What to throw in?
Morgan Ohlson
I'm outlining a future saga. Science fiction sounds so technical and the
focus is on organization and society, not tech.
It's not, as many SF taking place in a near future. actually approximately a
thousand years from now. Let's just say that there may be some (only some)
similarities to Mad Max and Waterworld, but those are action. this is more
like a drama with some lesser action parts.
What social, society, medic, gene and tech-perspectives do you think it must
include!?
Morgan O.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> What social, society, medic, gene and tech-perspectives do you think it must
> include!?
The demise of television. I'm glad to say in my universe tv won't be
around in a couple millenia's time... but I'm a bit stalled on why
exactely humanity got rid of it.
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
Gens una sumus
Dorothy J Heydt
Morgan Ohlson <morg...@post.utfors.se> wrote:
>
>I'm outlining a future saga. Science fiction sounds so technical and the
>focus is on organization and society, not tech.
You may be working from a slightly outdated defintion of "science
fiction". There are notoriously many definitions, but one useful
one is, "Science fiction is what happens when you ask, 'What
if?'." But I digress.
>
>It's not, as many SF taking place in a near future. actually approximately a
>similarities to Mad Max and Waterworld, but those are action. this is more
>like a drama with some lesser action parts.
Well, I haven't seen either of the films you mention, but I
assume the ground similarity is "humans, but in a world rather
different from ours." That's fine, that's a basic
science-fictional concept.
To start with, *how* does their world differ from ours? What do
they have more of? Less of? Just plain different?
>
>What social, society, medic, gene and tech-perspectives do you think it must
>include!?
Could be anything, depending on what differences from earth-here-
and-now you want to postulate. Maybe you need to work backward.
Describe some of the things your characters do that isn't
generally done on earth-here-and-now, and brainstorm to figure
out how they got that way.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
James F. Cornwall
>
> In article <a5j9tr$mcu$4...@yggdrasil.utfors.se>,
> Morgan Ohlson <morg...@post.utfors.se> wrote:
> >
> >I'm outlining a future saga. Science fiction sounds so technical and the
> >focus is on organization and society, not tech.
>
> You may be working from a slightly outdated defintion of "science
> fiction". There are notoriously many definitions, but one useful
> one is, "Science fiction is what happens when you ask, 'What
> if?'." But I digress.
> >
> >It's not, as many SF taking place in a near future. actually approximately a
> >similarities to Mad Max and Waterworld, but those are action. this is more
> >like a drama with some lesser action parts.
>
> Well, I haven't seen either of the films you mention, but I
> assume the ground similarity is "humans, but in a world rather
> different from ours." That's fine, that's a basic
> science-fictional concept.
>
Mad Max: Post-apocalypse Australian outback, everyone is basically
scavenging from the remains of our current civilization and spending
their spare time scrounging and killing each other for gasoline, making
up funky vehicles and weapons while burning gasoline without a care in
the world.
Waterworld: Same sort of thing except global warming has somehow
managed to drown the entire planet (including the mountains :-/ ), and
this time the bad guys are in funky boats instead of dune buggies...
Jim
> To start with, *how* does their world differ from ours? What do
> they have more of? Less of? Just plain different?
> >
> >What social, society, medic, gene and tech-perspectives do you think it must
> >include!?
>
> Could be anything, depending on what differences from earth-here-
> and-now you want to postulate. Maybe you need to work backward.
> Describe some of the things your characters do that isn't
> generally done on earth-here-and-now, and brainstorm to figure
> out how they got that way.
>
> Dorothy J. Heydt
> Albany, California
> djh...@kithrup.com
> http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
--
===========================================================
Poetry shamelessly stolen from some guy on a newsgroup:
It is by coffee alone I set my mind in motion,
It is by the beans of java that thoughts acquire speed,
The hands acquire trembling,
The trembling becomes a warning.
It is by coffee alone I set my mind in motion"
dosferatu
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan wrote:
>
> Morgan Ohlson <morg...@post.utfors.se> wrote:
>
> > What social, society, medic, gene and tech-perspectives do you think it must
> > include!?
>
> The demise of television. I'm glad to say in my universe tv won't be
> around in a couple millenia's time... but I'm a bit stalled on why
> exactely humanity got rid of it.
>
a googol of channels and nothing good on?
