Some good books cannot be read again
gnohmon
was! Now I'm trying to read it for the second time, and it is so bad
that I doubt I'll finish. How odd, considering that I recently went
through "the man who sold the moon" for just the second time, and
enjoyed it.
With only a few years between readings, I long ago tried to reread
Tolkien and managed to finish only a few chapters of the Trilogy.
Wracking my brain to rack and ruin, I can think of no other examples of
books that I greatly enjoyed on first reading, but could not stand the
second time around.
"Slan" almost qualified, but its quick-paced narrative kept me turning
the pages until the reread was done. Perhaps the quick pace is what
does it; too much maundering and blathering may give the reader more of
a chance to stop turning pages.
ObWI: if Keats had had time for a second reading of Chapman's Homer...
Pete Fenelon
> Thirty or forty years ago, I read "Glory Road". What a great book it
> was! Now I'm trying to read it for the second time, and it is so bad
I loathed it first time through, and haven't ever gone back.
> With only a few years between readings, I long ago tried to reread
> Tolkien and managed to finish only a few chapters of the Trilogy.
It's the kind of writing that looks impressive when you're in your early
teens, but by the time you're exposed to *real* writing, rather than
pseudo-mediaeval epics, you're unlikely to ever go back. I think reading
Peake destroyed any wish I ever had to look at Tolkien again - there's
more *writing* in a page of Peake than a whole volume of Tolkien.
> Wracking my brain to rack and ruin, I can think of no other examples of
> books that I greatly enjoyed on first reading, but could not stand the
> second time around.
>
"The Number Of The B(r)east". I loved it when it came out, thought it
was fast, funny, sexy, and clever. Re-read it a few years later and
found it tawdry, bawdy, smutty, and juvenile - then again, I was about
12 when it came out and its tits'n'ass brand of promiscuity was probably
quite racy for me at that age. ;)
pete
--
pe...@fenelon.com "There's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" - HMHB
Nix
> "The Number Of The B(r)east". I loved it when it came out, thought it
> was fast, funny, sexy, and clever. Re-read it a few years later and
> found it tawdry, bawdy, smutty, and juvenile - then again, I was about
> 12 when it came out and its tits'n'ass brand of promiscuity was probably
> quite racy for me at that age. ;)
Try re-rereading it in the light of Gharlane of Eddore's fascinating
analysis:
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/msg/d2f41caa74f5a248>.
I did, and couldn't stop laughing. Gharlane was (as so often) dead right
here.
--
`I lost interest in "blade servers" when I found they didn't throw knives
at people who weren't supposed to be in your machine room.'
--- Anthony de Boer
low key
It ages incredibly well and is really a different story the second time it
is read.
--
'War spares not the brave but the cowardly'
-anacreon
Sea Wasp
This is very individual specific. I can't offhand think of anything I
enjoyed reading that I STILL don't enjoy reading, at least once I get
out of the REAL kid's reading area. And even some of that's still fun
when I'm reading it to kids. I feel somewhat sorry for those who seem
to literally outgrow the stuff they like instead of just ADDING to the
stuff that they like.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
how...@brazee.net
On 27-Jun-2005, "gnohmon" <gno...@panix.com> wrote:
> "Slan" almost qualified, but its quick-paced narrative kept me turning
> the pages until the reread was done. Perhaps the quick pace is what
> does it; too much maundering and blathering may give the reader more of
> a chance to stop turning pages.
Keep reading Van Vogt, you will find what you liked when you were 12 doesn't
age.
Gene Ward Smith
gnohmon wrote:
> With only a few years between readings, I long ago tried to reread
> Tolkien and managed to finish only a few chapters of the Trilogy.
I am one of the many, many people who have read Tolkien many, many
times. It's hardly a good example of a good book which cannot be
reread, a thing which probably does not exist anyway.
More interesting is to ask for trashy books which are fun to reread.
nomadi...@hotmail.com
> I feel somewhat sorry for those who seem
> to literally outgrow the stuff they like instead of just ADDING to the
> stuff that they like.
Don't feel sorry for me, I don't mind the process.
GSV Three Minds in a Can
the wonderful person Gene Ward Smith <genewa...@gmail.com> said
>
>
>gnohmon wrote:
>
>> With only a few years between readings, I long ago tried to reread
>> Tolkien and managed to finish only a few chapters of the Trilogy.
>
>I am one of the many, many people who have read Tolkien many, many
>times. It's hardly a good example of a good book which cannot be
>reread, a thing which probably does not exist anyway.
Me too. And having read some Peake I was even more impressed at JRRTs
ability to string meaningful words together and tell an interesting and
detailed story, coherently even.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.
trike
>here.
Did you really mean to say that?
He would've been mock-pissed, but I thought that was pretty damn funny.
"No no, it's fine -- just shove Gharlane over and use his ass as an
end table."
Doug
...of course, it helps if you put the comma between "dead" and "right."
Jeff & Ann Smith
> Bitstring <1119917621....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, from
> the wonderful person Gene Ward Smith <genewa...@gmail.com> said
>
>> gnohmon wrote:
>>
>>> With only a few years between readings, I long ago tried to reread
>>> Tolkien and managed to finish only a few chapters of the Trilogy.
>>
>> I am one of the many, many people who have read Tolkien many, many
>> times. It's hardly a good example of a good book which cannot be
>> reread, a thing which probably does not exist anyway.
>
> Me too. And having read some Peake I was even more impressed at JRRTs
> ability to string meaningful words together and tell an interesting and
> detailed story, coherently even.
I've only read LOTR half a dozen times or so, and it's been a completely
different book each time. So, yes, completely rereadable.
I *do* have to channel my inner 12-year-old to reread Tarzan, but not LOTR.
Jeff S
trike
>a completely different book each time. So, yes, completely
>rereadable.
Any discussion like this smacks headlong into YMMV. Sometimes a book
doesn't hold up, sometimes it does, and that varies by individual.
What's more interesting to me is _why_ this happens. My girlfriend
will read Patrick Dennis' books over and over (she's currently on the
dozenth reading of _Tony_), while once is enough for me. She does it
because it's like comfort food -- each time she re-reads them she
re-experiences her original discovery of those stories. I get the same
thing from McCaffrey's _The White Dragon_. The book doesn't change for
me with my experiences, for some reason. Chuck Yeager's autobiography,
as an opposite example, was utterly different for me the second time
through. The initial read, I was amazed by his adventures; the second
time, I was struck by his selfishness and the fact that he felt he
could break the rules but no one else was allowed to.
