Adam & Eve: A Retelling
Ezekiel Krahlin
-------------------------------------------------------------
Permission granted by author for anyone to distribute this
creative piece gratis to anyone, anywhere, any time...under
condition that the entire work remains intact and complete,
including title and credit to the original author: Ezekiel J.
Krahlin (ekra...@fog.net).
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM & EVE: A RETELLING
copyright 1997 by Ezekiel J. Krahlin
(Jehovah's Queer Witness)
Picture this: A 3-panel comic strip...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panel 1: Adam & Eve in the garden...Adam crouched on the ground,
fiddling with getting a fire started (unsuccessfully), while Eve
stands to one side. Eve says "Adam, there's something you don't know
about me." Adam mumbles without looking up, "Yeah, what."
Panel 2: Eve grabs a zipper that appears from her forehead, which she
has started yanking down her face..."Zzzzzzzzzip!" Adam is
dumbfoundedly looking up at Eve: "Huh?"
Panel 3: A gorgeous dude hops out of the discarded "Eve" costume, and
stands there with outstretched arms and a big grin: "Ta-da!" Adam,
delightfully surprised, jumps up to embrace him. "Steve!" he says.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moral: "There's a little homo in every homo sapiens." -e.j.krahlin
---
Zeke Krahlin, Jehovah's Queer Witness.
(Hail, Athenia...brave new nation!)
Please keep our dialogues public; private mail by request only.
Hostile private replies will be re-posted in the public arena.
XAOS
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
Gee, maybe it's just me, but this seemed to me to have some very
definite sexist subtext...anybody else feel this, or am I
overanalyzing...again?
- Steve
--
I wish John Tesh (in a thong? yuck) and Michael Bolton had your
mother.
- Marc Talusan
Andrew D. Simchik
XAOS (xa...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> Gee, maybe it's just me, but this seemed to me to have some very
> definite sexist subtext...anybody else feel this, or am I
> overanalyzing...again?
This from the guy who reads Cerebus(*)!
I read it as a tired "Adam was a frustrated closet case"
schtick. It wasn't funny at all, but not because it was
sexist.
> - Steve
Of course, maybe you're sensitive about your name.
--
Andrew D. Simchik: schn...@byz.org
http://www.byz.org/~schnopia/
RainBear
Andrew D. Simchik wrote:
>
> XAOS (xa...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>
> > Gee, maybe it's just me, but this seemed to me to have some very
> > definite sexist subtext...anybody else feel this, or am I
> > overanalyzing...again?
>
> This from the guy who reads Cerebus(*)!
>
> I read it as a tired "Adam was a frustrated closet case"
> schtick. It wasn't funny at all, but not because it was
> sexist.
>
I have to agree on the tired part. That "re-telling" was really lame and
very boring. I wouldn't even have admitted copyright to that one.
Ezekial, I think you need to get out more often. Your writings are not
that great. I didn't care for the little "Okra Winfree meets Jesus" tale
either. It sounded more like a sexual fantasy than an intellectual story
that includes a moral to help teach any form of lesson or prove a point.
Ezekiel Krahlin
On Tue, 04 Mar 1997 13:26:35 -0800, RainBear <NO....@The.Newsgroups>
said:
>I have to agree on the tired part. That "re-telling" was really lame and
>very boring. I wouldn't even have admitted copyright to that one.
Some people do find my writings maudline. But others love 'em.
Certainly, no one can please everyone, nor should s/he expect to.
Example: Shakespeare absolutely bores me out of my skull! (A lot of
people feel the same way.) I am not bothered that you don't care for
my pieces, or that you say you don't.
>Ezekial, I think you need to get out more often. Your writings are not
>that great.
Not great for standard publishing...but certainly when compared
against most of the Usenet stuff that passes for messages...not only
do I hold my own, but I often shine.
>I didn't care for the little "Okra Winfree meets Jesus" tale
>either. It sounded more like a sexual fantasy than an intellectual story
>that includes a moral to help teach any form of lesson or prove a point.
Who said it's supposed to be interpreted as a moral, or a lesson?
It's whatever you make of it...some people totally crack up when they
read it. If I can please even one person from time to time, or bring
joy to her or his heart now and then, well I am content for that. So
for me, it's frosting on the cake whenever a piece riles up the
bigots, and gets them frothing on the mouth.
There is more truth to the Okra tale than meets the eye...but if you
don't care for it, that's your privilege. Whatever.
P.S.: But I do think my messages are far more preferrable than
bible-thumping maniacal, illiterate hate messages.