--
Pat Lundrigan
change $ to s to email
Charlie Stross
as <ada...@tin.it> declared:
> The demise of television. I'm glad to say in my universe tv won't be
> around in a couple millenia's time... but I'm a bit stalled on why
> exactely humanity got rid of it.
Dead easy: the ones who watched it all died. (Invoke Langford's Basilisk
if you need a real reason.)
-- Charlie
"Your password must be at least 18770 characters and cannot repeat any of your
previous 30689 passwords. Please type a different password. Type a password
that meets these requirements in both text boxes."
(Error message from Microsoft Windows 2000 SP1)
John Hua
"Anna Feruglio Dal Dan" <ada...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:1f8a6hh.1ab5qynrffkm6N%ada...@tin.it...
: Morgan Ohlson <morg...@post.utfors.se> wrote:
:
: > What social, society, medic, gene and tech-perspectives do you think it
must
: > include!?
:
: The demise of television. I'm glad to say in my universe tv won't be
: around in a couple millenia's time... but I'm a bit stalled on why
: exactely humanity got rid of it.
Given the way media trends are going, I'd say TV is dead in the future
because its been replaced by full immersion VR with mobile connections to
the Internet.
john
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> Morgan Ohlson <morg...@post.utfors.se> wrote:
>
> > What social, society, medic, gene and tech-perspectives
>do you think
> > it must
> > include!?
>
> The demise of television. I'm glad to say in my universe tv
>won't be around in a couple millenia's time... but I'm a bit
>stalled on why exactely humanity got rid of it.
Narrowcast transmissions directly into the skull, of course.
Who needs a television set?
Damn adverts don't half get into your dreams, though.
Back to the original question... I'd be sure to include male
pregnancy.
Mary
James Nicoll
TV and other mass media are made illegal after it becomes
apparent we're on the verge of discovering a form of turkey syndrome,
where flesh humans no longer look like mates to us and only synthetic
images do, which of course could lead to extinction.
--
"I think you mean 'Could libertarian slave-owning Confederates, led by
SHWIers, have pulled off a transatlantic invasion of Britain, in revenge
for the War of 1812, if they had nukes acquired from the Sea of Time?'"
Alison Brooks
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
> as <ada...@tin.it> declared:
>
> > The demise of television. I'm glad to say in my universe tv won't be
> > around in a couple millenia's time... but I'm a bit stalled on why
> > exactely humanity got rid of it.
>
> Dead easy: the ones who watched it all died. (Invoke Langford's Basilisk
> if you need a real reason.)
Is there a way to make all of those who owned it quietly disappear
instead? :-))
Boudewijn Rempt
> Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
> as <ada...@tin.it> declared:
>> The demise of television. I'm glad to say in my universe tv won't be
>> around in a couple millenia's time... but I'm a bit stalled on why
>> exactely humanity got rid of it.
>
> Dead easy: the ones who watched it all died. (Invoke Langford's Basilisk
> if you need a real reason.)
Or television has become so good, that all the people who like
television watch, and forget to procreate -- leaving only the
people who, by inclination, heredity or upbringing are unaware
of the thing.
--
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.valdyas.org
slee...@gmx.co.uk
The baby Jesus weeps, Mary. He weeps.
I'm still trying to trace this meme back to its source so I can
do unspeakable things to whoever is responsible. I suspect Storm
Constantine is involved.
--Squid
Brian D. Fernald
news:a5j9tr$mcu$4...@yggdrasil.utfors.se...
1.) Entire systems of floating space junk? entire social, and economic
systems built around the presence of such.
(A favorite setting of mine)
2.) Planets with ruins that are of obviously earth-human construction?
3.) Post-singularity biology.
John Hua
<mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a5jkkn$1va$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
: In article <1f8a6hh.1ab5qynrffkm6N%ada...@tin.it>,
Hey now! How's about we go in-vitro instead, huh? This'll also handle
James Nicoll's turkey syndrome.
John
John Hua
"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:a5jlmq$41q$1...@panix2.panix.com...
: In article <a5jjo8$sh9$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
: John Hua <pat...@ix.spamblock.netcom.com> wrote:
: : >
: >Given the way media trends are going, I'd say TV is dead in the future
: >because its been replaced by full immersion VR with mobile connections to
: >the Internet.
