foil her plans.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
Helena: Doctor, has Radius a soul?
Dr. Gall: He's got something nasty.
--Karel Capek
Rossum's Universal Robots
Bryan Derksen
> On Feb 1, 11:04 pm, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Apparently you're misunderstanding what "public domain" means.
>
> Er, no, which is why I said I "kinda wish." It's like wishing
> democracy wouldn't be so democratic as to have elected a boob to
> office for the past 8 years.
Seems more akin to wishing for a circle with four corners, to me. When
something is in the public domain you can do what you like with it. If
you can't do what you like with it, it's not really in the public domain.
>> A lot of great classics have lifted pieces from earlier works, and
>> today's two-bit hack might be tomorrow's Shakespeare or Dickens. This is
>> how culture grows and evolves. Attempting to lock up ideas behind
>> artificial walls forever is perverse.
>
> <Stands up to clap>
>
> Very nice, but save the speech for your ACLU meetings.
You keep telling people they're not supposed to write things you don't
like. I've no reason to comply with such requests.
art...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> http://www.chroniclebooks.com/index/main,book-info/store,books/produc...
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Pride and Prejudice and Zombies features the original text of Jane
> Austen's beloved novel with all-new scenes of bone-crunching zombie
> action. As our story opens, a mysterious plague has fallen upon the
> quiet English village of Meryton-and the dead are returning to life!
> Feisty heroine Elizabeth Bennet is determined to wipe out the zombie
> menace, but she's soon distracted by the arrival of the haughty and
> arrogant Mr. Darcy.
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Clearly, some miscreant with a time machine has plagiarized
> _Terminators of Endearment_ in advance.
I'm still waiting for Pachyderms of Endearment
Louann Miller
news:0v2fo4ddtek3ledvk...@newsposting.sessile.org:
>>Because it is a book dear to my heart, and one does not like to see
>>things dear to one's heart pointlessly copied and desecrated for
>>filthy lucre.
>
> The original book is *utterly* unaffected.
As Stephen King often has occasion to say after another crap movie, the
books aren't ruined. They're still right here.
The solution to a crap piece of public-domain-published-for-pay fan fiction
is to ignore it. Six months later it'll be in the remainder bin and the
original will still be the original.
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote in
> news:0v2fo4ddtek3ledvk...@newsposting.sessile.org:
>
>>> Because it is a book dear to my heart, and one does not like to see
>>> things dear to one's heart pointlessly copied and desecrated for
>>> filthy lucre.
>> The original book is *utterly* unaffected.
>
> As Stephen King often has occasion to say after another crap movie, the
> books aren't ruined. They're still right here.
>
That's Raymond Chandler, unless King's taken to plagiarizing him as
well as Bradbury's "heart of a child" line.
I'm a bit skeptical of the line -- sure, the books are still around,
but there have been numerous occasions where the movie eclipses the
source material -- most Westerns; for example, how many people have
read The Ox-Bow Incident or True Grit compared to the number who've
seen the movies, even though the books are superior.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
The Librarian had seen many weird things in his time, but that had
to be the 57th strangest.
-Terry Pratchett, /Moving Pictures/
Sean O'Hara
E. Spoor) declared:
> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>>
>> So you want to get rid of:
>>
>> The Seven Per-cent Solution
>
> Eh. It wasn't a bad story, except for all that complete inconsistency.
>
Yeah, like how Watson didn't know who Moriarty was in one part, even
though Holmes had told him all about the bad doctor earlier.
No, wait, that inconsistency is from ACD's stories.
If you read The Final Problem with a suspicious bent of mind, it's
obvious something odd is going on since Watson never sees Moriarty
or his henchmen, and only has Holmes' word for what's going on. But
The Valley of Fear adds to the problem by having Watson aware of
Moriarty even earlier. Meyers actually explains away these
inconsistencies.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
Jeff: She's leaving the country, she doesn't speak English, I
insulted her friend's breasts...and she thinks I collect women's
ears in a bucket.
-Coupling
Kurt Busiek
> In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Louann Miller declared:
>> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote in
>> news:0v2fo4ddtek3ledvk...@newsposting.sessile.org:
>>
>>>> Because it is a book dear to my heart, and one does not like to see
>>>> things dear to one's heart pointlessly copied and desecrated for
>>>> filthy lucre.
>>> The original book is *utterly* unaffected.
>>
>> As Stephen King often has occasion to say after another crap movie, the
>> books aren't ruined. They're still right here.
>
> That's Raymond Chandler, unless King's taken to plagiarizing him as
> well as Bradbury's "heart of a child" line.
KIng often has occasion to say it, but does not claim it as original to
him; I believe he cites Chandler, though I've seen the line attributed
to may other authors, over the years, including G.B. Shaw.
> I'm a bit skeptical of the line -- sure, the books are still around,
> but there have been numerous occasions where the movie eclipses the
> source material -- most Westerns; for example, how many people have
> read The Ox-Bow Incident or True Grit compared to the number who've
> seen the movies, even though the books are superior.
But still, the books are still there, unruined.
They're even both still in print, which might not be the case without
the movies.
kdb
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
> Spoor) declared:
>> Sean O'Hara wrote:
>>>
>>> So you want to get rid of:
>>>
>>> The Seven Per-cent Solution
>>
>> Eh. It wasn't a bad story, except for all that complete
>> inconsistency.
>>
>
> Yeah, like how Watson didn't know who Moriarty was in one part, even
> though Holmes had told him all about the bad doctor earlier.
>
> No, wait, that inconsistency is from ACD's stories.
>
> If you read The Final Problem with a suspicious bent of mind, it's
> obvious something odd is going on since Watson never sees Moriarty or
> his henchmen, and only has Holmes' word for what's going on. But The
> Valley of Fear adds to the problem by having Watson aware of Moriarty
> even earlier. Meyers actually explains away these inconsistencies.
>
>
Yes, but that's still doing the same kind of rewriting, since I'm quite
sure Doyle didn't have in his mind that Holmes was inventing the
Criminal Mastermind out of drug-crazed resentment from his past.