---
Ezekiel Krahlin
On Tue, 04 Mar 1997 11:13:17 -0500, XAOS <xa...@mindspring.com> said:
>Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
>
>Gee, maybe it's just me, but this seemed to me to have some very
>definite sexist subtext...anybody else feel this, or am I
>overanalyzing...again?
Sexist? Hardly. It's one of my many contributions towards fighting
homophobia. The orginal Genesis tale is the heterosexist one, indeed.
I can switch me reinterpretation on behalf of women, if you'd like,
here:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Permission granted by author for anyone to distribute this
creative piece gratis to anyone, anywhere, any time...under
condition that the entire work remains intact and complete,
including title and credit to the original author: Ezekiel J.
Krahlin (ekra...@fog.net).
-------------------------------------------------------------
EVE & ADAM: A RETELLING
copyright 1997 by Ezekiel J. Krahlin
(Jehovah's Queer Witness)
Picture this: A 3-panel comic strip...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panel 1: Eve & Adam in the garden...Eve crouched on the ground,
fiddling with getting a fire started (unsuccessfully), while Adam
stands to one side. Adam says "Eve, there's something you don't know
about me." Eve mumbles without looking up, "Yeah, what."
Panel 2: Adam grabs a zipper that appears from his forehead, which he
has started yanking down his face..."Zzzzzzzzzip!" Eve is
dumbfoundedly looking up at Adam: "Huh?"
Panel 3: A gorgeous babe hops out of the discarded "Adam" costume,
and stands there with outstretched arms and a big grin: "Ta-da!"
Eve, delightfully surprised, jumps up to embrace her. "Madam!" she
says.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moral: "There's a little eve in every lady of the evening."
-e.j.krahlin
Marc Talusan
Ezekiel Krahlin (Proud_T...@Are.You) wrote:
: Some people do find my writings maudline. But others love 'em.
If you're going to use a word like "maudlin," it's always a good idea to
spell it right.
: Certainly, no one can please everyone, nor should s/he expect to.
: Example: Shakespeare absolutely bores me out of my skull! (A lot of
: people feel the same way.)
This explains a lot.
Marc
--
< >
Marc Talusan |Jack be nimble, Jack be quick,
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~talusan|Jack jump over the candle stick.
tal...@fas.harvard.edu |Silly Jack, he should jump higher,
|Goodness gracious, great balls of fire!
--- from Caryl Churchill's _Cloud 9_
Andrew D. Simchik
Andrew D. Simchik (schn...@byz.org) wrote:
> This from the guy who reads Cerebus(*)!
Damn. Forgot the footnote: (*) On order for me
at Comics, Etc.
XAOS
Andrew D. Simchik wrote:
> Andrew D. Simchik (schn...@byz.org) wrote:
>
> > This from the guy who reads Cerebus(*)!
> Damn. Forgot the footnote: (*) On order for me
> at Comics, Etc.
Ohhhhh...I thought that it was one of those ever popular bi
mind games, and your intent was to drive me mad looking for
the footnote. And I thought I was being clever by (huh huh huh)
figuring it out.
- Steve, who would like to dedicate this post, with true and sincere
affection, to Michael Thomas
RainBear
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 04 Mar 1997 13:26:35 -0800, RainBear <NO....@The.Newsgroups>
> said:
>
> >I have to agree on the tired part. That "re-telling" was really lame and
> >very boring. I wouldn't even have admitted copyright to that one.
>
> Example: Shakespeare absolutely bores me out of my skull! (A lot of
> my pieces, or that you say you don't.
>
> >Ezekial, I think you need to get out more often. Your writings are not
> >that great.
>
> Not great for standard publishing...but certainly when compared
> against most of the Usenet stuff that passes for messages...not only
> do I hold my own, but I often shine.
>
> >I didn't care for the little "Okra Winfree meets Jesus" tale
> >either. It sounded more like a sexual fantasy than an intellectual story
> >that includes a moral to help teach any form of lesson or prove a point.
>
> Who said it's supposed to be interpreted as a moral, or a lesson?
> It's whatever you make of it...some people totally crack up when they
> read it. If I can please even one person from time to time, or bring
> joy to her or his heart now and then, well I am content for that. So
> for me, it's frosting on the cake whenever a piece riles up the
> bigots, and gets them frothing on the mouth.
>
> There is more truth to the Okra tale than meets the eye...but if you
> don't care for it, that's your privilege. Whatever.
>
> P.S.: But I do think my messages are far more preferrable than
> bible-thumping maniacal, illiterate hate messages.