:
: TV and other mass media are made illegal after it becomes
: apparent we're on the verge of discovering a form of turkey syndrome,
: where flesh humans no longer look like mates to us and only synthetic
: images do, which of course could lead to extinction.
I agree with the turkey syndrome, but then by that time, we'll have viable
ways to procreate artificially, so it shouldn't cause too much problems to
the population.
"Can't get pregnant...must reach lvl 60 of EQ-3000" ; )
John
Bob Throllop
> What to throw in?
>
> I'm outlining a future saga. Science fiction sounds so technical and the
> focus is on organization and society, not tech.
>
> It's not, as many SF taking place in a near future. actually approximately a
> thousand years from now. Let's just say that there may be some (only some)
> What social, society, medic, gene and tech-perspectives do you think it must
> include!?
Well, you'd need a closely-reasoned explanation of why people desperate for
fuel all drive muscle cars, and why people living deep in the Outback all dress
in leather jockstraps.
Neil Barnes
<3C7D4978...@yahoo.com>:
Ah well, that's me out of a job then :) Seriously, my observation is that it
takes a population of around fifteen or twenty million before there is
sufficient talent to supply one TV channel of watchable quality - thus in
the UK, there are two and a few bits of decent TV, whereas in the states
there are hundreds of channels of gibberish.
--
I have a quantum car. Every time I look at the speedometer I get lost...
barnacle
http://www.nailed-barnacle.co.uk
John Hua
"Neil Barnes" <nailed_...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a5khie$83fpl$1...@ID-123172.news.dfncis.de...
:
: Ah well, that's me out of a job then :) Seriously, my observation is that
it
: takes a population of around fifteen or twenty million before there is
: sufficient talent to supply one TV channel of watchable quality - thus in
: the UK, there are two and a few bits of decent TV, whereas in the states
: there are hundreds of channels of gibberish.
Hong Kong has 3 channels and quite a bit of good movies, but I don't think
there's 45 million people on that itty-bitty little island.
John
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
Barnes) wrote:
>Seriously, my observation is that it
>takes a population of around fifteen or twenty million before there is
>sufficient talent to supply one TV channel of watchable quality
Interesting theory. that *would* explain why TV here is mainly awful.
But that wouldn't explain why Channel A in Slovenia is much better.
Slovenia has something like 2.5 million people. Although they are
drawing on the production of the whole US and world (just like HRT
does).
BTW, Anna, after people got used to the daily fix of nonsense, I think
the only thing that can replace television is something "better". Hm.
Possibly something like EverybodyTV?
vlatko
--
_Neither Fish Nor Fowl_
http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/
http://www.michaelswanwick.com/
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> BTW, Anna, after people got used to the daily fix of nonsense, I think
> the only thing that can replace television is something "better". Hm.
> Possibly something like EverybodyTV?
Looks to me like the principle on which TV works is "the worse it is,
the more people will watch it." Where "worse" means "obviously fake,
unreedemable dumb, not requiring the switching on of more than about 1%
of your brain, but engaging all of your shadenfreunde instincts, and
managing to make you feel superior while helping you conform to some
very low standard of common denominator."
Or prehaps the trick is that not so many people watch it, but they are
the people who, from the start or after having watched it for a while,
are best suited to go out and buy large quantities of whatever's being
sold to them in between the muck.
The sad thing is that this same principle is being applied to
literature. The idea semms to be that it must be something really simple
and straightforward to sell, because you have to sell it to real stupid
people and/or people who certainly don't want to squander their
intelligence and energy on _fiction_. I find it creepy, and I also find
it very misguided: such people don't read, they watch television,
they've go so _much_ of it in this country, and all for free. Besides,
you don't have ads in books (yet: but I'm not optimistic about this
going on for long).
This said, a simple outlawing of advertisement should take care of TV, I
think. And would make me fell very smug.
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
slee...@gmx.co.uk () wrote:
> mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
> > In article <1f8a6hh.1ab5qynrffkm6N%ada...@tin.it>,
> > ada...@tin.it (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
> >
> > > Morgan Ohlson <morg...@post.utfors.se> wrote:
> > >
> > > > What social, society, medic, gene and
>tech-perspectives
> > >do you think
> > > > it must
> > > > include!?
> > >
> > > The demise of television. I'm glad to say in my
>universe tv
> > >won't be around in a couple millenia's time... but I'm a
>bit
> > >stalled on why exactely humanity got rid of it.