I've amused myself with similar rewritings, but if (as began this
thread) someone wants to stop anyone from creating abominable pastiches,
you have to stop ALL of them, since SOMEONE'S going to object to
anything you do to touch the Sacred Original.
Me, I prefer the Evil Mastermind Moriarty to the Drug Fantasy Moriarty.
Mike Ash
Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm a bit skeptical of the line -- sure, the books are still around,
> but there have been numerous occasions where the movie eclipses the
> source material -- most Westerns; for example, how many people have
> read The Ox-Bow Incident or True Grit compared to the number who've
> seen the movies, even though the books are superior.
How many people would have read them if the movies had never existed?
I'd wager it's less, or at least not more.
Kurt Busiek
> In article <6ur8kvF...@mid.individual.net>,
> Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm a bit skeptical of the line -- sure, the books are still around,
>> but there have been numerous occasions where the movie eclipses the
>> source material -- most Westerns; for example, how many people have
>> read The Ox-Bow Incident or True Grit compared to the number who've
>> seen the movies, even though the books are superior.
>
> How many people would have read them if the movies had never existed?
> I'd wager it's less, or at least not more.
And Chandler's point wasn't that the books would always be better known
than the movies, anyway. It was that the books continued to exist in
the form they had before the movies; any alterations the movie made did
not alter the book.
kdb
Mike Schilling
>> That's Raymond Chandler, unless King's taken to plagiarizing him as
>> well as Bradbury's "heart of a child" line.
>
> KIng often has occasion to say it, but does not claim it as original
> to him; I believe he cites Chandler, though I've seen the line
> attributed to may other authors, over the years, including G.B.
> Shaw.
I thought it was Robert Bloch.
Kurt Busiek
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> said:
Which one? The "Hollywood didn't ruin my book, it's right there on the
shelf" or the "heart of a child" line?
I first heard the latter line attributed to Robert Silverberg, but I
have no particular reason to believe it; I was told it by a fellow
junior-high school student who'd have heard it from someone else, and
who knows where down the line it could have been misstated?
kdb
Mike Schilling
> On 2009-02-03 08:55:03 -0800, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>>>> That's Raymond Chandler, unless King's taken to plagiarizing him
>>>> as
>>>> well as Bradbury's "heart of a child" line.
>>>
>>> KIng often has occasion to say it, but does not claim it as
>>> original
>>> to him; I believe he cites Chandler, though I've seen the line
>>> attributed to may other authors, over the years, including G.B.
>>> Shaw.
>>
>> I thought it was Robert Bloch.
>
> Which one? The "Hollywood didn't ruin my book, it's right there on
> the shelf" or the "heart of a child" line?
"I have the heart of a child. I keep it in a jar on my shelf."
At least, Asimov attributes it to Bloch in _The Hugo Winners_.
Sean O'Hara
> In article <6ur8kvF...@mid.individual.net>,
> Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm a bit skeptical of the line -- sure, the books are still around,
>> but there have been numerous occasions where the movie eclipses the
>> source material -- most Westerns; for example, how many people have
>> read The Ox-Bow Incident or True Grit compared to the number who've
>> seen the movies, even though the books are superior.
>
> How many people would have read them if the movies had never existed?
> I'd wager it's less, or at least not more.
>
Donna Tartt argues quite convincingly that True Grit was on its way
to becoming a modern classic until Wayne's film erased it from the
culture.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
Dr. Zoidberg: Love? That word is unknown here. I'm simply looking
for a female swollen with eggs to accept my genetic material.
Fry: You and me both, brother!
-Futurama
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Mike Ash declared:
>> In article <6ur8kvF...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm a bit skeptical of the line -- sure, the books are still around,
>>> but there have been numerous occasions where the movie eclipses the
>>> source material -- most Westerns; for example, how many people have
>>> read The Ox-Bow Incident or True Grit compared to the number who've
>>> seen the movies, even though the books are superior.
>>
>> How many people would have read them if the movies had never existed?
>> I'd wager it's less, or at least not more.
>>
>
> Donna Tartt argues quite convincingly that True Grit was on its way to
> becoming a modern classic until Wayne's film erased it from the culture.
>
You're going to accept the word of some Tartt?
Sean O'Hara
declared:
The content, sure, but not their reputation.
> They're even both still in print, which might not be the case without
> the movies.
>
True Grit only came back into print a few years ago -- prior to
that, there had only been one reprint since the film came out. The
current edition isn't because of the popularity of the movie, but
because it's Donna Tartt's favorite novel and she pushed to get it
back in print. In her afterword to the current edition, she talks
about buying up every copy she could find in used bookstores so she
could lend them out to people, and even admits to once stealing a
copy from a library when she couldn't find any for sale.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
But my favorite horror films are the ones that really reflect
everyday life, such as WHEN A STRANGER CALLS, rather than eight
Hooters girls on a canoe trip in uncharted waters north of Canada.
--Sylvester Stallone
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Louann Miller
>declared:
>>
>> As Stephen King often has occasion to say after another crap movie, the
>> books aren't ruined. They're still right here.
>
>That's Raymond Chandler, unless King's taken to plagiarizing him as
>well as Bradbury's "heart of a child" line.
"Heart of a young boy" was Robert Bloch, not Bradbury. "It's still
right there" was James Cain, not Chandler, and referred to "The
Postman Always Rings Twice."
>I'm a bit skeptical of the line -- sure, the books are still around,
>but there have been numerous occasions where the movie eclipses the
>source material -- most Westerns; for example, how many people have
>read The Ox-Bow Incident or True Grit compared to the number who've
>seen the movies, even though the books are superior.
On the other hand, the novel of _Cat Ballou_ was pretty darn lame,
while the movie was lots of fun.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
Kurt Busiek
> In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Kurt Busiek declared:
>> On 2009-02-03 08:11:03 -0800, Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> I'm a bit skeptical of the line -- sure, the books are still around,
>>> but there have been numerous occasions where the movie eclipses the
>>> source material -- most Westerns; for example, how many people have
>>> read The Ox-Bow Incident or True Grit compared to the number who've
>>> seen the movies, even though the books are superior.
>>
>> But still, the books are still there, unruined.
>
> The content, sure, but not their reputation.