I understand all of this, but you tend to attach these little "tidbits"
with no moral to an argument that requires a moral.
We are fighting to make bigoted straights know that we are human and
aren't a bunch of "perverts" that constantly dwell on sex, and your
little tales tend to have a preoccupation with sex that proves to them
their own stereotypes.
That was my point. Try not to misconstrue it again.
Ezekiel Krahlin
On Wed, 05 Mar 1997 18:42:22 -0800, RainBear <NO....@The.Newsgroups>
said:
>We are fighting to make bigoted straights know that we are human and
>aren't a bunch of "perverts" that constantly dwell on sex, and your
>little tales tend to have a preoccupation with sex that proves to them
>their own stereotypes.
>
>That was my point. Try not to misconstrue it again.
Well, you misconstrue what I'm doing. There are many different ways
to fight the enemy. Humor is one way, including different brands of
humor. You just said you don't care for my brand. Fine. Nothing
wrong with that, as far as I can tell.
Introducing homophobes to gay humor also goes a long way towards
breaking down the walls of bigotry. The unstoppable, overwhelming
inundation of ideas on Usenet...including constant exposure to all
different kinds of GayFolk...will go a long way towards the 'phobes
seeing us as "familiar", instead of "alien."
You act like you know the right way, or best way, to fight homophobia.
I beg to differ with you on that issue. You are *not* the last word.
Besides which: In your great concern to deal seriously with such a
grave issue, in your stumbling and sweating over every obstacle in
order to lift the scale from these sorry people's eyes...don't lose
sight of who you are, and don't become something else in the
process...something humorless, just like the enemy you seek to subdue!
Tim Fogarty
In <331e9718...@news.wco.com> Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
> Well, you misconstrue what I'm doing.
What ever you're doing, please stop doing it in soc.motss.
--
Tim Fogarty (fog...@netcom.com) (fog...@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov)
Ezekiel Krahlin
On 5 Mar 1997 16:24:52 GMT, tal...@fas.harvard.edu (Marc Talusan)
said:
>Ezekiel Krahlin (Proud_T...@Are.You) wrote:
>
>: Some people do find my writings maudline. But others love 'em.
>
>If you're going to use a word like "maudlin," it's always a good idea to
>spell it right.
Sometimes I intentially misspell, to see who'll be petty enough to use
that as an excuse to make the other person look stupid. Gotcha!
You know as well as I do, that many e-mail programs don't have a
spell-check function...and that most of us are too busy in our lives,
to take the time to check every jot and tittle of the messages we
post. It has been, for a long time now, tacitly agreed in this Usenet
community, not to denigrate posters for their typos.
>: Certainly, no one can please everyone, nor should s/he expect to.
>: Example: Shakespeare absolutely bores me out of my skull! (A lot of
>: people feel the same way.)
>
>This explains a lot.
Doesn't explain anything, except that "variety is the spice of life,"
and "it takes all kinds". Many highly literate people don't care for
Shakespeare. To explain any more to you is not worth my time.
RainBear
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
> >That was my point. Try not to misconstrue it again.
>
> Well, you misconstrue what I'm doing. There are many different ways
> to fight the enemy. Humor is one way, including different brands of
> humor. You just said you don't care for my brand. Fine. Nothing
> wrong with that, as far as I can tell.
No, I don't misconstrue what you are doing. You are trying to tell jokes
and they are not funny, not only to me, but numerous others as well.
> Introducing homophobes to gay humor also goes a long way towards
> breaking down the walls of bigotry. The unstoppable, overwhelming
> inundation of ideas on Usenet...including constant exposure to all
> different kinds of GayFolk...will go a long way towards the 'phobes
> seeing us as "familiar", instead of "alien."
>
> You act like you know the right way, or best way, to fight homophobia.
> I beg to differ with you on that issue. You are *not* the last word.
>
> Besides which: In your great concern to deal seriously with such a
> grave issue, in your stumbling and sweating over every obstacle in
> order to lift the scale from these sorry people's eyes...don't lose
> sight of who you are, and don't become something else in the
> process...something humorless, just like the enemy you seek to subdue!
>
I am not the one that is humorless. And I also am not the one that tend
to launch into a triade over the smallest form of criticism. I don't
think I've ever seen you take any form of helpful criticism in this
newsgroup gracefully. You always get so defensive and tend to twist
everything that everyone says to you way out of proportion.
You may think that your stories are humorous, but they always seem
totally pointless and don't seem to relate to the arguement at hand.