> >
> > Narrowcast transmissions directly into the skull, of
>course.
> > Who needs a television set?
> >
> > Damn adverts don't half get into your dreams, though.
> >
> > Back to the original question... I'd be sure to include
>male
> > pregnancy.
>
> The baby Jesus weeps, Mary. He weeps.
I expect he does; most babies do... And so would anyone
knowing they'd been born specifically to be nailed up to
something...
> I'm still trying to trace this meme back to its source so I
>can do unspeakable things to whoever is responsible. I
>suspect Storm Constantine is involved.
I think it began long before that, didn't it? <fx: puzzled>
I thought it was the old standard "let *them* have a taste of
it if they think it's so great".
Personally I don't mind who gets pregnant, so long as it's
not me, but I do think men ought to have the experience of
menstruation.
Mary
Helgi Briem
<bobth...@brandx.net> wrote:
>> similarities to Mad Max and Waterworld[...]
>Well, you'd need a closely-reasoned explanation of why people
>desperate for fuel all drive muscle cars,
It looks cool, duh!
>and why people living deep in the Outback all dress
>in leather jockstraps.
It looks cool, duh.
All decisions in movie/TV science fiction/fantasy
are made on one criteria and one criteria only:
"Does it look cool?" Never ever do they ask
questions like "Does it make sense?", "Would
any sane human being do (wear) such a thing?",
"Is this likely to happen if X?", "Why don't they
use seatbelts?", "Why don't they automatically
beam intruders to the brig?", "Why can't they make
backup copies of computer programs?", "Can a
human being actually use a 10kg sword?" etc.
etc.
--
Regards, Helgi Briem
helgi AT decode DOT is
Anna Mazzoldi
Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
> BTW, Anna, after people got used to the daily fix of nonsense, I think
> the only thing that can replace television is something "better". Hm.
> Possibly something like EverybodyTV?
Or a temporary breakdown, long enough that people will get unused
to it. E.g., I don't miss TV: I'm simply not used to it any more.
It doesn't even need to be catastrophic (though that's a
possibility too, of course): people in Anna's world have been
colonising planets, and I think it's plausible enough that they
didn't have TV in the first few years, when priorities were
different. Then, when they did have the leisure that would have
allowed them to have TV, they just didn't bother.
Ciao,
Anna
--
Anna Mazzoldi writing from Dublin, Ireland
Current soundtrack: Game soundtrack from _Planescape: Torment_
and from _Arcanum_
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> It doesn't even need to be catastrophic (though that's a
> possibility too, of course): people in Anna's world have been
> colonising planets, and I think it's plausible enough that they
> didn't have TV in the first few years, when priorities were
> different. Then, when they did have the leisure that would have
> allowed them to have TV, they just didn't bother.
I prefer the scenario where tv-moguls die horribly painful deaths,
myself... I have to give you that yours is more likely, but mine would
be more fun, if only I could make it plausible...
Dorothy J Heydt
<mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Personally I don't mind who gets pregnant, so long as it's
>not me,
I've done it; I can never do it again; fine by me.
but I do think men ought to have the experience of
>menstruation.
Only the rotters. I wouldn't wish the experience on any decent
human being, of whom quite a few are male.
Let's hear it for menopause.
Patricia J. Hawkins
mg> Personally I don't mind who gets pregnant, so long as it's
mg> not me, but I do think men ought to have the experience of
mg> menstruation.
Make 'em much less squeamish, for one thing. And able to take pain
right in stride.
--
Patricia J. Hawkins
Brian M. Scott
<phaw...@connact.com> wrote:
Bad teeth do very nicely for that, I'm afraid. (The pain, that is,
not the squeamishness.)
Brian
James Nicoll
John Hua <pat...@ix.spamblock.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:a5jlmq$41q$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>: In article <a5jjo8$sh9$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
>: John Hua <pat...@ix.spamblock.netcom.com> wrote:
>: : >
>: >Given the way media trends are going, I'd say TV is dead in the future
>: >because its been replaced by full immersion VR with mobile connections to
>: >the Internet.
>:
>: TV and other mass media are made illegal after it becomes
>: apparent we're on the verge of discovering a form of turkey syndrome,
>: where flesh humans no longer look like mates to us and only synthetic
>: images do, which of course could lead to extinction.