As noted, Chandler wasn't making a claim that the book's reputation
would be preserved forever. He was talking about the content.
kdb
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:gma1rv$dlv$2...@solani.org:
I don't read reputations. I read books.
--
Terry Austin
"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
htn963
> In article
> <aca20c78-e2ca-4ee7-9f53-10eccd225...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,> > Let's not kid ourselves that any creative evolution is going on in
> > this instance. We're talking about lifting an author's entire text
> > wholesale, appending crap, and adding your name as co-author. And,
> > yeah, like an author whose previous books are about porn and horror
> > films is to become the next Shakespeare.
>
> Two points:
>
> 1) You might be wrong about this author. That you feel certain doesn't
> mean you're right.
<sigh> Fine. If some of you think zombies ladled in the classics might
make an interesting literary repast, then go to it. I'll pass.
> 2) If there are actual legal restrictions put in place, you can bet that
> the law WILL be wrong in many cases.
Yes, the law is often self-serving, corrupt, and out of touch with
reality; but otoh you'd be suprised how often it *does* work. Free
speech has many exceptions for well-founded, pragmatic reasons. And a
lot of people are fond of saying that "you can't legislate morality"
but the Warren Court did just that by forcing everyone's hands with
its desegregation decisions in the 50's -- leave that job for a
congress filled with good ol' boys beholden to their redneck
constituents and the Civil Rights movement would have been set back
considerably.
> Perversion of the classics by modern reinterpretation is at worst an
> extremely minor annoyance. Just ignore them if you don't like them.
What I like to see is that blatant instances of ripping-off like this
-- and I hope y'all are not confusing this with what Alan Moore and
Phillip Jose Farmer are doing -- be made strictly non-profit.
> On the other hand, restrictions on what can be published are evil, pure
> and simple. I think the choice is clear.
Well, there have been situations when published works have helped to
perpetrate evil, like _The Protocols of the Elders of Zion_ and
_Malleus Maleficarum_, so the choice isn't always clear.
--
Ht
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> What I like to see is that blatant instances of ripping-off like this
> -- and I hope y'all are not confusing this with what Alan Moore and
> Phillip Jose Farmer are doing -- be made strictly non-profit.
Moore and Farmer are BETTER at it than someone just doing a cut and
paste amusement, but it'd be very hard to prove that you could get to a
clear-cut agreement on the matter, or a clear-cut way to make your rulings.
For instance, what Farmer did in Barnstormer In Oz was ... very
not-good, and the critically acclaimed "Wicked", IMCGO, was exactly what
its title says.
Kurt Busiek
> On Feb 2, 10:13 am, Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <aca20c78-e2ca-4ee7-9f53-10eccd225...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
>>> Very nice, but save the speech for your ACLU meetings.
>>
>>> Let's not kid ourselves that any creative evolution is going on in
>>> this instance. We're talking about lifting an author's entire text
>>> wholesale, appending crap, and adding your name as co-author. And,
>>> yeah, like an author whose previous books are about porn and horror
>>> films is to become the next Shakespeare.
>>
>> Two points:
>>
>> 1) You might be wrong about this author. That you feel certain doesn't
>> mean you're right.
>
> <sigh> Fine. If some of you think zombies ladled in the classics might
> make an interesting literary repast, then go to it. I'll pass.
A much better response than wishing for a situation in which authors
were actually prevented from using PD materials in a way you don't care
for.
No one's forcing you to buy it; we're simply opposing your wish that
because you don't like the idea, nobody who does like the idea can have
it.
>> Perversion of the classics by modern reinterpretation is at worst an
>> extremely minor annoyance. Just ignore them if you don't like them.
>
> What I like to see is that blatant instances of ripping-off like this
> -- and I hope y'all are not confusing this with what Alan Moore and
> Phillip Jose Farmer are doing -- be made strictly non-profit.
Since publishers can currently print PRIDE & PREJUDICE as is for
profit, declaring that it's got to be non-profit if stuff you don't
like it added in seems bizarre. They're entitled to profit off the
Austen, because it's PD. The new guy actually wrote the new bits, so
he's entitled to profit off of that. Thus, he's entitled to profit off
both parts.
CLUELESS "ripped off" Austen as well, by using her material to create
something new. But since it's public domain, we all own it. There is
no "rip off." All there is is a book you wish you could suppress
because you don't think you'd like it.
kdb
Tim McDaniel
Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Kurt Busiek wrote:
[paraphrased: "that movie didn't ruin the book. It's still there on
the shelf."]
>>> That's Raymond Chandler, unless King's taken to plagiarizing him as
>>> well as Bradbury's "heart of a child" line.
>>
>> original to him; I believe he cites Chandler, though I've seen the
>> line attributed to may other authors, over the years, including
>> G.B. Shaw.
>
>I thought it was Robert Bloch.
Booker T. Washington, or James Nicoll.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Mike Ash
<78cc61ec-e648-41b1...@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 10:13 am, Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <aca20c78-e2ca-4ee7-9f53-10eccd225...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
> > > Very nice, but save the speech for your ACLU meetings.
> >
> > > Let's not kid ourselves that any creative evolution is going on in
> > > this instance. We're talking about lifting an author's entire text
> > > wholesale, appending crap, and adding your name as co-author. And,
> > > yeah, like an author whose previous books are about porn and horror
> > > films is to become the next Shakespeare.
> >
> > Two points:
> >
> > 1) You might be wrong about this author. That you feel certain doesn't
> > mean you're right.
>
> <sigh> Fine. If some of you think zombies ladled in the classics might
> make an interesting literary repast, then go to it. I'll pass.
And that's all I ask.
There is a HUGE difference between this position, "you can do it, but I
want no part of it", and your previous position of "there ought to be a
law!"
You don't have to like the stuff. Just don't get in the way of other
people's creations just because you find them personally distasteful.
johnma...@yahoo.com
> In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Louann Miller
> declared:
>
> > As Stephen King often has occasion to say after another crap movie, the
> > books aren't ruined. They're still right here.
>
> That's Raymond Chandler, unless King's taken to plagiarizing him as
> well as Bradbury's "heart of a child" line.