Doug
Ray Blaak
> gnohmon wrote:
>
> > With only a few years between readings, I long ago tried to reread
> > Tolkien and managed to finish only a few chapters of the Trilogy.
>
> I am one of the many, many people who have read Tolkien many, many
> times. It's hardly a good example of a good book which cannot be
> reread, a thing which probably does not exist anyway.
LOTR was strange for me. I read it in my early teens and loved it. Tried it
again in my mid twenties and found it awful, shallow, stilted. Read it again
in my mid thirties just when the movies were hyping things up and liked it
just fine -- a fun epic adventure.
--
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me,
The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me,
rAYb...@STRIPCAPStelus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
Bateau
I don't think I could reread Slan. You already know the mystery.
Pete Fenelon
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Pete Fenelon moaned:
>> "The Number Of The B(r)east". I loved it when it came out, thought it
>> was fast, funny, sexy, and clever. Re-read it a few years later and
>> found it tawdry, bawdy, smutty, and juvenile - then again, I was about
>> 12 when it came out and its tits'n'ass brand of promiscuity was probably
>> quite racy for me at that age. ;)
>
> Try re-rereading it in the light of Gharlane of Eddore's fascinating
> analysis:
> <http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/msg/d2f41caa74f5a248>.
>
> I did, and couldn't stop laughing. Gharlane was (as so often) dead right
> here.
>
Oh. My. God.
I'd "spotted" Neil O'Heret Brain and Bennie Hibol (Bob Heinlein), the
of the more contrived ones passed me by though ;)
I would go back and re-read the bloody thing but I gave it away a couple
of years ago!
r.r...@thevine.net
<rAYb...@STRIPCAPStelus.net> wrote:
>"Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> writes:
>> gnohmon wrote:
>>
>> > With only a few years between readings, I long ago tried to reread
>> > Tolkien and managed to finish only a few chapters of the Trilogy.
>>
>> I am one of the many, many people who have read Tolkien many, many
>> times. It's hardly a good example of a good book which cannot be
>> reread, a thing which probably does not exist anyway.
>
>LOTR was strange for me. I read it in my early teens and loved it. Tried it
>again in my mid twenties and found it awful, shallow, stilted. Read it again
>in my mid thirties just when the movies were hyping things up and liked it
>just fine -- a fun epic adventure.
I devoured LotR when I first got it, back in middle school. I have
never had the slightest desire to pick it up again since. Not even
when the movies came out. And I commonly reread favorite books. So I
don't know why, or what my subconscious is trying to tell me about the
books.
Rebecca
Louann Miller
<genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>More interesting is to ask for trashy books which are fun to reread.
A couple of Mercedes Lackey's Elemental romances hold up to re-reading
for some reason. The serpent one ("Dusky Brown and the Seven Avatars")
and the phoenix one ("Cinder-eleanor and the WWI Flying Ace"). They're
silly but for some reason it remains fun.
Louann Miller
>>LOTR was strange for me. I read it in my early teens and loved it. Tried it
>>again in my mid twenties and found it awful, shallow, stilted. Read it again
>>in my mid thirties just when the movies were hyping things up and liked it
>>just fine -- a fun epic adventure.
>
>I devoured LotR when I first got it, back in middle school. I have
>never had the slightest desire to pick it up again since. Not even
>when the movies came out. And I commonly reread favorite books. So I
>don't know why, or what my subconscious is trying to tell me about the
>books.
I read it in high school because I was supposed to, as a geek. Didn't
like it much or get much out of it. Read it again in college and
enjoyed it much more. I think the key difference was that I'd read a
wider range of stuff by then, for classes -- epics, Victorian novels,
etc. I wasn't expecting the written equivalent of an action movie.
Louann, BA English (not "fries with that?" but "I'll make fifty copies
right away.")
Dr. Dave
> >I've only read LOTR half a dozen times or so, and it's been
> >a completely different book each time. So, yes, completely
> >rereadable.
>
> Any discussion like this smacks headlong into YMMV. Sometimes a book
> doesn't hold up, sometimes it does, and that varies by individual.
Sure. But some criticisms make more sense than others. It's one thing
not to *like* what Tolkien was doing in TLotR; it's another entirely to
completely fail to recognize it. Anyone who thinks that Tolkien's
writing is 'stilted' or 'awkward' (or, heaven help us,
"pseudo-mediaeval") is (IMO) projecting their own narrowness of
experience onto the work. Anyone who thinks he didn't know how to tell
a story could probably benefit from reading _The Road to Middle Earth_.
There are lots of legitimate criticisms of Tolkien and TLotR, but "he
didn't know how to write" ain't one of them. It's like criticising
Wallace Stevens's poetry on the grounds that it doesn't rhyme --
there's an assumption built into the criticism that invalidates the
critic's credentials.
David Tate
Nix
>>Gharlane was (as so often) dead right
>>here.
>
> Did you really mean to say that?
Oh. Er. Oops.
No, not really.
gnohmon
Ray Blaak wrote:
> "Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> writes:
> > gnohmon wrote:
> >
> > > With only a few years between readings, I long ago tried to reread
> > > Tolkien and managed to finish only a few chapters of the Trilogy.
> >
> > I am one of the many, many people who have read Tolkien many, many
> > times. It's hardly a good example of a good book which cannot be
> > reread, a thing which probably does not exist anyway.
Glory Road was good for me at the time I first read it, but unreadable
decades later. Thus "a thing which probably does not exist" exists.
> LOTR was strange for me. I read it in my early teens and loved it. Tried it
> again in my mid twenties and found it awful, shallow, stilted. Read it again
> in my mid thirties just when the movies were hyping things up and liked it
> just fine -- a fun epic adventure.
I'll have to give it another try, then. Perhaps I could enjoy LOTR
again!
Bateau
He's fucking boring.
But all the ancient epics he was emulating were.
But that's not excuse.
Nancy Lebovitz
gnohmon <gno...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Glory Road was good for me at the time I first read it, but unreadable
>decades later. Thus "a thing which probably does not exist" exists.
I liked Glory Road when I first read it as a teenager. It seemed creepy
for reasons I couldn't put my finger on when I reread it recently.
--
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov
My two favorite colors are "Oooooh" and "SHINY!".
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> In article <1119986546.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> gnohmon <gno...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >Glory Road was good for me at the time I first read it, but unreadable
> >decades later. Thus "a thing which probably does not exist" exists.
>
> I liked Glory Road when I first read it as a teenager. It seemed creepy
> for reasons I couldn't put my finger on when I reread it recently.