>:
>
>
>I agree with the turkey syndrome, but then by that time, we'll have viable
>ways to procreate artificially, so it shouldn't cause too much problems to
>the population.
>
of producing the kids? If people still want kids and are just using
uterine replicators as tool to that end, ok, people will pay to
have and raise kids (Although this may not net you the same birth
rate as the various 'oops' methods of child production).
However, consider the future where what we want is other adults
and nobody wants to spend the time and effort to turn a UR baby into one or
where UR babies have the same deplorable accident and deliberate harm rate
as adopted and foster children because the parents don't feel they are their
bloodkin (Although on an abstract level they may think of them that way).
Imagine the contracts Monsanto might whip up for kids they make:
the adults have to pay back the cost of producing them plus interest and
may not reproduce without paying Monsanto because their DNA is the IP
for Monsanto.
Neil Barnes
ada...@tin.it>:
> Anna Mazzoldi <mazz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It doesn't even need to be catastrophic (though that's a
>> possibility too, of course): people in Anna's world have been
>> colonising planets, and I think it's plausible enough that they
>> didn't have TV in the first few years, when priorities were
>> different. Then, when they did have the leisure that would have
>> allowed them to have TV, they just didn't bother.
>
> I prefer the scenario where tv-moguls die horribly painful deaths,
> myself... I have to give you that yours is more likely, but mine would
> be more fun, if only I could make it plausible...
>
Well, how about a nice gladiatorial combat between Berlusconi, Murdoch, and
Turner? Winner gets fed to the lions! Live on TV of course...pictures at 11.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> Well, how about a nice gladiatorial combat between Berlusconi, Murdoch, and
> Turner? Winner gets fed to the lions! Live on TV of course...pictures at 11.
Nah. Berlusconi on the arena with all cameras pointed at him? That
wouldn't be punishment. Forced to tell jokes to a huge audience that
_never laughs_, but jawns and after a while starts peering discreetly at
books and newspapers, that would be real torture.
Gerry Quinn
>In article <1f8a6hh.1ab5qynrffkm6N%ada...@tin.it>,
>ada...@tin.it (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
>> The demise of television. I'm glad to say in my universe tv
>>won't be around in a couple millenia's time... but I'm a bit
>>stalled on why exactely humanity got rid of it.
>
>Narrowcast transmissions directly into the skull, of course.
>Who needs a television set?
Probably when a character reads a book (or newspaper), he is actually
looking at an active paper medium which might be printed text or a TV
movie:
"He picked up a book and scanned for local news..."
"I was reading a movie about this giant ape..."
- Gerry Quinn
John F. Eldredge
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:54:41 +0100, ada...@tin.it (Anna Feruglio Dal
Dan) wrote:
>Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
>
>> BTW, Anna, after people got used to the daily fix of nonsense, I
>> think the only thing that can replace television is something
>> "better". Hm. Possibly something like EverybodyTV?
>
>Looks to me like the principle on which TV works is "the worse it
>is, the more people will watch it." Where "worse" means "obviously
>fake, unreedemable dumb, not requiring the switching on of more than
>about 1% of your brain, but engaging all of your shadenfreunde
>instincts, and managing to make you feel superior while helping you
>conform to some very low standard of common denominator."
When I was an undergraduate at Belmont College (now Belmont
University) in Nashville, Tennessee, USA, in the late 1970's, we
students were required to attend two hour-long "convocations" each
week. One would be a religious service; the other would be a secular
speaker of some sort. On one occasion, the speaker was the manager
of one of the local television stations. It was affiliated with one
of the major networks, but I don't remember which one.
After his speech, there was a question-and-answer session, and I
asked him what his network considered the average viewer to be. I
was surprised at his frankness. He said that they considered the
average viewer to have an intelligence quotient of about 80, a
seventh-grade or eighth-grade education, working in an unskilled
blue-collar job, and not wanting to watch anything that would make
him or her have to think. While much of the programming, then and
now, indeed seems to be aimed to such an audience, I would not have
expected to hear a station manager say so in public.