It's like your mind kinda' wanders away with an idea but stops short
before it gets to a punch line or anything interesting.
I closed my last post with, "That was my point. Try not to misconstrue
it again". But once again, you've managed to miss the point completely.
Marc Talusan
Ezekiel Krahlin (chief_t...@athenia.com) wrote:
: On 5 Mar 1997 16:24:52 GMT, tal...@fas.harvard.edu (Marc Talusan)
: said:
: >Ezekiel Krahlin (Proud_T...@Are.You) wrote:
: >
: >: Some people do find my writings maudline. But others love 'em.
: >
: >If you're going to use a word like "maudlin," it's always a good idea to
: >spell it right.
: Sometimes I intentially misspell, to see who'll be petty enough to use
: that as an excuse to make the other person look stupid. Gotcha!
[then later...]
: It has been, for a long time now, tacitly agreed in this Usenet
: community, not to denigrate posters for their typos.
You obviously have not read enough threads on this particular newsgroup to
know that spelling and grammar flames are allowed, as long as the person
being flamed is a native English speaker. Otherwise, they're just tacky.
And there seems to be an inconsistency in your description of your
spelling error. So is it an intentional misspelling or is it a typo? Or
is it possibly a misjudgment on your part of trying to use a big word and
failing miserably. Aside from the fact that the word was misspelled,
"maudlin" is just not the right word to describe this particular piece of
writing. It seems to me that words like insipid, sophomoric (hi
Ken!) and banal are much more appropriate. I may even someday take the
time to point out to you why I think it's extremely sexist, gay
male-centric, and misogynist, but I'm not sure if it's worth my while.
Peredur
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 05 Mar 1997 18:42:22 -0800, RainBear <NO....@The.Newsgroups>
> said:
> >
> Mr. Krahlin, while I can empathize with your anger, I would point out that satire takes more wit than you have yet demonstrated. You would do well to go back and read Shakespeare.
Regards,
Peredur
Ezekiel Krahlin
On Fri, 07 Mar 1997 06:22:50 -0800, RainBear <NO....@The.Newsgroups>
said:
>Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
>
But others have posted they enjoy them. It takes all kinds. I don't
find the Three Stooges funny, others do. I think Lily Tomlin's funny,
others don't.
>I am not the one that is humorless. And I also am not the one that tend
>to launch into a triade over the smallest form of criticism. I don't
>think I've ever seen you take any form of helpful criticism in this
>newsgroup gracefully.
You conveniently ignore the times I *have* gracefully accepted
criticism. Plus, my "tirades" are rather equivalent to a number of
other excellent essayists who post in these groups...Laconia is one
who comes immediately to mind.
>You always get so defensive and tend to twist
>everything that everyone says to you way out of proportion.
Blatantly untrue. Most of my talks are in standing up against
homophobia...and none of my stance on this has ever been out of
proportion. I use the satire of "exaggeration" and "role reversal" to
get my points across...with a liberal dash of humor. I'd say, you are
indeed a stuffed shirt...but not to denigrate your excellent
participation and contributions in your own sterling way.
>You may think that your stories are humorous, but they always seem
>totally pointless and don't seem to relate to the arguement at hand.
As I already told you, I don't mind if you don't like some stuff I
post. But others do. The points I made are quite relevant, however,
and do relate to arguments at hand. You just don't get it, that's
all...and you blame me for your lack of comprehension.
>It's like your mind kinda' wanders away with an idea but stops short
>before it gets to a punch line or anything interesting.
As I said several times, I understand clearly my brand of satire does
not appeal to you. I don't mind at all, stop worrying about it.
>I closed my last post with, "That was my point. Try not to misconstrue
>it again". But once again, you've managed to miss the point completely.
Not.
You choose to ignore many excellent contributions on my part,
regarding religion and homosexualty, and the military and
homosexuality. I'm sure you can find many contributions of mine that
you'd enjoy and appreciate. But you can't please all of the people
all of the time, just some of the people some of the time.
Ezekiel Krahlin
On 7 Mar 1997 18:35:22 GMT, tal...@fas.harvard.edu (Marc Talusan)
said:
>Ezekiel Krahlin (chief_t...@athenia.com) wrote:
>I may even someday take the
>time to point out to you why I think it's extremely sexist, gay
>male-centric, and misogynist, but I'm not sure if it's worth my while.
The original telling of Adam and Eve is what's male-centric and
misogynistic. My point was a rebuttal against the old "Adam and Eve,
not Adam and Steve" line. There is no equivalent lesbian line to
denigrate gays. So logically, I created a cartoon rebuttal whereby
Adam and Steve were the truth, and that Eve was just a ploy. I gladly
welcome any lesbian humorist to post her all-femal version...after
all, I don't want to steal the whole show!