I think that was actually Robert Bloch, at least I've seen it
attributed to him. And Gahan Wilson had a similar line, and ther is
his "I paint What I see" cartoon. What is wrong with King quoting good
lines?
>
> I'm a bit skeptical of the line -- sure, the books are still around,
> but there have been numerous occasions where the movie eclipses the
> source material -- most Westerns; for example, how many people have
> read The Ox-Bow Incident or True Grit compared to the number who've
> seen the movies, even though the books are superior.
>
That does happen, but for the kind of people who let the movie eclipse
the book, the book would quite probably have been eclipsed by other
movies had the specific movie not been made
hmm a related question: what are the few cases where a film was
*better* than the book it was based on? The first one that comes to
mind is _The African Queen_. Cant think of any SF example right off.
-JM
Mike Schilling
> hmm a related question: what are the few cases where a film was
> *better* than the book it was based on? The first one that comes to
> mind is _The African Queen_. Cant think of any SF example right off.
The Godfather, of course. Arguably Rosemary's Baby.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Jaws is the canonical example. Marginally SF in that the shark's
capabilities are, as Matt Hooper puts it, "impossible!".
Rebecca Rice
Princess Bride. I like the movie, could not get into the
book at all. It's like the movie is a "just the good parts"
version of the book.
Rebecca
Mike Schilling
You are sadly in error. If absolutely necessary, you can skip the
first chapter (about how the fictionalized Goldman's father read The
Morgenstern to him etc.) and proceed directly to Buttercup and the
farmboy, and you won't be able to deny that the book is even better
than the film.
William December Starr
johnma...@yahoo.com said:
> hmm a related question: what are the few cases where a film was
> *better* than the book it was based on? The first one that comes
> to mind is _The African Queen_. Cant think of any SF example right
> off.
"Blade Runner," most absolutely.
-- wds
netcat
Yes, but that was more a case of "inspired from", not "based on".
Don't know about absolutes, but LOTR qualifies, for me.
rgds,
netcat
William December Starr
netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> said:
> wds...@panix.com says...
>> johnma...@yahoo.com said:
>>
>>> hmm a related question: what are the few cases where a film was
>>> *better* than the book it was based on? The first one that comes
>>> to mind is _The African Queen_. Cant think of any SF example right
>>> off.
>>
>> "Blade Runner," most absolutely.
>
> Yes, but that was more a case of "inspired from", not "based on".
I suppose so, but it's a pretty blurry line.
> Don't know about absolutes, but LOTR qualifies, for me.
Without even having seen the movies, I'd vote "almost certainly" for
that one.
-- wds, who possesses neither the PKD nor JRRT genes.
Juho Julkunen
That may be treatable in the future.
--
Juho Julkunen
Michael Stemper
>In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful htn963 declared:
>> Seeing this makes me kinda wish there ought to be some legal
>> restriction (or at least moral prohibition) on the use of classics in
>> public domain.
>
>So you want to get rid of:
>West Side Story
Not to mention _My Fair Lady_ or _Forbidden Planet_, so I won't.
>The Barnstormer of Oz
Not a great loss. Would we also lose _The Number of the Beast_?
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
"Writing about jazz is like dancing about architecture" - Thelonious Monk
htn963
> On 2009-02-03 12:29:03 -0800, htn963 <htn...@live.com> said:
> > What I like to see is that blatant instances of ripping-off like this
> > -- and I hope y'all are not confusing this with what Alan Moore and
> > Phillip Jose Farmer are doing -- be made strictly non-profit.
>
> Since publishers can currently print PRIDE & PREJUDICE as is for
> profit, declaring that it's got to be non-profit if stuff you don't
> like it added in seems bizarre.
Not so bizarre if you consider the "as is" printing of P&P for profit
as a publisher's quid pro quo in the service of preserving the
classics. Think of the children!
>They're entitled to profit off the
> Austen, because it's PD. The new guy actually wrote the new bits, so
> he's entitled to profit off of that. Thus, he's entitled to profit off
> both parts.
Hey, I'm all for the new guy profiting off the new zombie bits he
wrote using Austen's characters, but I'd rather he published the new
bits separately. But, of course, knowing that this won't fly too high
(at best, it'd be a short story or novella in some obscure kitsch
anthology) he tacked it on Austen's original material, using her fame
and name, i.e. piggybacking. It ain't illegal, but it's tacky and
disgusting to me.
>
> CLUELESS "ripped off" Austen as well, by using her material to create
> something new. But since it's public domain, we all own it. There is
> no "rip off."
Yeah, yeah, stop using "Clueless" as an example. I didn't care for
the movie -- not a fan of Silverstone, though I wonder if Paris Hilton
would have been pitch perfect for schlock value -- but I have no
problem with its use of Emma. Also see one of my earlier posts when I
suggested Persuasion would make a good SF with musical numbers. You
may not see a difference between these examples and what is going on
here -- the line between reverence and exploitation is probably too
blurred for you pop-culture authors -- but I do.
>All there is is a book you wish you could suppress
> because you don't think you'd like it.
Not suppress, just penalize the wankers through withering scorn and
taking away their profits.
--
Ht
Kurt Busiek
> On Feb 3, 12:48 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-02-03 12:29:03 -0800, htn963 <htn...@live.com> said:
>>> What I like to see is that blatant instances of ripping-off like this
>>> -- and I hope y'all are not confusing this with what Alan Moore and
>>> Phillip Jose Farmer are doing -- be made strictly non-profit.
>>
>> Since publishers can currently print PRIDE & PREJUDICE as is for
>> profit, declaring that it's got to be non-profit if stuff you don't
>> like it added in seems bizarre.
>
> Not so bizarre if you consider the "as is" printing of P&P for profit
> as a publisher's quid pro quo in the service of preserving the
> classics.
But it's not a quid pro quo, so I wouldn't consider it one.
> Hey, I'm all for the new guy profiting off the new zombie bits he
> wrote using Austen's characters, but I'd rather he published the new
> bits separately.
Public domain doesn't only work for stuff you like.
> Yeah, yeah, stop using "Clueless" as an example.
No.