Personally, I don't watch much television, and most of what I do
watch is on the public station, which tends to aim towards a
more-intelligent audience.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 Int. for non-commercial use
<http://www.pgpinternational.com>
iQA/AwUBPH73uDMYPge5L34aEQJmhwCgmZB0BWMB1FCvSWFUIMjiuW8J03cAoLXr
v0Bg9nw/y5cqDeVMhM5UAFE2
=jyz1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
John F. Eldredge -- new address jo...@jfeldredge.com
eldr...@earthlink.net, eldr...@poboxes.com still work
PGP key available from http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371
"There must be, not a balance of power, but a community of power;
not organized rivalries, but an organized common peace."
Woodrow Wilson
Dan V
> He said that they considered the
>average viewer to have an intelligence quotient of about 80, a
>seventh-grade or eighth-grade education, working in an unskilled
>blue-collar job, and not wanting to watch anything that would make
>him or her have to think. While much of the programming, then and
>now, indeed seems to be aimed to such an audience, I would not have
>expected to hear a station manager say so in public.
While the average viewer may be as described above, it does not follow
that TV programming is aimed at the average viewer. Rather, it is aimed
at the advertisers' target market, which may not be the same.
For example, the Infiniti people probably don't really care whether or
not a blue-collar worker sees their ad or not, and so if a TV station
wants Infiniti to pay for advert airtime, they better have a show which
attracts upper-middle-class viewers.
Dan
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> After his speech, there was a question-and-answer session, and I
> asked him what his network considered the average viewer to be. I
> was surprised at his frankness. He said that they considered the
> average viewer to have an intelligence quotient of about 80, a
> seventh-grade or eighth-grade education, working in an unskilled
> blue-collar job, and not wanting to watch anything that would make
> him or her have to think. While much of the programming, then and
> now, indeed seems to be aimed to such an audience, I would not have
> expected to hear a station manager say so in public.
To a certain extent, you create your public. In Italy, they started with
a deluge of american tv-series, including Dallas and suchlike. They are
mind candy, to be sure, but well-done and addictive.
Once you've established fidelity, you can go with quiz-shows.
Then with the sort of talk-shows that either focus on family fights or
neighobours feuding, or with very simple-minded political or social
divisivness. In any case, people fight and this morbidly attacts
everybody.
One art critic built his political career on this. He would go on TV and
as soon as somebody in the studio was disagreeing with this, he started
screaming at them, piling insults on them and never stopping to let them
answer. Many of the adversaries got angry and started shouting too, and
voila', audience shot up.
Morbid attraction can easily become addiction if you do this on a
regular basis. People tune in because they're curious and a habit gets
established.
(In Italy, you then start slipping in political content in the form of
demagogy.)
The public that doesn't go for this kind of thing - and it's probably
about half - goes away, and for a long while could tune into a freak
experiment, the Third Channel. The Third Channel was a sort of nerdish
corrall, nobody expected it to have any share worth mentioning, so it
was given over complacently to a left-wing intellectual, who began
stuffing it with weird programming: talk shows about books in prime
time, a true crime programme with a gentlemanly journalist conducting
it, a comsumer's rights programme, a Lost People programme, and twenty
minutes of "blob", a quick, sarcastic, often subtly abusive collage of
TV footage from all the channels. In a few months the channel had an
_incredible_ share. Nobody could believe it. As soon as Berlusconi first
got in power, in '94, he kicked out the leftist intellectual and the
channel slid back to its intended oscurity. A huge part of the audience,
who's now developed the habit to switch on tv, is liberated from all
that arty-fartsy stuff and left to surf unhappily between channels,
looking for the least offensive one. And wishing for the BBC.
Catja Pafort
> To a certain extent, you create your public. In Italy, they started with
> a deluge of american tv-series, including Dallas and suchlike. They are
> mind candy, to be sure, but well-done and addictive.
>
> Once you've established fidelity, you can go with quiz-shows.
>
> Then with the sort of talk-shows that either focus on family fights or
> neighobours feuding, or with very simple-minded political or social
> divisivness. In any case, people fight and this morbidly attacts
> everybody.
Sssh. Don't expose our plans for world domination.
Has Jerry Springer started to do an Italian show yet?