You read way too much into a humorous comic. It is not chauvanistic
unless you base it on the *orginal* Genesis tale...which I am mocking
in my satire. It was a humorous strike against homophobia. If you
really think I'm a misogynist, then go look at my cartoon I just
uploaded to
alt.binaries.pictures.misc
entitled:
"If Comic-Strip Cathy Were Gay"
It includes the following dedication:
This is my way of saying "Thank you from the bottom of my heart" to
all the excellent babes--young and old, gay and straght, etc.--who
fought, and do fight, for the civil rights of same-sex lovers. These
gracious women often risk their own lives and livelihood, giving so
much of themselves...in spite of the arrogant male ego, which is
almost as much a problem among Gay Men as it is among heterosexual.
Thank you for your remarkable patience, insight, and compassion.
P.S.:
As far as I can tell, I'm the only homosexual artist contributing to
Usenet...creative works that are *not* pornographic and degrading.
C'mon, Lesbian and Thracian artists! Start flooding Usenet binaries
with your exception talents...really good art that people the world
over would love to put in their systems as screen savers, wallpaper,
and fun, lovely, inspirational stuff to enjoy for many years to come!
Why leave it all for heterosexuals? Claim your spot in the artistic
community of Usenet binaries. Prove to the world that homosexuality
does not equal pornography!
Ezekiel Krahlin
On Fri, 7 Mar 1997 00:43:26 GMT, fog...@netcom.com (Tim Fogarty)
said:
>In <331e9718...@news.wco.com> Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
>
>> Well, you misconstrue what I'm doing.
>
>What ever you're doing, please stop doing it in soc.motss.
Sorry, (no I'm not), I can't oblige you, as I see my participation in
soc.motss as relevant to the group.
Ezekiel Krahlin
>Ezekiel Krahlin (chief_t...@athenia.com) wrote:
>: It has been, for a long time now, tacitly agreed in this Usenet
>: community, not to denigrate posters for their typos.
>
>You obviously have not read enough threads on this particular newsgroup to
>know that spelling and grammar flames are allowed, as long as the person
>being flamed is a native English speaker. Otherwise, they're just tacky.
Hey, what do you think I was doing...matching your flame with mine.
Gotcha again!
>And there seems to be an inconsistency in your description of your
>spelling error. So is it an intentional misspelling or is it a typo?
Typo. But I wasn't gonna let you get away with a flame like that.
Ezekiel Krahlin
>In <331e9718...@news.wco.com> Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
>
>> Well, you misconstrue what I'm doing.
>
>What ever you're doing, please stop doing it in soc.motss.
I have not received any complaints that my postings are inappropriate.
Is this your complaint...or do you just dislike some of my viewpoints?
If it is an issue of inappropriateness, just say so and I will look
into things, and see if others in soc.motss agree.
By now, you must be aware of the slanderous attack made upon me. And
the only thing I can say to you at this point, Mr. Fogarty:
Perhaps your energies would be better spent attempting to sabotage ISP
access of bible thumpers or military bigots who spew hate speech
across the Net. And this also goes to the person who attempted to
sabotage my ISP access (and gee, I can't imagine who) along with
another lowlife poster who threatened me...both of whom seem to be
(egads!) homosexual.
But should you choose to take up Internet guerilla tactics as I
suggested, it would be best to first learn the ropes before you wind
up making yourself vulnerable. You must figure out how to first be
untraceable, before you apply such coercive tactics. Else what goes
around can easily come around! If you want some lessons in this
matter, please post to me personally.
My real address is viewable if you set your e-mail reader to view the
complete message headers ("verbose" rather than "partial"). Consider
this lesson 1.
Greg Parkinson
In article <3320d65e...@news.wco.com>, chief_t...@athenia.com
(Ezekiel Krahlin) wrote:
[...]
> Blatantly untrue. Most of my talks are in standing up against
> homophobia...and none of my stance on this has ever been out of
> proportion. I use the satire of "exaggeration" and "role reversal" to
> get my points across...with a liberal dash of humor. I'd say, you are
> indeed a stuffed shirt...but not to denigrate your excellent
> participation and contributions in your own sterling way.
Ignatius Reilly.
-----------------------------------------------------
Greg Parkinson Remove the ".ZZZZ" from the
glp@<cinenet>.net reply-to address to send mail.
-----------------------------------------------------