Could it be an inverse "door into summer"? How old is Star,
anyway?
We know she's deceiving Oscar in many ways. Rufo more or
less says that's the way it has to be, and implies strongly
that love her or not, Oscar might have to go for his own
sanity's sake.
--
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
Nancy Lebovitz
I don't think that's--the book seemed like a lot less fun, right from
the beginning.
Dr. Dave
>
> More interesting is to ask for trashy books which are fun to reread.
For me, it's the awful "Adept" books of Katherine Kurtz and Deborah
Turner Harris. I can see that the plotting is poor, the dialog
stilted, the characters cardboard, etc. -- but I've probably read (or
at least skimmed) them 3 times each now. I suspect they are scratching
whatever itch in me is analogous to my wife's "almost any romance
novel" itch.
David Tate
turnipt...@gmail.com
> Thirty or forty years ago, I read "Glory Road". What a great book it
> was! Now I'm trying to read it for the second time, and it is so bad
> that I doubt I'll finish. How odd, considering that I recently went
> through "the man who sold the moon" for just the second time, and
> enjoyed it.
> With only a few years between readings, I long ago tried to reread
> Tolkien and managed to finish only a few chapters of the Trilogy.
> Wracking my brain to rack and ruin, I can think of no other examples of
> books that I greatly enjoyed on first reading, but could not stand the
> second time around.
> "Slan" almost qualified, but its quick-paced narrative kept me turning
> the pages until the reread was done. Perhaps the quick pace is what
> does it; too much maundering and blathering may give the reader more of
> a chance to stop turning pages.
> ObWI: if Keats had had time for a second reading of Chapman's Homer...
The timeline is much abbreviated, but in prep for Harry Potter 6,
I started rereading OoP a couple of nights ago. I put it down
when I realized I couldn't endure another potions lesson.
( Snape is nasty, Draco gloats, Neville bumbles, Harry smoulders. )
I did enjoy it quite a bit when it arrived on my doorstep a couple
of years ago, and I'm tempted to pick it up near the middle,
skipping some of the exposition, but I'm not in any real hurry.
--
turnip
Louann Miller
wrote:
>The timeline is much abbreviated, but in prep for Harry Potter 6,
>I started rereading OoP a couple of nights ago. I put it down
>when I realized I couldn't endure another potions lesson.
>( Snape is nasty, Draco gloats, Neville bumbles, Harry smoulders. )
I understand that Snape is a good counter-intelligence agent. I even
agree that he's a good man. But GHOD is he a bad teacher.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
I wonder if he's to some extent doing a Vancian Henry Belt.
Ted
how...@brazee.net
On 29-Jun-2005, wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu wrote:
> Could it be an inverse "door into summer"? How old is Star,
> anyway?
Heinlein liked to be cutting-edge liberal in his ideas about sex. When
society moves beyond cutting-edge, the best the old cutting-edge can look
like is quaint.
Dorothy J Heydt
Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
He's not a good classroom teacher, that's certain. I think it's
possible that, one-on-one with a student who really liked
alchemy, he might be all right. Now I'm wondering if somewhere
in Snape's murky past there was a teacher who said to his parent
or whatever (as Mr. Kirkpatrick said to C. S. Lewis's father),
"You may make a writer or a scholar of him, but you'll not make
anything else. You may make up your mind to *that*."
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
macea...@astound.net
Well I've read Tolkien many times and still enjoy him (at age 60).
For trashy books whoever, I'd go with a minor piece of junk that
I enjoy called "Tark and the Golden Tide". Lots of cliches and
bad writing but I always enjoy rereading it. Another might be
Howard's "Almuric." Giant logical holes but always fun to reread.
macea...@astound.net
Oh well. But then I find the ancient epics almost infinately
rereadable. If you can't enjoy Njall's Saga then all I can say
is you aren't my kind of people.
turnipt...@gmail.com
Goodness - I spent 10 minutes pondering the connection between
Snape and an escaped slave in Illinois
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/aboutus/joliet.html
Before I realized what you meant by "Vancian". Clearly
I need to start reading the Vance short stories.
I suspect Snape is ( or at least, was originally intented as )
a throwback to the traditional school stories, where one teacher
is set up as the nemesis to our student hero. But perhaps
there is a master plan.
--
turnip
Carl Dershem
@reader1.panix.com:
> In article <1119986546.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> gnohmon <gno...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>Glory Road was good for me at the time I first read it, but unreadable
>>decades later. Thus "a thing which probably does not exist" exists.
>
> I liked Glory Road when I first read it as a teenager. It seemed creepy
> for reasons I couldn't put my finger on when I reread it recently.
Oscar's back story is extremely dark, and moderately contemporary again.
(He was a Korean war vet, I first read it during "Nam, and now kids are
again in that kind of danger). I suppose it could be pretty chilling to
some.
One thing is certain - it would be a BEAR to make a watchable film of, if
you included all of the subtext and sexual themes.
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
Dean White
news:Xns9684B75D4CF...@68.6.19.6...
> nan...@panix.com (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote in news:d9u4da$kv1$1
> @reader1.panix.com:
>
>> In article <1119986546.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> gnohmon <gno...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Glory Road was good for me at the time I first read it, but unreadable
>>>decades later. Thus "a thing which probably does not exist" exists.
>>
>> I liked Glory Road when I first read it as a teenager. It seemed creepy
>> for reasons I couldn't put my finger on when I reread it recently.
>
> Oscar's back story is extremely dark, and moderately contemporary again.
> (He was a Korean war vet, I first read it during "Nam, and now kids are
> again in that kind of danger). I suppose it could be pretty chilling to
> some.
>
I don't think there are any jungles in Korea. He was talking about Vietnam
at the beginning of the U.S. involvement.
willre...@yahoo.com
Carl Dershem wrote:
> nan...@panix.com (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote in news:d9u4da$kv1$1
> @reader1.panix.com:
>
> > In article <1119986546.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> > gnohmon <gno...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>Glory Road was good for me at the time I first read it, but unreadable
> >>decades later. Thus "a thing which probably does not exist" exists.
> >
> > I liked Glory Road when I first read it as a teenager. It seemed creepy
> > for reasons I couldn't put my finger on when I reread it recently.
>
> Oscar's back story is extremely dark, and moderately contemporary again.
> (He was a Korean war vet, I first read it during "Nam, and now kids are
> again in that kind of danger). I suppose it could be pretty chilling to
> some.
He was a Vietnam vet, before our involvement got really heavy. One hint
is the jungle he mentions. Another is the "little brown sisters" he
cannot bring himself to approach. Because they are little. Korean women
are not particularly little. Or brown, really.