You really do like to tell people what they can do and what not to.
> I didn't care for
> the movie -- not a fan of Silverstone, though I wonder if Paris Hilton
> would have been pitch perfect for schlock value -- but I have no
> problem with its use of Emma.
Doesn't matter whether you have a problem with it or not. It matters
that they took EMMA, had their way with it and made money of the
results. It's what public domain is for.
> Not suppress, just penalize the wankers through withering scorn and
> taking away their profits.
You'll have to settle for the withering scorn, though I doubt anyone
will wither before it.
kdb
Rebecca Rice
utterly repulsive, and then I got to a bit about how a
princess had traveled many miles to visit a kingdom, and
spent several pages unpacking her things, only to then spend
several pages packing them back up, and at that point I put
the book down and decided I'd stick to just watching the movie.
Rebecca
Rebecca Rice
This would be a matter of debate, to me. The movie was so
different from the book, and shifted the emphasis so much,
that I'm not sure that they were telling the same story. So
saying that one was better than the other is like saying
that chocolate cake is better than pecan pie. They aren't
really directly comparable.
Rebecca
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> >
> Princess Bride. I like the movie, could not get into the book at all.
> It's like the movie is a "just the good parts" version of the book.
>
The film is a horrible adaptation that removes everything that made
the book interesting.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
Mr. Potter: Course, he's changed some. Being buried in the earth
does that.
--The Stranger
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> William December Starr wrote:
>>>>
>> "Blade Runner," most absolutely.
>>
>
> This would be a matter of debate, to me. The movie was so different
> from the book, and shifted the emphasis so much, that I'm not sure that
> they were telling the same story.
They dropped the stupid subplot about the religious leader that
never went anywhere and got rid of the fake police station chapter.
I've seen movies that drop far more than that without being
considered different stories -- LA Confidential, for one; just about
every adaptation of The Three Musketeers for another.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
Oily: Mate in 143 moves.
Fatbot: Oh, poo. You win again.
-Futurama
Kurt Busiek
I think you're misremembering. The book mentions how long the
"packing/unpacking" scenes are as part of discussing why Goldman cut
them out.
Here's the scene you remember as being two scenes, several pages long each:
***
Me again. Of all the cuts in this version, I feel most justified in
making this one. Just as the chapters on whaling in MOBY DICK can be
omitted by all but the most punishment-loving readers, so the packing
scenes that Morgenstern details here are really best left alone.
That's what happens for the next fifty-six and a half pages of THE
PRINCESS BRIDE: packing. (I include unpacking scenes in the same
category.)
What happens is just this: Queen Bella packs most of her wardrobe (11
pages) and tavels to Guilder (2 pages). In Guilder she unpacks (5
pages), then tenders the invitation to Princess Noreena (1 page).
Princess Noreena accepts (1 page). The Princess Noreena packs all her
clothes and hats (23 pages) and, together, the Princess and the Queen
travel back to Florin for the annual celebration of the founding of
Florin City (1 page). They reach King Lotharon's castle, where the
Princess Noreena is shown her quarters (1/2 page) and unpacks all the
same clothes and hats we've just seen her pack one and a half pages
before (12 pages).
It's a baffling passage. I spoke to Professor Bongiorno, of Columbia
University, the head of their Florinese Department, and he said this
was the most deliciously satiric chapter in the entire book,
Morgenstern's point, apparently, being simply to show that although
Florin considered itself vastly more civilized than Guilder, Guilder
was, in fact, the more sophisticated country, as indicated by the
superiority in number and quality of the ladies' clothes. I'm not
about to argue with a full professor, but if you ever have a really
unbreakable case of insomnia, do yourself a favor and start reading
Chapter Three of the uncut version.
Anyway, things pick up a bit once the Prince and Princess meet and
spend the day. Noreena did have, as advertised, marbleish skin,
roseish lips and cheeks, largeish eyes, one blue, one green,
hourglassish form, and easily the most extraordinary collection of hats
ever assembled. Wide brimmed and narrow, some tall, some not, some
fancy, some colorful, some plaid, some plain. She doted on changing
hats at every opportunity. When she met the Prince, she was wearing
one hat, when he asked her for a stroll, she excused herself, shortly
to return wearing another, equally flattering. Things went on like
this throughout the day, but it seems to me to be a bit too much court
etiquette for modern readers, so it's not till the evening meal that I
return to the original text.
***
And then he returns to the "original text."
It's a little over a page, as printed, of which only one paragraph
actually describes packing -- and four pages later, Noreena's dread
secret is exposed, Florin and Guilder are at war, and the Prince is
pointed at Buttercup as his future bride.
I'll agree with Mike. Good as the movie is, the book beats it all hollow.
kdb
Sean O'Hara
E. Spoor) declared:
>
> Me, I prefer the Evil Mastermind Moriarty to the Drug Fantasy Moriarty.
>
Why? Moriarty really wasn't much of an Evil Mastermind in ACD's
stories -- sure, he's a brilliant astronomer, but his criminal
activities are little better than what Meyer Lansky got up to a few
decades later. He's certainly doesn't belong in the same league with
Fantomas and Fu Manchu.
If you want to read about Holmes against a criminal genius, check
out the Arsene Lupin novels, and just know that Herlock Sholmes was
supposed to be the Great Detective until ACD sued Leblanc.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
No Republican senator has sponsored more laws later held
unconstitutional than Hatch.
--The Hill
htn963
>
> On 2009-02-04 10:47:50 -0800, htn963 <htn...@live.com> said:
>
> > Yeah, yeah, stop using "Clueless" as an example.
>
> No.
Yes. It's getting boring and annoying, and as a writer you don't want
to do that to your audience.
> You really do like to tell people what they can do and what not to.
Oh, go jump in the lake, I do no such thing.
> > Not suppress, just penalize the wankers through withering scorn and
> > taking away their profits.
>
> You'll have to settle for the withering scorn, though I doubt anyone
> will wither before it.
And yet you feel compelled to continually respond to my scorn. But I
suppose it isn't suprising that you would want to reserve for yourself
and your brethren this unbridled privilege to piggyback and vandalize
the classics should the creative well ever goes dry.