> The public that doesn't go for this kind of thing - and it's probably
> about half - goes away, and for a long while could tune into a freak
> experiment, the Third Channel. The Third Channel was a sort of nerdish
> corrall, nobody expected it to have any share worth mentioning, so it
> was given over complacently to a left-wing intellectual, who began
> stuffing it with weird programming: talk shows about books in prime
> time, a true crime programme with a gentlemanly journalist conducting
> it, a comsumer's rights programme, a Lost People programme, and twenty
> minutes of "blob", a quick, sarcastic, often subtly abusive collage of
> TV footage from all the channels. In a few months the channel had an
> _incredible_ share. Nobody could believe it. As soon as Berlusconi first
> got in power, in '94, he kicked out the leftist intellectual and the
> channel slid back to its intended oscurity. A huge part of the audience,
> who's now developed the habit to switch on tv, is liberated from all
> that arty-fartsy stuff and left to surf unhappily between channels,
> looking for the least offensive one. And wishing for the BBC.
Four hours of straight talkshows; cooking, a couple of series (a
hospital one and Enterprise); a gardening show and a house makeover?
Are you *sure* about this?
I'm not saying the BBC doesn't produce some of the grandest things to
hit TV screens - historicals, Walking with Dinosaurs/beasts etc are
*great* stuff (only I never tune in, because I never watch TV in the
first place) - but whenever I switch it on, I just see things I don't
want to watch and switch off.
The odd film or two, the odd episode of various incarnations of the
Enterprise, but otherwise...
Catja
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> > looking for the least offensive one. And wishing for the BBC.
>
>
> Four hours of straight talkshows; cooking, a couple of series (a
> hospital one and Enterprise); a gardening show and a house makeover?
>
> Are you *sure* about this?
Yes!
A friend of mine moved to London four years ago. The first time I went
up to visit he told me: "English TV! You won't believe it! They have
_gardening_ shows! You switch on on Sunday Morning that there's
do-it-yourself furniture restoration!"
The last time he came down, this Christmas, he told me with a sort of
haunted look: "You know, I had sort of forgotten how Italian TV was. How
can you withstand it?"
Besides, we don't get Enterprise. We didn't get DS9. We didn't get B5,
or Voyager, or Doctor Who. We don't get SF on tv. None. We didn't get
the Monthy Pyton. Or Faulty Towers (which I have never seen, just heard
about).
slee...@gmx.co.uk
> In article <1105_10...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
> slee...@gmx.co.uk () wrote:
>
> > mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> > > > Morgan Ohlson <morg...@post.utfors.se> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What social, society, medic, gene and
> >tech-perspectives
> > > >do you think
> > > > > it must
> > > > > include!?
<snip for brevity>
> > > Back to the original question... I'd be sure to include
> >male
> > > pregnancy.
> >
> > The baby Jesus weeps, Mary. He weeps.
>
> I expect he does; most babies do... And so would anyone
> knowing they'd been born specifically to be nailed up to
> something...
Never let it be said that I am reluctant to take the lord Jesus'
actions completely out of context.
> > I'm still trying to trace this meme back to its source so I
> >can do unspeakable things to whoever is responsible. I
> >suspect Storm Constantine is involved.
>
> I think it began long before that, didn't it? <fx: puzzled>
It wouldn't surprise me; but I've encountered at least two people
who claim to have been inspired by Constantine to play with the
theme, inevitably employing the time-honored 'infuriating
pregnant woman stereotype + penis' formula, and I'm a lazy
tracker.
Which is really the heart of why I dislike it. Constantine's the
only person I can recall having seen /not/ do it that way, and --
well, I read the Enchantments of Flesh and Spirit long enough ago
that my strongest remaining impression from the book is of an
unpleasant rashy sensation (synaesthesia ahoy!), but I can say
with conviction that I disliked it enough that I didn't read the
other books, despite the fact that I had the trilogy in a single
volume and was probably desperate for reading material at the
time (because I always am).
It's possible to write practically anything in a way that won't
raise my hackles[1], but what male pregnancy I've been subjected
to has provoked such an intense squick reaction that I don't
think even 'the good kind' could break through that conditioning-
cum-possible inherent deep personal dislike.
I should probably note in the interest of clarity that I've read
a lot of slash (wherein the male pregnancy theme occasionally
crops up as a ghastly extrapolation on the 'one partner is always
the "woman"' meme), but that I have encountered it elsewhere.
> Personally I don't mind who gets pregnant, so long as it's
> not me, but I do think men ought to have the experience of
> menstruation.
Now, that's just mean. ;)
--Squid
[1] I did say 'practically'. I draw the line at Tim Surprise.