>
> One thing is certain - it would be a BEAR to make a watchable film of, if
> you included all of the subtext and sexual themes.
>
Could be. I don't want to make films of novels I really love. The best
films, certainly the best SF films, are often from shorter works or
simply scripted out of whole cloth. In my opinion, etc.
Will in New Haven
--
"Amarillo by morning, up from San Antone.
Everything that I've got is just what I've got on.
When that sun is high in that Texas sky
I'll be bucking it to county fair.
Amarillo by morning, Amarillo I'll be there."
"Amarillo by Morning"
Terry Stafford & Paul Fraser
Carl Dershem
news:taIwe.999$Ox3...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com:
Was it another of his works where one of his characters talks about the
long walk from Chosen? Some of them have eamed up on me, and blended
together.
Dean White
At the beginning of the book Oscar mentions that his father made the long
walk from Chosin reservoir.
Mike Stone
news:kqFwe.11145$hK3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
It's a mistake imho to try to hard to be "cutting edge" by the standards of
your own particular decade or generation. I used to like Mack Reynolds, but
the politics of his 1960s stories looks absurd now - it's so tied to his own
day. Frex, the ruler of United Europe spoke French (ok, allowable in itself)
and his title was - wait for it - "The Gaulle". No doubt had he been writing
twenty years later the equivalent figure would have been British and female
<g>.
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
Seeking the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and
everything is not a task for cowards.
It is essential to show some forty-twode
NoneMoreNegative
> More interesting is to ask for trashy books which are fun to reread.
Most definitley the big shelf of old secondhand Conan paperbacks I
spent a few years of my teens collecting; I *think* by the end I'd
bought and read every tale in readily-available print... Some were less
than excellent writing (to say the least), but all of them gave me a
much-loved bit of escapism that I can still enjoy nearly twenty years
later.
--
NMN
James Nicoll
I think that was Oscar's dad.
>--
>The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
>Grey.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> On 29-Jun-2005, wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu wrote:
>
> > Could it be an inverse "door into summer"? How old is Star,
> > anyway?
>
> Heinlein liked to be cutting-edge liberal in his ideas about sex.
Well, at the time the sex in GR didn't bother me.
When
> society moves beyond cutting-edge, the best the old cutting-edge can look
> like is quaint.
In "Stranger", on the other hand, the constant lectures that
would have been cutting-edge in 1905 were very annoying.
Bateau
I've got Njal's Saga but I haven't read it yet. I did flick through and
notice some cool stuff about spearing dudes.
Dr. Dave
>
> LOTR was strange for me. I read it in my early teens and loved it. Tried it
> again in my mid twenties and found it awful, shallow, stilted. Read it again
> in my mid thirties just when the movies were hyping things up and liked it
> just fine -- a fun epic adventure.
For me, it was more like:
Read it at eleven, and loved it.
Read it at sixteen, and loved it.
Read it at 22, and it found me shallow, stilted, and awkward.
Read it at 28, and I'd recovered.
Read it at 40, along with _The Road to Middle Earth_, and found that
even when loving it I had been missing much of its greatness.
David Tate
Tim McDaniel
Gene Ward Smith <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>More interesting is to ask for trashy books which are fun to reread.
For me,
* Stirling and Drake's _The General_ five-book series -- mostly books
2..5. Probably because I like seeing bright heros trash the
baddies.
* Laurell K. Hamilton's Anita Blake novels. Sex, sex, more sex.
But I also like the looks at werewolf (were*) society.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
how...@brazee.net
Dorothy J Heydt
I won't. So there.
(For one thing I don't think I've ever seen him in anything so i
don't know what he looks like. Nor do I intend to waste my time
by looking him up in IMDB.)
Johan Larson
"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:IJ0oo...@kithrup.com...
> In article <FOBxe.3046$8f7...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>Picture Tom Cruise as Robert Heinlein.
>
> I won't. So there.
>
> (For one thing I don't think I've ever seen him in anything so i
> don't know what he looks like. Nor do I intend to waste my time
> by looking him up in IMDB.)
I don't really have a mental picture of RAH, either. I think I have seen
some tiny photos of him on book covers, but nothing stuck. I do remember a
pencil-mustache, though, but I may be confusing him with Jerry Pournelle. Is
there actually any good video of the man?
Johan
Jerry Brown
The DVD 'The Fantasy Film World of George Pal' has an interview with
RAH on the set of 'Destination Moon'.
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Dorothy J Heydt
I met him in person a couple times and there are also extant many
photos of him. Oval face. Dark hair which slowly receded and
then turned white. Mustache, a little wider than pencil. Past
that I can't really describe, but let's see....
At the top of this page is a photo of him in the late 1940s or
early 1950s.
http://www.heinleinsociety.org/
At the top of this page is a photo of him at an advanced age, and
further down the same page is one of him in, I would say, the
late 1950s.
Here's a profile photograph dated 1976, and further down a 1926
photograph and a photo from 1944 showing Heinlein with de Camp
and Asimov.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Heinlein
So that ought to give you some kind of idea.
Carl Dershem
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> Picture Tom Cruise as Robert Heinlein.
Well, so much for dinner. :(
Carl Dershem
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Heinlein
Am I alone, or do others out there see some resemblance to James Mason in
RAH's Annapolis portrait?
Dorothy J Heydt
Carl Dershem <der...@cox.net> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in news:IJ0qE...@kithrup.com:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Heinlein
>
>Am I alone, or do others out there see some resemblance to James Mason in
>RAH's Annapolis portrait?
Well, I don't see it. Mason was much more squareheaded.
how...@brazee.net
On 2-Jul-2005, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> >Picture Tom Cruise as Robert Heinlein.
>
> I won't. So there.
>
> (For one thing I don't think I've ever seen him in anything so i
> don't know what he looks like. Nor do I intend to waste my time
> by looking him up in IMDB.)
I'm not talking about him playing Heinlein as an actor. I'm talking about
a convergence of personalities. Even though RAH wasn't fooled by Hubbard,
he was as very sure of himself as Cruise is - and as sure that everybody
else was wrong and inferior.
how...@brazee.net
On 2-Jul-2005, "Johan Larson" <johan0larson8comcast0net> wrote:
> I don't really have a mental picture of RAH, either. I think I have seen
> some tiny photos of him on book covers, but nothing stuck. I do remember a
>
> pencil-mustache, though, but I may be confusing him with Jerry Pournelle.
> Is
> there actually any good video of the man?