--
Ht
William December Starr
Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> said:
> Rebecca Rice declared:
>
>> Princess Bride. I like the movie, could not get into the
>> book at all. It's like the movie is a "just the good parts"
>> version of the book.
>
> The film is a horrible adaptation that removes everything
> that made the book interesting.
I'd be more generous. I'd file the movie under "They said it
couldn't be done. And they were right."
-- wds
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>
> And yet you feel compelled to continually respond to my scorn.
But not to WITHER before it, just to MOCK it.
> But I
> suppose it isn't suprising that you would want to reserve for yourself
> and your brethren this unbridled privilege to piggyback and vandalize
> the classics should the creative well ever goes dry.
The "creative well" ran dry about 500 years ago, aside from new
scientific innovations. Shakespeare ripped people off shamelessly,
changed things around, slanted them for his current audience.
We all steal our stuff and write unlabeled fanfic. Some authors just
want to deny this.
htn963
> > johnmarks...@yahoo.com said:
>
> >> hmm a related question: what are the few cases where a film was
> >> *better* than the book it was based on? The first one that comes
> >> to mind is _The African Queen_. Cant think of any SF example right
> >> off.
>
> > "Blade Runner," most absolutely.
>
> This would be a matter of debate, to me. The movie was so
> different from the book, and shifted the emphasis so much,
> that I'm not sure that they were telling the same story. So
> saying that one was better than the other is like saying
> that chocolate cake is better than pecan pie. They aren't
> really directly comparable.
That's a good point. And I also consider _Do Androids Dream of
Electric Sheep_ to be one of PKD's best novels, despite its flaws.
"Blade Runner" has its flaws too.
--
Ht
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Inconceivable!
William December Starr
Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> said:
[ re the DO ANDROIDS DREAM... --> "Blade Runner" conversion ]
> They dropped the stupid subplot about the religious leader
> that never went anywhere
His Most Holy Lordship Blackenjarius the Immobile?
> and got rid of the fake police station chapter.
-- wds
Kurt Busiek
> On Feb 4, 4:10 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2009-02-04 10:47:50 -0800, htn963 <htn...@live.com> said:
>>
>>> Yeah, yeah, stop using "Clueless" as an example.
>>
>> No.
>
> Yes.
No.
> It's getting boring and annoying, and as a writer you don't want
> to do that to your audience.
It's on point, and the fact that you don't mind the one while wishing
to punish the perpetrators of the other illustrates nicely that what's
really going on is that you're miffed, not that there's any substance
to your complaint.
>> You really do like to tell people what they can do and what not to.
>
> Oh, go jump in the lake, I do no such thing.
And yet...
>>> Not suppress, just penalize the wankers through withering scorn and
>>> taking away their profits.
>>
>> You'll have to settle for the withering scorn, though I doubt anyone
>> will wither before it.
>
> And yet you feel compelled to continually respond to my scorn. But I
> suppose it isn't suprising that you would want to reserve for yourself
> and your brethren this unbridled privilege to piggyback and vandalize
> the classics should the creative well ever goes dry.
That's right, wanting the classics to be own by _everyone_ is a secret
act of selfishness. Only you, who want to punish people who use the
public domain in ways you disapprove of, are selfless.
kdb
htn963
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> htn963 wrote:
>
> > And yet you feel compelled to continually respond to my scorn.
>
> But not to WITHER before it, just to MOCK it.
People sometimes mock what they fear. Muwahahaha!
> > But I
> > suppose it isn't suprising that you would want to reserve for yourself
> > and your brethren this unbridled privilege to piggyback and vandalize
> > the classics should the creative well ever goes dry.
>
> The "creative well" ran dry about 500 years ago, aside from new
> scientific innovations.
Hey, let's not be so pessimistic -- most of SF weren't even written
500 years ago.
>Shakespeare ripped people off shamelessly, changed things around, slanted them for his current audience.
Of course, especially Holinshed's chronicles and Plutarch's Lives for
the historical plays, but he added much, much more than he stole, and
being Shakespeare, he made much of what he stole his own.
> We all steal our stuff and write unlabeled fanfic. Some authors just
> want to deny this.
That's fine. Just don't include the people you stole from as co-
authors.
--
Ht
Mike Ash
<8af4b5cf-3f1d-43c6...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 4:10 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2009-02-04 10:47:50 -0800, htn963 <htn...@live.com> said:
> >
> > > Yeah, yeah, stop using "Clueless" as an example.
> >
> > No.
>
> Yes. It's getting boring and annoying, and as a writer you don't want
> to do that to your audience.
>
> > You really do like to tell people what they can do and what not to.
>
> Oh, go jump in the lake, I do no such thing.
This is pretty hilarious. There you are, telling someone what they can
and can not do, and then one paragraph later you state that you do no
such thing.
Are you completely unaware of your own actions, or do you have some
weird Humpty-Dumpty-esque private definitions of all these words that
you aren't sharing with the world?
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Feb 5, 11:21 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> htn963 wrote:
>>
>>> And yet you feel compelled to continually respond to my scorn.
>> But not to WITHER before it, just to MOCK it.
>
> People sometimes mock what they fear. Muwahahaha!
But usually they just mock what needs mocking.
"You're mocking me, aren't you?" -- Buzz Lightyear
>
>>> But I
>>> suppose it isn't suprising that you would want to reserve for yourself
>>> and your brethren this unbridled privilege to piggyback and vandalize
>>> the classics should the creative well ever goes dry.
>> The "creative well" ran dry about 500 years ago, aside from new
>> scientific innovations.
>
> Hey, let's not be so pessimistic -- most of SF weren't even written
> 500 years ago.
True, but that wasn't the point. (Actually it was ALL written back
then. We so-called SF authors are the ones that are allowed access to
the Time Vault where we get to pick out what works we release as "our"
work.)
>
>> Shakespeare ripped people off shamelessly, changed things around, slanted them for his current audience.
>
> Of course, especially Holinshed's chronicles and Plutarch's Lives for
> the historical plays, but he added much, much more than he stole, and
> being Shakespeare, he made much of what he stole his own.