He had a pencil mustache. I'm a bit reminded of Walt Disney except with a
broader face. But it wasn't his looks I was talking about, it was his
personality.
Craig Richardson
wrote:
>In article <FOBxe.3046$8f7...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>Picture Tom Cruise as Robert Heinlein.
>
>I won't. So there.
>
>(For one thing I don't think I've ever seen him in anything so i
>don't know what he looks like. Nor do I intend to waste my time
>by looking him up in IMDB.)
I used to look a lot like him - more correctly, he was the platonic
ideal of guys who look like me. Especially around the time of "Risky
Business" - same nose, same eyebrows, same facial structure, and my
hair was still straight as straight as his at that length in '83.
We're diverging with time, though. He's still handsomer, darn it -
but I don't show my age as much (Cruise is four years older).
--Craig
--
"Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory lasts forever." - The Replacements
Craig Richardson (crichar...@worldnet.att.net)
Mike Schilling
> In article <uLydnWa29YS...@comcast.com>,
> Johan Larson <johan0larson8comcast0net> wrote:
>>
>>"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
>>news:IJ0oo...@kithrup.com...
>>> In article <FOBxe.3046$8f7...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>>> <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>>>Picture Tom Cruise as Robert Heinlein.
>>>
>>> I won't. So there.
>>>
>>> (For one thing I don't think I've ever seen him in anything so i
>>> don't know what he looks like. Nor do I intend to waste my time
>>> by looking him up in IMDB.)
>>
>>I don't really have a mental picture of RAH, either. I think I have seen
>>some tiny photos of him on book covers, but nothing stuck. I do remember a
>>pencil-mustache, though, but I may be confusing him with Jerry Pournelle.
>>Is
>>there actually any good video of the man?
>
> I met him in person a couple times and there are also extant many
> photos of him. Oval face. Dark hair which slowly receded and
> then turned white. Mustache, a little wider than pencil. Past
> that I can't really describe, but let's see....
He's often descibed as "theatrically handsome". I have no idea, since
that's a blind spot. (I can tell that, say, Geroge Clooney is better-looking
than Wallace Shawn, but anything less obvious is lost on me.) Having met
him, what do you think?
Dorothy J Heydt
I consider him to have been reasonably handsome as a young man
(which mind you was before I ever met him, I'm going by photos).
By the time I met him he was definitely showing his years, though
still nice-looking in the way Sean Connery is nice-looking now.
I've never seen George Clooney or Wallace Shawn so I can't help
you there.
Michael S. Schiffer
news:IJ0yM...@kithrup.com:
>...
> I've never seen George Clooney or Wallace Shawn so I can't help
> you there.
IIRC, you've in "The Princess Bride"; Shawn played Vizzini. (Though
IIRC you didn't like the movie much, so you may not remember him.)
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Dorothy J Heydt
Michael S. Schiffer <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>news:IJ0yM...@kithrup.com:
>
>>...
>
>> I've never seen George Clooney or Wallace Shawn so I can't help
>> you there.
>
Once, and I remember almost nothing about it.
Shawn played Vizzini. (Though
>IIRC you didn't like the movie much, so you may not remember him.)
Nope, sorry, I don't remember who that was.
ruth
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> Shawn played Vizzini. (Though
> >IIRC you didn't like the movie much, so you may not remember him.)
>
> Nope, sorry, I don't remember who that was.
>
> Dorothy J. Heydt
> Albany, California
> djh...@kithrup.com
How about My Dinner With Andre?
Shawn is the one who isn't Andre.
Shawn has been around the NY theater scene forever and is a well known
film character actor as well.
Dr. Dave
> In article <Xns9687D072C9A1...@130.133.1.4>,
> Michael S. Schiffer <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:
> >djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
> >news:IJ0yM...@kithrup.com:
> >
> >> you there.
> >
> >IIRC, you've seen "The Princess Bride";
>
> Once, and I remember almost nothing about it.
Inconceivable!
--
David Tate
Craig Richardson
wrote:
>I've never seen George Clooney or Wallace Shawn so I can't help
>you there.
There's someone here who hasn't seen the movie version of "The
Princess Bride"?!?!? He was Vizzini.
Other SFnal titles - "Mr. Little" in "Meteor Man" and "Ellen" in "Nice
Girls Don't Explode" (a personal favorite).
Mike Schilling
Ever seen The Princess Bride? Wallace Shawn is Vizzini.
Dorothy J Heydt
Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 23:58:57 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>wrote:
>
>>I've never seen George Clooney or Wallace Shawn so I can't help
>>you there.
>
>There's someone here who hasn't seen the movie version of "The
>Princess Bride"?!?!? He was Vizzini.
As explained elsethread, I saw TPB *once* and I don't remember
who Vizzini was.
>
>Other SFnal titles - "Mr. Little" in "Meteor Man" and "Ellen" in "Nice
>Girls Don't Explode" (a personal favorite).
Never saw, sorry.
I saw a lot more films when I was young, but that was forty years
ago. Nowadays I don't go out much, and if I see a movie it's
almost always on a DVD. And in order to buy the DVD I have to
have an interest in it, and in order to do that I have to have
heard of it, and ....
Dorothy J Heydt
ruth <Yo...@somewhereonterra.net> wrote:
>In article <IJ12s...@kithrup.com>,
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>
>> Shawn played Vizzini. (Though
>> >IIRC you didn't like the movie much, so you may not remember him.)
>>
>> Nope, sorry, I don't remember who that was.
>>
Nope, sorry.
Dorothy J Heydt
But true. I *think* I read the book once, and I'm fairly sure I
saw the movie once, and I remember almost nothing about either
one. (I didn't care for either, I remember that part.)
Craig Richardson
wrote:
>In article <acfec1tsgfvq1lgkv...@4ax.com>,
>Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 23:58:57 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I've never seen George Clooney or Wallace Shawn so I can't help
>>>you there.
>>
>>There's someone here who hasn't seen the movie version of "The
>>Princess Bride"?!?!? He was Vizzini.
>
>As explained elsethread, I saw TPB *once* and I don't remember
>who Vizzini was.
Well, my post was before the rest of the thread hit my server, so
there...
Anyway, you're covered - TPB is my favorite movie of all time, and I
saw it 20-30 times in my second year of graduate school alone, so I've
seen it enough for the both of us.
>>Other SFnal titles - "Mr. Little" in "Meteor Man" and "Ellen" in "Nice
>>Girls Don't Explode" (a personal favorite).
>
>Never saw, sorry.
Well, I've only seen "Meteor Man" once, on Comedy Central, and I
wasn't as impressed with it as I was with "Mystery Men", which is
still sorta lukewarm.
"Nice Girls", however, is a roaring good time. Barbara Harris
reprising her role as an overprotective Disney mom, "Queen of the
Nerds" Michelle Meyrink as a girl who thinks she is pyrokinetic
whenever she makes out, and Wallace Shawn as a man who is a pyromaniac
largely because he's sexually frustrated, and who is sexually
frustrated largely because he's named "Ellen". Oh, and there was a
male lead - the guy who played "Dead Meat" in "Hot Shots" and the guy
who finally marries the girl who sleeps with the entire Carolina
League in "Bull Durham".
>I saw a lot more films when I was young, but that was forty years
>ago. Nowadays I don't go out much, and if I see a movie it's
>almost always on a DVD. And in order to buy the DVD I have to
>have an interest in it, and in order to do that I have to have
>heard of it, and ....
Dorothy J Heydt
Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"Nice Girls", however, is a roaring good time. Barbara Harris
>reprising her role as an overprotective Disney mom, "Queen of the
>Nerds" Michelle Meyrink as a girl who thinks she is pyrokinetic
>whenever she makes out, and Wallace Shawn as a man who is a pyromaniac
>largely because he's sexually frustrated, and who is sexually
>frustrated largely because he's named "Ellen".
<marvin>Sounds awful.</marvin>
Oh, and there was a
>male lead - the guy who played "Dead Meat" in "Hot Shots" and the guy
>who finally marries the girl who sleeps with the entire Carolina
>League in "Bull Durham".
Sounds even worse.
>On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 01:52:11 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>wrote:
>
>>I saw a lot more films when I was young, but that was forty years
>>ago. Nowadays I don't go out much, and if I see a movie it's
>>almost always on a DVD. And in order to buy the DVD I have to
>>have an interest in it, and in order to do that I have to have
>>heard of it, and ....
>
><http://www.netflix.com>
Hm, well, I looked at their browser page and didn't see a single
title I was interested in investigating. Sorry.
Dr. Dave
> In article <1120354525....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> Dr. Dave <dt...@ida.org> wrote:
> >Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >> In article <Xns9687D072C9A1...@130.133.1.4>,
> >> Michael S. Schiffer <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:
> >> >djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
> >> >news:IJ0yM...@kithrup.com:
> >> >
> >> >> I've never seen George Clooney or Wallace Shawn so I can't help
> >> >> you there.
> >> >
> >> >IIRC, you've seen "The Princess Bride";
> >>
> >> Once, and I remember almost nothing about it.
> >
> >Inconceivable!
>
> But true.
Um, it was a joke. The character (Vizzini) played by Wallace Shawn is
notable for, among other things, saying "Inconceivable!" a lot, mostly
concerning things that have already happened or are about to happen.
It eventually causes Mandy Patinkin's character (Inigo Montoya) to say
"You keep saying this. I do not think this word means what you think
it does."
So, in context, "Inconceivable!" means almost exactly the opposite of
what one might otherwise think.
Also, since you said "_almost_ nothing", I thought the word might jog
your memory enough for you to remember that one repetitive feature of
that particular character. No luck there, though.
David Tate
Wayne Throop
: The character (Vizzini) played by Wallace Shawn is
: notable for, among other things, saying "Inconceivable!" a lot, mostly
: concerning things that have already happened or are about to happen.
: It eventually causes Mandy Patinkin's character (Inigo Montoya) to say
: "You keep saying this. I do not think this word means what you think
: it does."
You keep using that quote. I do not thing it goes like you think it goes.
Or at least, not quite. NAICT, it's
Vizzini: Inconceivable!
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think
it means what you think it means.
-------
Westley: Give us the gate key.
Yellin: I have no gate key.
Inigo Montoya: Fezzik, tear his arms off.
Yellin: Oh, you mean this gate key.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Dorothy J Heydt
Nope, sorry. I do have somewhere in my memory the datum that
Mandy Patinkin was in that movie, but I don't remember him in it
either. My only memory of him was in _Dick Tracy_ where he
played 88 Keys and sang so beautifully that I would cheerfully
have thrown away all the rest of the movie and just listened to
him.
Par
> I've got Njal's Saga but I haven't read it yet. I did flick through and
> notice some cool stuff about spearing dudes.
*Possibly* a spoiler for Njala:
Njal's Saga; two women bickering about a stool, with some unfortunate
consequences. I can see the editor going "YAWN" to that synopsis.
Fortunately is also has a bit of violence, so the readers should be
happy. And the "court-room" scene whe would love to see Perry Mason in.
/Par
--
Par use...@hunter-gatherer.org
"It's a teeny-weeny bit bigger than all the original files. For
sufficiently large values of teeny-weeny."
-- Sha...@zoic.org teaches 'tar' in Unix Tools
Gene Ward Smith
Guy Gordon wrote:
> I would have named exactly the same book. I loved it when I was in high school.
> But it's probably the *only* Heinlein book I've never re-read.
You reread To Sail Beyond Sunset and For Us the Living, but not Glory
Road? Why?
I've never reread Glory Road, which I didn't like very much, but I
still can quote the poem about Tweedledee and Tweedledum, so it must
have had something going for it.
Tina Hall
> There's someone here who hasn't seen the movie version of "The
> Princess Bride"?!?!?
I doubt I've seen it. That should not be a surprise. (I still don't
like the title. Don't know what it might be called in German, but it
doesn't sound like something I'd voluntarily spend my free time to
watch, or read. Not that I spend much time watching any movies.)
> Other SFnal titles - "Mr. Little" in "Meteor Man" and "Ellen" in
> "Nice Girls Don't Explode" (a personal favorite).
?
--
Tina
No internet access.
### XP v3.40 RC3 ###
Tina Hall
[Tom Cruise]
> I used to look a lot like him - more correctly, he was the
> platonic ideal of guys who look like me. Especially around the
> time of "Risky Business" - same nose, same eyebrows, same facial
> structure, and my hair was still straight as straight as his at
> that length in '83. We're diverging with time, though. He's
> still handsomer, darn it - but I don't show my age as much
> (Cruise is four years older).
Poor man. If that ugly sod is handsomer than you, you must look
truly awful. <g>
how...@brazee.net
On 2-Jul-2005, "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> He's often descibed as "theatrically handsome". I have no idea, since
> that's a blind spot. (I can tell that, say, Geroge Clooney is
> better-looking
> than Wallace Shawn, but anything less obvious is lost on me.) Having met
> him, what do you think?
I've read that George Clooney is extremely handsome. I'm glad I'm not a
casting director. Wallace Shawn is more interesting looking.
how...@brazee.net
On 2-Jul-2005, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> I've never seen George Clooney or Wallace Shawn so I can't help
> you there.
People who don't watch movies can participate in these discussion with a
quick look-up with Google Images:
http://images.google.com/images?q=Wallace+Shawn&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images
or
how...@brazee.net
On 2-Jul-2005, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> I saw a lot more films when I was young, but that was forty years
> ago. Nowadays I don't go out much, and if I see a movie it's
> almost always on a DVD. And in order to buy the DVD I have to
> have an interest in it, and in order to do that I have to have
> heard of it, and ....
Where _The Princess Bride_ came out in 1987. I like buying DVDs but
usually for movies I didn't see when they came out the first time. I saw
TPB in 1987 and liked it. I've got so many books and movies I haven't seen
the first time that I rarely get around to reading or seeing the same story
again.
My grandkids like watching the same thing over and over again, but I can
remember _The Princess Bride_ just fine from the theatre.
W. Citoan
> : "Dr. Dave" <dt...@ida.org>
> : It eventually causes Mandy Patinkin's character (Inigo Montoya) to say
> : "You keep saying this. I do not think this word means what you think
> : it does."
>
> You keep using that quote. I do not thing it goes like you think it goes.
> Or at least, not quite. NAICT, it's
>
> Vizzini: Inconceivable!
> Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think
> it means what you think it means.
Per the book, it's:
"You keep using that word!" the Spaniard snapped. "I don't think it
means what you think it does."
Your's matches the IMDB.
- W. Citoan
--
First say to yourself what you would be; and then do what you have to do.
-- Epictetus
cunn...@jmu.edu
Louann Miller
<johan0larson8comcast0net> wrote:
>I don't really have a mental picture of RAH, either. I think I have seen
>some tiny photos of him on book covers, but nothing stuck. I do remember a
>pencil-mustache, though, but I may be confusing him with Jerry Pournelle. Is
>there actually any good video of the man?
We have a documentary about George Pal on DVD, which includes a talk
show interview on the set of "Destination Moon." Heinlein is in it for
several exchanges, although he's not the main focus.
ruth
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
> Nope, sorry. I do have somewhere in my memory the datum that
> Mandy Patinkin was in that movie, but I don't remember him in it
> either. My only memory of him was in _Dick Tracy_ where he
> played 88 Keys and sang so beautifully that I would cheerfully
> have thrown away all the rest of the movie and just listened to
> him.
>
> Dorothy J. Heydt
> Albany, California
> djh...@kithrup.com
Ah yes, he does have quite the voice.
Wayne Throop
:: Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think
:: it means what you think it means.
: "W. Citoan" <wci...@NOSPAM-yahoo.com>
: Per the book, it's:
: "You keep using that word!" the Spaniard snapped. "I don't think it
: means what you think it does."
: Your's matches the IMDB.
That's a good point. I recall wondering at the time whether the expansion
of the contraction, and the substitution of "it means" instead of "it does"
were dialect or ideolect choices injected by Patinkin, possibly improv.
In addition to the milder-than-"snapped" reading. It went so well
with the way he did the character in general.
Inigo: I will explain... no, there is too much. I will sum up.
Buttercup is marry' Humperdinck in a little less than half an
hour. So all we have to do is get in, break up the wedding,
steal the princess, make our escape... after I kill Count Rugen.
Westley: That doesn't leave much time for dilly-dallying.
W. Citoan
>
> That's a good point. I recall wondering at the time whether the
> expansion of the contraction, and the substitution of "it means"
> instead of "it does" were dialect or ideolect choices injected by
> Patinkin, possibly improv. In addition to the milder-than-"snapped"
> reading. It went so well with the way he did the character in
> general.
I don't know, but I liked Patinkin's characterization better than the
novel's. Actually, in general, I liked the film better than the novel.
- W. Citoan
--
If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box crashed...oh, wait a
minute - he already does.
-- Anonymous
Jeanne Douglas
macea...@astound.net wrote:
> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> > gnohmon wrote:
> >
> > > With only a few years between readings, I long ago tried to reread
> > > Tolkien and managed to finish only a few chapters of the Trilogy.
> >
> > I am one of the many, many people who have read Tolkien many, many
> > times. It's hardly a good example of a good book which cannot be
> > reread, a thing which probably does not exist anyway.
> >
> > More interesting is to ask for trashy books which are fun to reread.
>
> Well I've read Tolkien many times and still enjoy him (at age 60).
> For trashy books whoever, I'd go with a minor piece of junk that
> I enjoy called "Tark and the Golden Tide". Lots of cliches and
> bad writing but I always enjoy rereading it. Another might be
> Howard's "Almuric." Giant logical holes but always fun to reread.
Trashy books that are fun to re-read or, in other words, guilty
pleasures. Not sure how sfnal they'd be considered by the purists, but
when I'm sick and looking for something light to re-read I'll pull out
my Man and Girl from U.N.C.L.E. tie-ins from the 60s (though they're
getting to that point where I'm afraid to open them up for fear of the
pages falling apart).
--
JD
"Baseball is a dull game only for those with a dull mind"--Red Smith
Jeanne Douglas
Ray Blaak <rAYb...@STRIPCAPStelus.net> wrote:
> "Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> writes:
> > gnohmon wrote:
> >
> > > With only a few years between readings, I long ago tried to reread
> > > Tolkien and managed to finish only a few chapters of the Trilogy.
> >
> > I am one of the many, many people who have read Tolkien many, many
> > times. It's hardly a good example of a good book which cannot be
> > reread, a thing which probably does not exist anyway.
>
> LOTR was strange for me. I read it in my early teens and loved it. Tried it
> again in my mid twenties and found it awful, shallow, stilted. Read it again
> in my mid thirties just when the movies were hyping things up and liked it
> just fine -- a fun epic adventure.
I read them in my teens and had a tough slog. Re-read them in my late
20s and about the same reaction. But when I read them right before the
1st movie came out (in my late 40s) I was completely blown away.
Jeanne Douglas
Carl Dershem <der...@cox.net> wrote:
> how...@brazee.net wrote in news:FOBxe.3046$8f7.67
> @newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> > Picture Tom Cruise as Robert Heinlein.
>
> Well, so much for dinner. :(
Yeah, it's definitely gonna take a whole helluva lot of Clorox to get
that image out of my brain.
Dorothy J Heydt
Jeanne Douglas <hlw...@pacbell.netr> wrote:
>
>Trashy books that are fun to re-read or, in other words, guilty
>pleasures. Not sure how sfnal they'd be considered by the purists, but
>when I'm sick and looking for something light to re-read I'll pull out
>my Man and Girl from U.N.C.L.E. tie-ins from the 60s (though they're
>getting to that point where I'm afraid to open them up for fear of the
>pages falling apart).
I have a couple of old Ballantine SF editions from the early
1950s that are in that state. Actually they've gone further: all
the pages have parted company with the binding and you just get
to read it one page at a time.
JavaJosh
> I do have somewhere in my memory the datum that
> Mandy Patinkin was in that movie, but I don't remember him in it
> either. My only memory of him was in _Dick Tracy_ where he
> played 88 Keys and sang so beautifully that I would cheerfully
> have thrown away all the rest of the movie and just listened to
> him.
He was in another seldom seen flick with James Spader called "The Music of
Chance". It's an almost SFnal story about some gamblers who get in WAY over
their head. He does a bit of singing.
willre...@yahoo.com
Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <tujec1pgnr5kp79tc...@4ax.com>,
> Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >"Nice Girls", however, is a roaring good time. Barbara Harris
> >reprising her role as an overprotective Disney mom, "Queen of the
> >Nerds" Michelle Meyrink as a girl who thinks she is pyrokinetic
> >whenever she makes out, and Wallace Shawn as a man who is a pyromaniac
> >largely because he's sexually frustrated, and who is sexually
> >frustrated largely because he's named "Ellen".
>
> <marvin>Sounds awful.</marvin>
>
> Oh, and there was a
> >male lead - the guy who played "Dead Meat" in "Hot Shots" and the guy
> >who finally marries the girl who sleeps with the entire Carolina
> >League in "Bull Durham".
>
> Sounds even worse.
BULL DURHAM is great and the very small segment where the guy marries
the promiscous girl is, in a way, moving.
Will in New Haven
--
"If I listened long enough to you,
I'd find a way to believe it was all true,
KNOWIN' that you lied, straight-faced while I cried,
Still I'd try to find a reason to believe."
Tim Hardin - "Reason to believe
Danny Sichel
>>There's someone here who hasn't seen the movie version of "The
>>Princess Bride"?!?!?
> I doubt I've seen it. That should not be a surprise. (I still don't
> like the title. Don't know what it might be called in German, but it
> doesn't sound like something I'd voluntarily spend my free time to
> watch, or read. Not that I spend much time watching any movies.)
>>Other SFnal titles - "Mr. Little" in "Meteor Man" and "Ellen" in
>>"Nice Girls Don't Explode" (a personal favorite).
> ?
He meant that the actor Wallace Shawn has had roles in the SFnal movie
"Meteor Man" (where he played the character Mr Little) and in the SFnal
movie "Nice Girls Don't Explode" (where he played a man named "Ellen",
which is usually a female name).
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> In article <acfec1tsgfvq1lgkv...@4ax.com>,
> Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 23:58:57 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>I've never seen George Clooney or Wallace Shawn so I can't help
> >>you there.
> >
> >There's someone here who hasn't seen the movie version of "The
> >Princess Bride"?!?!? He was Vizzini.
>
> As explained elsethread, I saw TPB *once* and I don't remember
> who Vizzini was.
Nobody has mentioned the scene that might jog your memory,
which is the "poison in one wine cup" scene. Vizzini (Shawn)
is the loser in that guessing game. He comes up with reason
after reason why one or the other cup must be poisoned.
It's quite a good scene. Very good, in fact. But while watching
it the first time I couldn't get the Danny Kaye ("flagon with the
dragon") scene out of my head. If you had that same overlay it
might help you recall.
--
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
Dorothy J Heydt
Well, I remember the flagon/dragon scene vividly, but I still
can't place the TPB one at all. Sorry....
Maybe I would do better to specify which bits of TPB I *do*
remember. Which is, the repeated line of "My name is Montoya
you killed my father prepare to die." And the scene where the
magician, confronted with the dead man, shrugs and says "Well,
I've seen worse." And I probably would not remember them if
people didn't quote them so often. I can't visualize any faces
at all.
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> In article <yv7zwto6...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu>,
> <wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> >djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> >
> >> As explained elsethread, I saw TPB *once* and I don't remember
> >> who Vizzini was.
> >
> > Nobody has mentioned the scene that might jog your memory,
> > which is the "poison in one wine cup" scene. Vizzini (Shawn)
> > is the loser in that guessing game. He comes up with reason
> > after reason why one or the other cup must be poisoned.
> >
> > It's quite a good scene. Very good, in fact. But while watching
> > it the first time I couldn't get the Danny Kaye ("flagon with the
> > dragon") scene out of my head. If you had that same overlay it
> > might help you recall.
>
> Well, I remember the flagon/dragon scene vividly, but I still
> can't place the TPB one at all. Sorry....
Well, it is no huge loss.
However, the movie is on TV with reasonable frequency.
If you'd like to catch this scene alone I think it is
about 1/2 hour into the film.
>
> Maybe I would do better to specify which bits of TPB I *do*
> remember. Which is, the repeated line of "My name is Montoya
> you killed my father prepare to die." And the scene where the
> magician, confronted with the dead man, shrugs and says "Well,
> I've seen worse." And I probably would not remember them if
> people didn't quote them so often. I can't visualize any faces
> at all.
>
The poisoning scene is before both of those, but it is
just after Montoya, when we first meet him, says that when
he meets his father's killer he will say ...
Victoria L.
Well, if you want company, I saw the movie once, too. And I remember
absolutely nothing. All of this rings no bells. I think I remember
liking it fairly well, but that's about it.
Victoria
Carol Hague
> In article <tujec1pgnr5kp79tc...@4ax.com>,
> Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> ><http://www.netflix.com>
>
> Hm, well, I looked at their browser page and didn't see a single
> title I was interested in investigating. Sorry.
Now, that's something I like about our pay-monthly DVD rental thing -
I'm encouraged to rent films I might not otherwise bother with.
Obviously you get some duds that way, but I've also found some things
I've really enjoyed that I might otherwise have missed, like The
Sleeping Dictionary, How To Make An American Quilt and The Last Samurai.
Mileages, as always, are likely to vary.
--
Carol
"Mmmmooooowooooff!" - the Moobark, "The Treacle People"
Dorothy J Heydt
Well, yes. You, I must assume, looked at their page and saw
titles that intrigued you, that you thought you might want to
see. I didn't.