>
>> We all steal our stuff and write unlabeled fanfic. Some authors just
>> want to deny this.
>
> That's fine. Just don't include the people you stole from as co-
> authors.
"Remember why the good lord GAVE you eyes
And so never SHADE your eyes
While you plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize!
(always remember, please, to call it 'research')"
I will certainly credit Jane with the inspiration for Terminators of
Endearment. I just wouldn't use her actual characters since she didn't
leave them in positions appropriate for the story. (although I could
imagine a scene in which a certain clergyman gets gunned down... hmmm...)
htn963
> In article
> <8af4b5cf-3f1d-43c6-8b5c-c2b833c0a...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 4, 4:10 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 2009-02-04 10:47:50 -0800, htn963 <htn...@live.com> said:
>
> > > > Yeah, yeah, stop using "Clueless" as an example.
>
> > > No.
>
> > Yes. It's getting boring and annoying, and as a writer you don't want
> > to do that to your audience.
>
> > > You really do like to tell people what they can do and what not to.
>
> > Oh, go jump in the lake, I do no such thing.
>
> This is pretty hilarious. There you are, telling someone what they can
> and can not do, and then one paragraph later you state that you do no
> such thing.
Er, one clause later even, and I thought it was obvious that I was
making a joke. Putting a smiley at the end would have undermined much
of the delicious irony, though with usenet one never knows.
--
Ht
Mike Schilling
It's a wonderful film, just not as wonderful as the book. The
comparison does make me want to read the Butch Cassidy book Goldman
never wrote.
Mike Schilling
There are people whom I know to be joking when they got all pompous
and full of themselves, and people for whom that's prefectly in
character.
Gene
$yr3....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com:
> johnma...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> hmm a related question: what are the few cases where a film was
>> *better* than the book it was based on? The first one that comes to
>> mind is _The African Queen_. Cant think of any SF example right off.
>
>
* The Godfather, of course. Arguably Rosemary's Baby.
The Godfather was sf? Who knew.
I would say the most obvious sf example is Jurassic Park. Starship Troopers
is another example, but unfortunately when I say that people think I am
trolling or indulging in hyperbole. The Wizard of Oz provides another
example, as does Blade Runner.
What about where the novelization is better than the original movie?
William December Starr
Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org> said:
>> johnma...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> hmm a related question: what are the few cases where a film was
>>> *better* than the book it was based on? The first one that comes to
>>> mind is _The African Queen_. Cant think of any SF example right off.
> I would say the most obvious sf example is Jurassic Park.
Bfeh. "Jurassic Park" was a special-effects demo reel, with a
rudimentary storyline to move it along.
(Not that the novel was what one would really call "good" either,
mind you.)
-- wds
Gene
@panix2.panix.com:
>> I would say the most obvious sf example is Jurassic Park.
>
> Bfeh. "Jurassic Park" was a special-effects demo reel, with a
> rudimentary storyline to move it along.
First-class dinosaurs, one of Williams best scores, and the idiocies of the
book in part removed. Cardboard characters in the book converted to real ones
n the movie-especially striking in the case of Richard Attenborough in the
role of John Hammond.
The movie conveys terrific sensawonda-think of the scene where Ellie Sattler
sees the sick Triceratops, with the Jurassic Park theme blazing away on the
soundtrack.
Great movie. Trashy novel. Big, big difference.
Wayne Throop
: Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org>
: What about where the novelization is better than the original movie?
Hm. Fantastic Voyage IMO. Sure, the visual appeal of Rachel Welch
and all, but it was better as a book than the movie was as a movie. IMO.
IMO the Foster novelization of "Alien" was better
than the movie.
Note that both of these sort of change the focus, so it's almost
like comparing Blade Runner to DADoES, ie, comparing apples and bicycles.
I have a feeling there are some more, but I can't seem to bring
them to my conscious attention.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Chuk Goodin
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>htn963 wrote:
>
>>
>> Because it is a book dear to my heart, and one does not like to see
>> things dear to one's heart pointlessly copied and desecrated for
>> filthy lucre.
>
> I love Pride and Prejudice. And I intend eventually to finish
>Terminators of Endearment. I don't consider this a desecration, and even
>if it is, so what? It's not really affecting the original, and never will.
Well, with Terminators, they might go back in time and edit/destroy the
original, so you never know.
--
chuk
Gene
> IMO the Foster novelization of "Alien" was better
> than the movie.
Good grief. That eliminates the brilliantly creepy H. R. Giger sets and
monsters, which made the movie.
Wayne Throop
: Good grief. That eliminates the brilliantly creepy H. R. Giger sets and
Right, that's the "comparing apples to bicycles" thing.
A book inherrently wouldn't have those, through no fault of the book.
And it's hard for a book to have monsters literally jump out and startle
you, and so on and on.
Dimensional Traveler
> William December Starr wrote:
>> In article <6v0m1uF...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> Rebecca Rice declared:
>>>
>>>> Princess Bride. I like the movie, could not get into the
>>>> book at all. It's like the movie is a "just the good parts"
>>>> version of the book.
>>> The film is a horrible adaptation that removes everything
>>> that made the book interesting.
>>
>> I'd be more generous. I'd file the movie under "They said it
>> couldn't be done. And they were right."
>
> Inconceivable!
My ten foot pole isn't long enough to touch that.
--
"What Kind of perv rememembers the scenes where she's clothed???" -
Anim8rFSK, 8/23/08
Mike Schilling
> In article <Xns9BA99A20B2FD1ge...@207.115.17.102>,
> Gene <ge...@chewbacca.org> said:
>
>>> johnma...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> hmm a related question: what are the few cases where a film was
>>>> *better* than the book it was based on? The first one that comes
>>>> to
>>>> mind is _The African Queen_. Cant think of any SF example right
>>>> off.
>
>> I would say the most obvious sf example is Jurassic Park.
>
> Bfeh. "Jurassic Park" was a special-effects demo reel, with a
> rudimentary storyline to move it along.
So was the book, where that's a bigger fault.
Rebecca Rice
someone cut out the part. If you are going to cut out the
part because it's bad, great. But don't tell me all about
the part that you aren't going to tell me about because it's
bad. Plus, did I mention that I hated the family that was
involved in the framing story? And the fact that I cheated
and read the end (to see if there was anything worth
slogging on for), and got to the bit where the guy says that
he doesn't think it ended happily, even if that's what the
story says, but that Inigo's wound started bleeding again,
etc?
So let's just say our mileage varies.
Rebecca
Mike Schilling
> See.. my problem is that I didn't want to read about why
> someone cut out the part. If you are going to cut out the
> part because it's bad, great. But don't tell me all about
> the part that you aren't going to tell me about because it's
> bad.
You do realize that there's no "real" version Goldman cut that
description from. That whole passage is a bit of deadpan humor about
stories and how they change over time If you've read, say, any
unabridged Dumas and run across passages that seem pointless but
probably appealed to his original readers, Goldman's version will
bring a smile of recognition to your face. And even if not, the Ph.D.
insisting that 56 pages of packing and unpacking is "delicious" is
pretty funny all by itself.
> Plus, did I mention that I hated the family that was
> involved in the framing story? And the fact that I cheated
> and read the end (to see if there was anything worth
> slogging on for), and got to the bit where the guy says that
> he doesn't think it ended happily, even if that's what the
> story says, but that Inigo's wound started bleeding again,
> etc?
The story in the book doesn't end happily (the way the film does), but
with every indication that Westley et al. will be lucky to get away.
Then "Goldman" returns, and muses on the ending of the "real story".
The book isn't just the Buttercup-Westley romance, it's also the story
of the fictitious Goldman and why he loves the romance so much.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The story in the book doesn't end happily (the way the film does), but
>with every indication that Westley et al. will be lucky to get away.
>Then "Goldman" returns, and muses on the ending of the "real story".
>The book isn't just the Buttercup-Westley romance, it's also the story
>of the fictitious Goldman and why he loves the romance so much.
It has some in-jokes, too.
The Goldman in the book is very much not the real William Goldman, and
the wife and kid in the book aren't like Goldman's real wife and
daughters. Goldman's editor in the book, Urban del Rey, is named for
a toy bull Judy-Lynn del Rey brought back from a vacation in Spain.
The book is about stories, about how we use them.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Mike Schilling
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 22:41:46 -0800, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The story in the book doesn't end happily (the way the film does),
>> but with every indication that Westley et al. will be lucky to get
>> away. Then "Goldman" returns, and muses on the ending of the "real
>> story". The book isn't just the Buttercup-Westley romance, it's
>> also
>> the story of the fictitious Goldman and why he loves the romance so
>> much.
>
> It has some in-jokes, too.
>
> The Goldman in the book is very much not the real William Goldman,
> and
> the wife and kid in the book aren't like Goldman's real wife and
> daughters. Goldman's editor in the book, Urban del Rey, is named
> for
> a toy bull Judy-Lynn del Rey brought back from a vacation in Spain.
Named Urban because he's a Papal Bull.
Mike Schilling
>
> The story in the book doesn't end happily (the way the film does),
> but
> with every indication that Westley et al. will be lucky to get away.
> Then "Goldman" returns, and muses on the ending of the "real story".
I found it online: Here's what "Goldman" says:
That's Morgenstern's ending, a "Lady or the Tiger?" type ending
(this was before "The Lady or the Tiger?", remember). Now, he was a
satirist, so he left it that way, and my father was, I guess I
realized too late, a romantic, so he ended it another way.
Well, I'm an abridger, so I'm entitled to a few ideas of my own.
Did they make it? Was the pirate ship there? You can answer it for
yourself, but for me, I say yes it was. And yes, they got away. And
got their strength back and had lots of adventures and more than their
share of laughs.
But that doesn't mean I think they had a happy ending either.
because, in my opinion anyway they squabbled a lot, and Buttercup lost
her looks eventually, and one day Fezzik lost a fight and some hotshot
kid whipped Inigo with a sword and Westley was never able to really
sleep sound because of Humperdinck maybe being on the trail.
I'm not trying to make this a downer, understand. I mean, I
really do think that love is the best thing in the world, except for
cough drops. But I also have to say, for the umpty-umpth time, that
life isn't fair. It's just fairer than death, that's all.
If that ruins the story for anyone, well, we have very different ideas
about stories.
Michael Stemper
>htn963 wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 11:21 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>> htn963 wrote:
>>> The "creative well" ran dry about 500 years ago, aside from new
>>> scientific innovations.
>>
>> Hey, let's not be so pessimistic -- most of SF weren't even written
>> 500 years ago.
>
> True, but that wasn't the point. (Actually it was ALL written back
>then. We so-called SF authors are the ones that are allowed access to
>the Time Vault where we get to pick out what works we release as "our"
>work.)
Do you have to give the secret handshake?
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made from meat?
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <gmffrh$od$1...@news.motzarella.org>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
>> htn963 wrote:
>>> On Feb 5, 11:21 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> htn963 wrote:
>
>>>> The "creative well" ran dry about 500 years ago, aside from new
>>>> scientific innovations.
>>> Hey, let's not be so pessimistic -- most of SF weren't even written
>>> 500 years ago.
>> True, but that wasn't the point. (Actually it was ALL written back
>> then. We so-called SF authors are the ones that are allowed access to
>> the Time Vault where we get to pick out what works we release as "our"
>> work.)
>
> Do you have to give the secret handshake?
>
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill your grandfather.
Michael Alan Chary
I actually thought it was better than it had any right to be. I have to
say, in a brief tangent, that professional book reviewers -- such as
myself in the the 1990's and early-2000's -- probably have worse taste in
reading materials than the typical educated person, because we have to
decide whether a book is doing what it sets out to do. _Jurassic Park_ was
meant for the Christmas trade, but I'm going to bet it was read on
beaches, mostly. It wasn't _Gravity's Rainbow_ but nobody bought it
expecting Pynchon. I'm inclined to think it was mostly bought by people
who gave it away. I have nothing to back that up with, though. For my
part, I liked it well enough. I was disappointed that George Carlin did
not play Ian Malcolm in the movie, though.
--
The All-New, All-Different Howling Curmudgeons!
http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons