Mundanes' secret weapon?
Matthew燘. Tepper
that I've been nursing for some time, hoping that it might engender a bit
of whimsical discussion. Unfortunately, somebody (prone to hitting me with
ad hominem attacks, and who has since been slam-dunked into my killfile)
smacked it aside almost immediately, and the thread then simply sank.
So, I'll try again, and see if there are any friendly nibbles this time.
Years ago I wrote about the nearly perfect defense that many mundanes
appear to have against fannish cleverness. It was called, simply, The
Blank Stare. It works this way: Dopey Mundane makes some inane remark,
which Joe Phan decides cannot go unchallenged. Joe Phan therefore replies
with a deftly-turned comeback, clever beyond belief, witheringly insulting,
and knee-slappingly humorous to another fan. What is the typical response
of Dopey Mundane? That's right, a Blank Stare. It never "connects," so it
has no effect on the D.M. whatsoever.
Are there any methods for dealing with the Blank Stare, or does it signify
that one has gotten into an argument that one just cannot win?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Russell Watson is to opera as Velveeta™ is to aged cheddar cheese
Kevin J. Maroney
<oy兀earthlink.net> wrote:
>Are there any methods for dealing with the Blank Stare, or does it signify
>that one has gotten into an argument that one just cannot win?
Wasn't the first round of this discussion a good enough example of an
argument one cannot win?
Anyway. If one receives the Blank Stare, one has probably already made
as much a point as one is going to. Count it as a victory and move on.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
David Friedman
"Matthew燘. Tepper" <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote:
> A little while ago I posted a cute idea (well, *I* think it is, anyway)
> that I've been nursing for some time, hoping that it might engender a bit
> of whimsical discussion. Unfortunately, somebody (prone to hitting me with
> ad hominem attacks, and who has since been slam-dunked into my killfile)
> smacked it aside almost immediately, and the thread then simply sank.
>
> So, I'll try again, and see if there are any friendly nibbles this time.
>
> Years ago I wrote about the nearly perfect defense that many mundanes
> appear to have against fannish cleverness. It was called, simply, The
> Blank Stare. It works this way: Dopey Mundane makes some inane remark,
> which Joe Phan decides cannot go unchallenged. Joe Phan therefore replies
> with a deftly-turned comeback, clever beyond belief, witheringly insulting,
> and knee-slappingly humorous to another fan. What is the typical response
> of Dopey Mundane? That's right, a Blank Stare. It never "connects," so it
> has no effect on the D.M. whatsoever.
>
> Are there any methods for dealing with the Blank Stare, or does it signify
> that one has gotten into an argument that one just cannot win?
It could signify that "Dopey Mundane" is clever enough to have
recognized the clever comeback and chosen to ignore it--often an
effective tactic, as your question suggests. It could even signify that
the comeback wasn't as clever as Joe Phan supposed.
--
Remove NOSPAM to email
Also remove .invalid
www.daviddfriedman.com
Mark Jones
Sun, 02 Nov 2003 05:28:21 GMT, did you or did you not state:
>> Are there any methods for dealing with the Blank Stare, or does it signify
>> that one has gotten into an argument that one just cannot win?
>
>It could signify that "Dopey Mundane" is clever enough to have
>recognized the clever comeback and chosen to ignore it--often an
>effective tactic, as your question suggests. It could even signify that
>the comeback wasn't as clever as Joe Phan supposed.
I'm a fan, and _I_ use a variation of the Blank Stare defense when in
the presence of fen who are unreasonably enamored of their ability to
make puns, and feel the necessity of doing so at EVERY CONCEIVABLE
OPPORTUNITY. I don't laugh, I don't groan, I don't sneer. I simply
pretend that no pun was made (or, alternatively, that it went
completely over my head).
I do this in the hopes that decide I'm no fun as a target (uh,
audience) and wander off to torment some other poor soul.
--
[AGB] SINANJU
"So what happened then, grandpa?"
"Well, I got KILLED, of course!"
Dan Kimmel
"Matthew B. Tepper" <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9426D130644...@207.217.77.205...
> A little while ago I posted a cute idea (well, *I* think it is, anyway)
> that I've been nursing for some time, hoping that it might engender a bit
> of whimsical discussion. Unfortunately, somebody (prone to hitting me
with
> ad hominem attacks, and who has since been slam-dunked into my killfile)
> smacked it aside almost immediately, and the thread then simply sank.
>
> So, I'll try again, and see if there are any friendly nibbles this time.
>
> Years ago I wrote about the nearly perfect defense that many mundanes
> appear to have against fannish cleverness. It was called, simply, The
> Blank Stare. It works this way: Dopey Mundane makes some inane remark,
> which Joe Phan decides cannot go unchallenged. Joe Phan therefore replies
> with a deftly-turned comeback, clever beyond belief, witheringly
insulting,
> and knee-slappingly humorous to another fan. What is the typical response
> of Dopey Mundane? That's right, a Blank Stare. It never "connects," so
it
> has no effect on the D.M. whatsoever.
>
> Are there any methods for dealing with the Blank Stare, or does it signify
> that one has gotten into an argument that one just cannot win?
Reading the replies you've received, I'm ready to deliver a blank stare.
Instead of either engaging your topic or ignoring it, people seem intent on
destroying your premise. While valid points are made, nothing entirely
negates your premise, so let me attempt a direct response.
It all depends on your relationship with the starer. If it's someone with
whom you work, live, are friends with, or are related to, you might try a
variation of, "Oh, it's a science fiction thing." Then each of you can feel
superior to the other with no hurt feelings.
If not, then I would suggest a variation of the classic Tom Lehrer line from
"An Evening Wasted with Tom Lehrer." He tells a joke about a necrophiliac
who achieves his life's ambition by becoming town coroner, and gets about
three laughs. He then says, "The rest of you can look it up when you get
home."
Chris Malme
news:Xns9426D130644...@207.217.77.205:
> Years ago I wrote about the nearly perfect defense that many mundanes
> appear to have against fannish cleverness. It was called, simply, The
> Blank Stare. It works this way: Dopey Mundane makes some inane
> remark, which Joe Phan decides cannot go unchallenged. Joe Phan
> therefore replies with a deftly-turned comeback, clever beyond belief,
> witheringly insulting, and knee-slappingly humorous to another fan.
> What is the typical response of Dopey Mundane? That's right, a Blank
> Stare. It never "connects," so it has no effect on the D.M.
> whatsoever.
>
> Are there any methods for dealing with the Blank Stare, or does it
> signify that one has gotten into an argument that one just cannot win?
Probably the best way to deal with the Blank Stare is complete honesty and
humility.
Admit to the "mundane" (and yourself) that your humerous comeback was
nothing of the sort and that you were probably being nothing but a
pretentious berk.
This frankness will complete disarm the "mundane", and perhaps even
convince them that you are actually an interesting human being worth
conversing with, and not a fanboy trying to score points.
If you think this is unecessarily argumentative, it is because I find your
characterisation of a "Dopey Mundane" to be extremely offensive. The
concept of "mundanes" is one of the things I hate most about the fannish
community. People are people, our interests may vary, but in the scenario
you describe, I probably have more sympathy (and more in common) with
"Dopey Mundane" then "Joe Phan".
Now you can killfile me too, if you want to.
--
Chris
Minstrel's Hall of Filk - http://www.filklore.com/
Filklore Music Store - http://www.filklore.co.uk/
To contact me, please use form at http://www.filklore.com/contact.phtml
Richard Eney
Matthew B. Tepper <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Years ago I wrote about the nearly perfect defense that many mundanes
>appear to have against fannish cleverness. It was called, simply, The
>Blank Stare. It works this way: Dopey Mundane makes some inane remark,
>which Joe Phan decides cannot go unchallenged. Joe Phan therefore replies
>with a deftly-turned comeback, clever beyond belief, witheringly insulting,
>and knee-slappingly humorous to another fan. What is the typical response
>of Dopey Mundane? That's right, a Blank Stare. It never "connects," so it
>has no effect on the D.M. whatsoever.
>
>Are there any methods for dealing with the Blank Stare, or does it signify
>that one has gotten into an argument that one just cannot win?
Fan pauses for two beats before smiling and continuing:
"Am I going too fast for you?"
-- Dick Eney
BetNoir
"Matthew B. Tepper" wrote:
>
> A little while ago I posted a cute idea (well, *I* think it is, anyway)
> that I've been nursing for some time, hoping that it might engender a bit
> of whimsical discussion. Unfortunately, somebody (prone to hitting me with
> ad hominem attacks, and who has since been slam-dunked into my killfile)
> smacked it aside almost immediately, and the thread then simply sank.
>
> So, I'll try again, and see if there are any friendly nibbles this time.
>
> Years ago I wrote about the nearly perfect defense that many mundanes
> appear to have against fannish cleverness. It was called, simply, The
> Blank Stare. It works this way: Dopey Mundane makes some inane remark,
> which Joe Phan decides cannot go unchallenged. Joe Phan therefore replies
> with a deftly-turned comeback, clever beyond belief, witheringly insulting,
> and knee-slappingly humorous to another fan. What is the typical response
> of Dopey Mundane? That's right, a Blank Stare. It never "connects," so it
> has no effect on the D.M. whatsoever.
>
> Are there any methods for dealing with the Blank Stare, or does it signify
> that one has gotten into an argument that one just cannot win?
How about starting by not assuming that just because somebody is not
a Fan, that they are:
a. dopey
b. mundane
c. prone to making inane remarks
d. somehow less clever and witty than Fans?
Personally, given what passes for 'knee-slappingly humurous' among
lots of Fans, I might be the one giving the Blank Stare.
--
BetN -- NEVER parry with your head
Benevolent Cap'n, Bad Ship BetNoirian -- You there! Hoist something!
AFR Goddess of Pith and Vinegar
Proud Member #014, Assassins' Guild -- Nihil Privatus
I am not short...I'm concentrated!
If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a
horrible warning -- C. Aird
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist
the black flag and begin slitting throats -- HL Mencken
To desire the end is to desire the means -- Draka
Take away my dagger to e-mail me
Matthew燘. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:bo3eud$4ci$2...@news1.radix.net:
> In article <Xns9426D130644...@207.217.77.205>,
*chuckle*
Matthew燘. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:Xns94277BE3...@130.133.1.4:
> "Matthew B. Tepper" <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote in
Not at all; it is one thing to be argumentative, as you aver you are.
Indeed, I came here for an argument. But what I *had* gotten before was
"getting hit on the head lessons," from the same person who (in another
thread entirely) blasted me for wanting to censor the news when I said
there were certain kinds of fluff news stories which didn't interest me.
As for my beloved theory, at least this time I had the opportunity to put
it out for honest discussion. And if it has now failed, at least it has
now failed fairly, not blindly and obnoxiously gainsaid by that person whom
I regard of, ahem, not-high repute.
Thanks, and I mean that sincerely.
Matthew燘. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:3FA5589F...@earthlink.net:
I don't, really. But sometimes, just occasionally....
> Personally, given what passes for 'knee-slappingly humurous' among
> lots of Fans, I might be the one giving the Blank Stare.
--
Jack Heneghan
Blank Stare pauses two beats:
"You were going somewhere?"
Jack Heneghan
***************************************
COSine - A Science Fiction Convention!
Coming to a Colorado Springs near you!
January 16-18, 2004
***************************************
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>A little while ago I posted a cute idea (well, *I* think it is, anyway)
>that I've been nursing for some time, hoping that it might engender a bit
>of whimsical discussion. Unfortunately, somebody (prone to hitting me with
>ad hominem attacks, and who has since been slam-dunked into my killfile)
>smacked it aside almost immediately, and the thread then simply sank.
>
>So, I'll try again, and see if there are any friendly nibbles this time.
>
>Years ago I wrote about the nearly perfect defense that many mundanes
>appear to have against fannish cleverness. It was called, simply, The
>Blank Stare. It works this way: Dopey Mundane makes some inane remark,
>which Joe Phan decides cannot go unchallenged. Joe Phan therefore replies
>with a deftly-turned comeback, clever beyond belief, witheringly insulting,
>and knee-slappingly humorous to another fan. What is the typical response
>of Dopey Mundane? That's right, a Blank Stare. It never "connects," so it
>has no effect on the D.M. whatsoever.
>
>Are there any methods for dealing with the Blank Stare, or does it signify
>that one has gotten into an argument that one just cannot win?
I think there's little choice - if one wants the conversation to continue -
but to say "Never mind" about your remark that they didn't understand and
revert to an unwitty but straightforward presentation of what your objection
is to what they said. (It'd take a lot of goodwill on their part to sit
still for an explanation of what you said and why it was funny, and it won't
_be_ funny, and in any case any time it takes five minutes to explain that
you were insulting someone, you _have_ lost.)
In other words, when you're not getting through on one channel, try another.
-- Alan
--
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
Martha H Adams
serious it can get, watch the news out of Washington DC if not daily
on the television (euphemistically) news.
I've never felt I had grasped the essence of what Straczynski was
saying in his B5 thread around the telepath wars and his use of
"mundanes" there.
I recall a recent Philcon panel in which the speaker outlined his
ethnological study if "mundanes." Funny and serious, both at once.
It's got my attention because the serious is so very *serious.*
Cheers -- Martha Adams
Lowell Gilbert
> Are there any methods for dealing with the Blank Stare, or does it signify
> that one has gotten into an argument that one just cannot win?
There are too many possible explanations for the situation to come up
with a general answer. Unless, of course, you really *have* decided
beforehand that you're speaking with a "dopey mundane," in which case
I don't see why you're trying to be amusing in the first place.
David G. Bell
My own semi-guess is that the idea arose when SF wasn't as common in the
mass media as it is now. That isn't to say that the pulps were
uncommon, or that there wasn't SF on TV or in the cinema, but it was
there as a setting for adventure, or horror, or a western. There wasn't
the SF as a way of dealing with ideas, which could be found in the
pulps.
There was a slow change -- it wasn't a vital spark from the Deity's
finger which made "Star Trek" different -- and even today a lot of the
ideas are used as a setting for conventional plots; they're not driving
the story.
But I suggest that the concept of the "mundane" was centred on the
people who saw the spaceships, but didn't notice the ideas.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"History shows that the Singularity started when Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
James Nicoll
--
It's amazing how the waterdrops form: a ball of water with an air bubble
inside it and inside of that one more bubble of water. It looks so beautiful
[...]. I realized something: the world is interesting for the man who can
be surprised. -Valentin Lebedev-
Richard Eney
Haven't you ever had the experience of being dissed because you like that
crazy Buck Rogers stuff? Serious question, because my impression is that
this is much less likely in those who were born after, say, 1970.
-- Dick Eney
Mark Atwood
> In article <bo5tpa$ami$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Why the hostility towards mundanes?
>
> Haven't you ever had the experience of being dissed because you like
> that crazy Buck Rogers stuff?
Never. Lots of other reasons, but not that one.
> Serious question, because my impression is that this is much less
> likely in those who were born after, say, 1970.
Born early 1969.
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right,
m...@pobox.com | people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
James Nicoll
Come to think of it, not that in particular, no. I got lots of
flack in school but none of it involved the particular genre I read.
More likely to be targeted because I was shy or because I read too much
in the opinions of other people, but not becuase of what I read too
much. In fact, I recall one guy I had a lot of trouble with quietly
asking me what we should expect if the Soviet/Chinese thing in the
late 1970s went bad, so despite the continual harrassment I must have
been seen as better informed than I actually was at the time.
I was born in 1961.
Trinker
Richard Eney wrote:
What's up with the idea that there's some monolithic block o' "mundanes" ?
What amuses me is that I've seen someone who's been involved with SF
fandom for yonks described as a "mundane" because he doesn't play in the
SCA.
--Trinker
James Nicoll
Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Richard Eney wrote:
>
>> In article <bo5tpa$ami$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
>> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why the hostility towards mundanes?
>>
>>
>> Haven't you ever had the experience of being dissed because you like that
>> crazy Buck Rogers stuff? Serious question, because my impression is that
>> this is much less likely in those who were born after, say, 1970.
>
>
>What's up with the idea that there's some monolithic block o' "mundanes" ?
Damn you for thinking faster than me!
It does seem odd that because some guy whose name I have forgotten
mistreated me a quarter century ago I should take it out now on some
unrelated person who shares some surface features with that person back then.
Trinker
> In article <bo6407$17pjht$1...@ID-98943.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Richard Eney wrote:
>>
>>>In article <bo5tpa$ami$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
>>>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why the hostility towards mundanes?
>>>
>>>Haven't you ever had the experience of being dissed because you like that
>>>crazy Buck Rogers stuff? Serious question, because my impression is that
>>>this is much less likely in those who were born after, say, 1970.
>>
>>What's up with the idea that there's some monolithic block o' "mundanes" ?
>
> Damn you for thinking faster than me!
Eh...right place, right time...I'm sure you'll beat me to something soon.
> It does seem odd that because some guy whose name I have forgotten
> mistreated me a quarter century ago I should take it out now on some
> unrelated person who shares some surface features with that person back then.
Oh, but it's *different* than say, mistreating someone who looks like
$category because someone *else* in $category was unpleasant before.
Because it's *better* to sort the world by fan/'dane rather than in
racial or religious or...
--Trinker
Chris Malme
@news1.radix.net:
I'm a '59 baby.
My experience wasn't so much being dissed by people because of my liking
for SF, as embarassment when other folk who believed in UFOs, little grey
men, and the Chariots of the Gods assumed that I was a fellow traveller,
simply because they saw me with an SF book in my hand.
That's where I perfected *my* blank stare.
Mike Kozlowski
They're different, and science fiction fans can't handle things that
are strange and unusual.
--
Mike Kozlowski
http://www.klio.org/mlk/
David Dyer-Bennet
> Why the hostility towards mundanes?
People mostly hang around in fandom because they find it much more
pleasant than other social venues. Largely because of the kinds of
people we find there.
Some people are fairly thoroughly scarred by the time they find
fandom, ane harbor considerable resentment. Others aren't, or at
least don't.
Or alternatively, it's like cats and mice; mundanes and fans are just
natural enemies.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd...@dd-b.net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>
Trinker
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>
>
>> Why the hostility towards mundanes?
>
>
> People mostly hang around in fandom because they find it much more
> pleasant than other social venues. Largely because of the kinds of
> people we find there.
>
> Some people are fairly thoroughly scarred by the time they find
> fandom, ane harbor considerable resentment. Others aren't, or at
> least don't.
>
> Or alternatively, it's like cats and mice; mundanes and fans are just
> natural enemies.
Ohhh....so *that's* why people get so confused when fen marry nonfen.
--Trinker
Alan Woodford
>dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney) wrote in news:bo60dl$mrj$1
>@news1.radix.net:
>
>> In article <bo5tpa$ami$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
>> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> > Why the hostility towards mundanes?
>>
>> Haven't you ever had the experience of being dissed because you like that
>> crazy Buck Rogers stuff? Serious question, because my impression is that
>> this is much less likely in those who were born after, say, 1970.
>
>I'm a '59 baby.
>
Snap.
>My experience wasn't so much being dissed by people because of my liking
>for SF, as embarassment when other folk who believed in UFOs, little grey
>men, and the Chariots of the Gods assumed that I was a fellow traveller,
>simply because they saw me with an SF book in my hand.
>
I know what you mean :-(
>That's where I perfected *my* blank stare.
Mine doesn't seem to work well enough, unfortunately.
Then again, the conversations at work today included hydraulic
modelling of water flows, probability theory, and the League of
Extraordinary Gentlemen. (not all at the same time!)
Perhaps the fans won, and there aren't any mundanes left.
Or perhaps not, more likely :-(
Alan Wooodford
--
Men in Frocks, Protecting the Earth with mystical flummery!
James Nicoll
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>
>> Why the hostility towards mundanes?
>
>People mostly hang around in fandom because they find it much more
>pleasant than other social venues. Largely because of the kinds of
>people we find there.
>
>Some people are fairly thoroughly scarred by the time they find
>fandom, ane harbor considerable resentment. Others aren't, or at
>least don't.
>
>Or alternatively, it's like cats and mice; mundanes and fans are just
>natural enemies.
What, like Blacks and Whites or Jews and Gentiles or Canadians
and Americans?
That 'natural enemies' stuff seems like a badly shaped tool.
Ron Henry
news:bo64ph$psa$1...@panix3.panix.com...
> It does seem odd that because some guy whose name I have forgotten
> mistreated me a quarter century ago I should take it out now on some
> unrelated person who shares some surface features with that person
back then.
If the strategy is good enough for American foreign policy, why not sf
fandom?
Ron Henry
James Nicoll
Fandom is a lot of people but I'd hope they would be generally
better than USFP.
Matthew B. Tepper
be typed in news:m31xspb...@khem.blackfedora.com:
> dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney) writes:
>> In article <bo5tpa$ami$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
>> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> > Why the hostility towards mundanes?
>>
>> Haven't you ever had the experience of being dissed because you like
>> that crazy Buck Rogers stuff?
>
> Never. Lots of other reasons, but not that one.
>
>> Serious question, because my impression is that this is much less
>> likely in those who were born after, say, 1970.
>
> Born early 1969.
1953. Mr. Eney, who understands what I mean (although whether or not he
agrees is, of course, entirely his business), was born earlier yet.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Russell Watson is to opera as VelveetaT is to aged cheddar cheese
David Dyer-Bennet
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <m2sml5e...@gw.dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
> >
> >> Why the hostility towards mundanes?
> >
> >People mostly hang around in fandom because they find it much more
> >pleasant than other social venues. Largely because of the kinds of
> >people we find there.
> >
> >Some people are fairly thoroughly scarred by the time they find
> >fandom, ane harbor considerable resentment. Others aren't, or at
> >least don't.
> >
> >Or alternatively, it's like cats and mice; mundanes and fans are just
> >natural enemies.
>
> What, like Blacks and Whites or Jews and Gentiles or Canadians
> and Americans?
>
> That 'natural enemies' stuff seems like a badly shaped tool.
Tell it to the mice.
David Dyer-Bennet
> Then again, the conversations at work today included hydraulic
> modelling of water flows, probability theory, and the League of
> Extraordinary Gentlemen. (not all at the same time!)
>
> Perhaps the fans won, and there aren't any mundanes left.
That's certainly true in some offices. The interview at MultiLogic
included verifying that I knew my Monty Python, even though nobody
from the software development group went to conventions (one guy from
the design department did).
And I'd find half the people I worked with at Boskone, back when I was
with DEC in Marlboro, including my supervisor/manager (promoted while
I was there). Only a couple of them ever went to any *other*
conventions, or had any other connection with fandom, though.
> Or perhaps not, more likely :-(
Trinker
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>>David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
[...]
>>>Or alternatively, it's like cats and mice; mundanes
>>>and fans are just natural enemies.
>>
>>Ohhh....so *that's* why people get so confused when fen marry nonfen.
>
> Mixed marriages can be very difficult, yes.
I think you've helped me understand the "think of the children!"
arguments. I mean, really. Cats mating with mice!
--Trinker
Nancy Lebovitz
Mark Jones <sin...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedmanNOSPAM.com.invalid>, on or about
>Sun, 02 Nov 2003 05:28:21 GMT, did you or did you not state:
>
>>> Are there any methods for dealing with the Blank Stare, or does it signify
>>> that one has gotten into an argument that one just cannot win?
>>
>>recognized the clever comeback and chosen to ignore it--often an
>>effective tactic, as your question suggests. It could even signify that
>>the comeback wasn't as clever as Joe Phan supposed.
>
>I'm a fan, and _I_ use a variation of the Blank Stare defense when in
>the presence of fen who are unreasonably enamored of their ability to
>make puns, and feel the necessity of doing so at EVERY CONCEIVABLE
>OPPORTUNITY. I don't laugh, I don't groan, I don't sneer. I simply
>pretend that no pun was made (or, alternatively, that it went
>completely over my head).
>
>I do this in the hopes that decide I'm no fun as a target (uh,
>audience) and wander off to torment some other poor soul.
Don't you find that they repeat themselves and/or explain the joke?
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Now, with bumper stickers
Using your turn signal is not "giving information to the enemy"
Kip Williams
> jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>> That 'natural enemies' stuff seems like a badly shaped tool.
>
> Tell it to the mice.
Squeek, squee-eek-eek, (scrabble scrabble) squee-ee-eek,
(digdigdigdig) squeek, eek. (Looks meaningfully at forepaw.)
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"The politics of failure has failed! And I say we must move forward,
not backward. Upward, not forward. And always twirling, twirling,
twirling toward freedom!" --Kodos
Del Cotter
Cats and dogs, living together!
--
Del Cotter
Thanks to the overwhelming volume of UBE, I am now rejecting *all* email
sent to d...@branta.demon.co.uk. Please send your email to del2 instead.
Mark Atwood
>
> What's up with the idea that there's some monolithic block o' "mundanes" ?
I see often, and even occationally bother to try to correct a similar
misperception, that there is some "monolithic block o' fundies".
Typically, this ignorant misperception comes up in gatherings of
non-straight people, often ones who, despite all personal evidence to
the contrary, intensely desire to project the image that there is a
"monolithlic block o' gays".
And back to the point of "mundanes", I have learned that when one bothers
to look closely enough, THERE IS NO SUCH THING as "mundanes".
Mark Atwood
> In article <bo5tpa$ami$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Why the hostility towards mundanes?
>
> They're different, and science fiction fans can't handle things that
> are strange and unusual.
One of the most powerful, and most overlooked scenes, in the work of
genius that is "Beetlejuice", is at the very end, AFTER the climax,
that shows Lydia friendly-ly getting along with a group of blonde
whitebread "mundane" Molly & Buffy (old sense) types girls from her
new school.
Lydia didn't need stop being who she really was, and her new friends
didn't need to "go goth". They didn't need to "meet in the middle",
to get along or like each other.
Kate Secor
"Matthew燘. Tepper" <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote:
> A little while ago I posted a cute idea (well, *I* think it is, anyway)
> that I've been nursing for some time, hoping that it might engender a bit
> of whimsical discussion. Unfortunately, somebody (prone to hitting me with
> ad hominem attacks, and who has since been slam-dunked into my killfile)
> smacked it aside almost immediately, and the thread then simply sank.
>
> So, I'll try again, and see if there are any friendly nibbles this time.
>
> Years ago I wrote about the nearly perfect defense that many mundanes
> appear to have against fannish cleverness. It was called, simply, The
> Blank Stare. It works this way: Dopey Mundane makes some inane remark,
> which Joe Phan decides cannot go unchallenged. Joe Phan therefore replies
> with a deftly-turned comeback, clever beyond belief, witheringly insulting,
> and knee-slappingly humorous to another fan. What is the typical response
> of Dopey Mundane? That's right, a Blank Stare. It never "connects," so it
> has no effect on the D.M. whatsoever.
>
> Are there any methods for dealing with the Blank Stare, or does it signify
> that one has gotten into an argument that one just cannot win?
Aside from the fact that I don't think that the Blank Stare is a defense
mechanism as much as it is a reaction to someone who's just majorly
transgressed the boundaries of what the Owner of the Stare considers at
all polite, no, I don't think there's a way to get around it.
Aiglet
Keith Thompson
> A little while ago I posted a cute idea (well, *I* think it is, anyway)
> that I've been nursing for some time, hoping that it might engender a bit
> of whimsical discussion. Unfortunately, somebody (prone to hitting me with
> ad hominem attacks, and who has since been slam-dunked into my killfile)
> smacked it aside almost immediately, and the thread then simply sank.
>
> So, I'll try again, and see if there are any friendly nibbles this time.
>
> Years ago I wrote about the nearly perfect defense that many mundanes
> appear to have against fannish cleverness. It was called, simply, The
> Blank Stare. It works this way: Dopey Mundane makes some inane remark,
> which Joe Phan decides cannot go unchallenged. Joe Phan therefore replies
> with a deftly-turned comeback, clever beyond belief, witheringly insulting,
> and knee-slappingly humorous to another fan. What is the typical response
> of Dopey Mundane? That's right, a Blank Stare. It never "connects," so it
> has no effect on the D.M. whatsoever.
>
> Are there any methods for dealing with the Blank Stare, or does it signify
> that one has gotten into an argument that one just cannot win?
I hate to be unwhimsical about it, but I suppose it really depends on
what you're trying to achieve.
One could conceivably misinterpret your question as an attempt to
figure out how to embarrass someone who doesn't deserve it. If that
were what you're trying to do (I'm sure it isn't), I would be
disinclined to be helpful.
(And if you think you know what I really mean by this response, you're
probably wrong, because I haven't a clue myself.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) k...@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Schroedinger does Shakespeare: "To be *and* not to be"
Trinker
> Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>What's up with the idea that there's some monolithic block o' "mundanes" ?
>
> I see often, and even occationally bother to try to correct a similar
> misperception, that there is some "monolithic block o' fundies".
>
> Typically, this ignorant misperception comes up in gatherings of
> non-straight people, often ones who, despite all personal evidence to
> the contrary, intensely desire to project the image that there is a
> "monolithlic block o' gays".
So now I'm curious...is there a "you should be a credit to fandom"
pressure, analogous to "you should be a credit to $minoritygroup" pressure?
> And back to the point of "mundanes", I have learned that when one bothers
> to look closely enough, THERE IS NO SUCH THING as "mundanes".
"mundanes" qua mundanes....I've met a few people who are resolutely
striving to be "normal" and "average", but on the whole...people who are
classed by others as "mundane" are themselves sorting others into
$group/$outgroup categories.
--Trinker
Mark Atwood
> Mark Atwood wrote:
>
> > And back to the point of "mundanes", I have learned that when one bothers
> > to look closely enough, THERE IS NO SUCH THING as "mundanes".
>
> "mundanes" qua mundanes....I've met a few people who are resolutely
> striving to be "normal" and "average",
But even they are complex and potentially interesting.
> but on the whole...people who
> are classed by others as "mundane" are themselves sorting others into
> $group/$outgroup categories.
And to repeat myself again, they are complex and potentially
interesting. One of the sources of complexity and interest is, of
course, their own ingroup/outgroup fissures, and exceptions, and
personal exceptions to their own "groups" fissures, and...
Dorothy J Heydt
Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"mundanes" qua mundanes....I've met a few people who are resolutely
>striving to be "normal" and "average"
Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, e.g.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Kate Secor <aig...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>Aside from the fact that I don't think that the Blank Stare is a defense
>mechanism as much as it is a reaction to someone who's just majorly
>transgressed the boundaries of what the Owner of the Stare considers at
>all polite, no, I don't think there's a way to get around it.
Or, perhaps, relevant/comprehensible.
Trinker
Mark Atwood wrote:
> Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>Mark Atwood wrote:
>>>And back to the point of "mundanes", I have learned that when one bothers
>>>to look closely enough, THERE IS NO SUCH THING as "mundanes".
>>
>>"mundanes" qua mundanes....I've met a few people who are resolutely
>>striving to be "normal" and "average",
>
> But even they are complex and potentially interesting.
I have, on occasion, met truly boring people, but even they were
interesting on a meta-level.
>>but on the whole...people who
>>are classed by others as "mundane" are themselves sorting others into
>>$group/$outgroup categories.
>
>
> And to repeat myself again, they are complex and potentially
> interesting. One of the sources of complexity and interest is, of
> course, their own ingroup/outgroup fissures, and exceptions, and
> personal exceptions to their own "groups" fissures, and...
<nodnodnod>
--Trinker
(I wasn't disagreeing, btw.)
Trinker
Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <bo6p28$188duv$1...@ID-98943.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"mundanes" qua mundanes....I've met a few people who are resolutely
>>striving to be "normal" and "average"
>
>
> Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, e.g.
My ex.
--Trinker
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>Mike Kozlowski <m...@klio.org> writes:
>> In article <bo5tpa$ami$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
>> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> > Why the hostility towards mundanes?
>>
>> They're different, and science fiction fans can't handle things that
>> are strange and unusual.
>
>One of the most powerful, and most overlooked scenes, in the work of
>genius that is "Beetlejuice", is at the very end, AFTER the climax,
>that shows Lydia friendly-ly getting along with a group of blonde
>whitebread "mundane" Molly & Buffy (old sense) types girls from her
>new school.
>
>Lydia didn't need stop being who she really was, and her new friends
>didn't need to "go goth". They didn't need to "meet in the middle",
>to get along or like each other.
ISTR that this scene shows everybody in school uniform, which includes
a dark plaid skirt. Lydia is still somewhat Gothified (very dark hair,
fairly pale face, I think) but she's not doing the full Morticia she
was earlier. So there is some meeting in the middle going on, willy-nilly.
My interpretation of this business is that Lydia, who was half in love with
easeful death to start with because she was not only going through normal
early-teen angst but because she was the sensitive child of incredibly
insensitive, comically self-absorbed parents, and whose attempts to carve
out her own identity (the full Morticia) while probably fine in upscale NYC
circles, made her a freak in a rural New England town where she was an
outsider anyway, began to accept herself as herself and didn't have to define
herself solely by her opposition to what was normal, and she was able to do
that because of her surrogate ghost parents, who accepted her as a person
and who even risked their afterlives to save her from a Fate Worse Than
Death.
So now she's able to feel like an okay person in herself rather than merely
in opposition to Molly & Buffy, which means she's able to behave in a
friendly way toward them. And the school uniforms probably make her seem
enough less freakish to them that they don't stay so far back from her that
they never get to know her at all.
(Yes, I really, really like this movie too.)
-- Alan
--
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
Matthew燘. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:Hnswz...@kithrup.com:
> In article <bo6p28$188duv$1...@ID-98943.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> "mundanes" qua mundanes....I've met a few people who are resolutely
>> striving to be "normal" and "average"
>
> Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, e.g.
Uncle Fester's "mother" in the Addams Family movies.
Somebody at LASFS once made the point that, from Fester's POV, the first of
the movies could be likened to the experience of discovering fandom, and
finding one's spiritual family. This was that somebody's attempt to fathom
why Robbie Cantor (née Bourget, which name she has since resumed) had at
that time seen the movie at least fifty times.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Russell Watson is to opera as Velveeta™ is to aged cheddar cheese
Dave Weingart
>Haven't you ever had the experience of being dissed because you like that
By one English professor in one course in college.
But not by other people.
--
73 de Dave Weingart KA2ESK Sixteen Tones (16th UK Filkcon)
mailto:phyd...@liii.com Feb 6-9,2004, Bromsgrove, England
http://www.weingart.net/ GoH: Chris Conway, Bill Roper
ICQ 57055207 http://www.weyrd.org/16tonesindex.htm
Dave Weingart
This will plunge all fandom into war! A preemptive one, of course.
Dave Weingart
>> Or alternatively, it's like cats and mice; mundanes and fans are just
>> natural enemies.
>
>Ohhh....so *that's* why people get so confused when fen marry nonfen.
Mixed marriages and all that, you know. Kind of like a Mets fan marrying
a Yankees fan.
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:bo91pb$hka$1...@eri0.s8.isp.nyc.eggn.net:
> One day in Teletubbyland, dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney) said:
>> Haven't you ever had the experience of being dissed because you like
>> that crazy Buck Rogers stuff? Serious question, because my impression
>> is that this is much less likely in those who were born after, say,
>> 1970.
>
> By one English professor in one course in college.
>
> But not by other people.
Very well, then, I withdraw my initial theory for lack of support.
Nothing to see down here. The post is done.
Really. Thanks, see you somewhere else.
Bye now.
*whisper*(Eppur si muove)
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Russell Watson is to opera as VelveetaT is to aged cheddar cheese
Trinker
Dave Weingart wrote:
> One day in Teletubbyland, Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>>>Or alternatively, it's like cats and mice; mundanes and fans are just
>>>natural enemies.
>>
>>Ohhh....so *that's* why people get so confused when fen marry nonfen.
>
>
> Mixed marriages and all that, you know. Kind of like a Mets fan marrying
> a Yankees fan.
Now that's just perverse, and there oughta be a law!
--Trinker
Celtic Ferret
"Dave Weingart" <phyd...@liii.com> wrote in message
news:bo9254$hq7$1...@eri0.s8.isp.nyc.eggn.net...
> One day in Teletubbyland, Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com> said:
> >> Or alternatively, it's like cats and mice; mundanes and fans are just
> >> natural enemies.
> >
> >Ohhh....so *that's* why people get so confused when fen marry nonfen.
>
> Mixed marriages and all that, you know. Kind of like a Mets fan marrying
> a Yankees fan.
>
KG
Dave Weingart
No, that's gridiron football.
Jon Meltzer
news:bo3eud$4ci$2...@news1.radix.net...
> Fan pauses for two beats before smiling and continuing:
>
> "Am I going too fast for you?"
I experienced an asshole like that once, at a Worldcon, when I was giving
him a ride from the airport to the convention hotel.
I almost stopped the car to throw him out. Still wish I had.
Dave Weingart
>I experienced an asshole like that once, at a Worldcon, when I was giving
>him a ride from the airport to the convention hotel.
>
>I almost stopped the car to throw him out. Still wish I had.
I don't know. Throwing him out of a moving car is probably more satisfying.
Dorothy J Heydt
Jon Meltzer <jonNOSPA...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote in message
>news:bo3eud$4ci$2...@news1.radix.net...
>
>> Fan pauses for two beats before smiling and continuing:
>>
>> "Am I going too fast for you?"
>
>I experienced an asshole like that once, at a Worldcon, when I was giving
>him a ride from the airport to the convention hotel.
Well, not having been there to see facial expressions, hear tones
of voice, etc., I think perhaps a calm "Oh, no, not at all" would
have been useful there.
Same general look-and-feel as the button (one of Nancy's?) that
says, "I'm not deaf; I'm just ignoring you."
e...@panix.com
> I'm a fan, and _I_ use a variation of the Blank Stare defense
> when in the presence of fen who are unreasonably enamored of
> their ability to make puns, and feel the necessity of doing so
> at EVERY CONCEIVABLE OPPORTUNITY. I don't laugh, I don't
> groan, I don't sneer. I simply pretend that no pun was made
> (or, alternatively, that it went completely over my head).
I've long used a moment of silence or a pause followed by a
"Well." after one of those failed attempts at humor. The local
sports talk station has raised this moment of silence, the worst
possible thing you can have on the radio, to a high art. They
call it "laying out." Somebody tells an awful pun or makes some
stupid comment, they lay out instead of providing the expected
laughs or responses. It's a remakrably effective tool.
--
Ed Dravecky III - Addison, Texas
I'm an SF fan that likes pro sports. Really.
e...@panix.com
> "Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote:
> > Fan pauses for two beats before smiling and continuing:
> > "Am I going too fast for you?"
>
> I experienced an asshole like that once, at a Worldcon, when I
> was giving him a ride from the airport to the convention hotel.
> I almost stopped the car to throw him out. Still wish I had.
Letting him out of the car to slow him down is an excellent idea.
--
Ed Dravecky III - Addison, Texas
Space is, like, big and stuff or whatever.
Dorothy J Heydt
>I've long used a moment of silence or a pause followed by a
>"Well." after one of those failed attempts at humor. The local
>sports talk station has raised this moment of silence, the worst
>possible thing you can have on the radio, to a high art. They
>call it "laying out." Somebody tells an awful pun or makes some
>stupid comment, they lay out instead of providing the expected
>laughs or responses. It's a remakrably effective tool.
As perfected long ago by Jack Benny.
Jay E. Morris
<trinke...@yahoo.com> got all excited and spit out::
>
>
> Richard Eney wrote:
>
> > In article <bo5tpa$ami$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
> > James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Why the hostility towards mundanes?
> >
> >
> > crazy Buck Rogers stuff? Serious question, because my impression is that
> > this is much less likely in those who were born after, say, 1970.
>
>
?
>
Not us = mundane; not mundane = us*
*For various values of "us".
--
Jay E. Morris - mailto:wi...@epsilon3.comremovethiscrap
Posted with Ink Spot (for Windows CE) from DejaVu Software, Inc.
Usenet wherever you are - http://www.dejavusoftware.com/
Matthew燘. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:HnwqE...@kithrup.com:
He accompanied it as well (at least on television) with a stare -- not
entirely blank, but ever so worldly-wise that it was a world of comment in
itself. Even so, I still feel his true métier was his radio show, episodes
of which (in MP3) format entertain me during my drives to and from work.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Russell Watson is to opera as Velveeta™ is to aged cheddar cheese
Dorothy J Heydt
Matthew B. Tepper <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) appears to have caused the following
>letters to be typed in news:HnwqE...@kithrup.com:
>
>> In article <boc6iv$3v2$2...@reader2.panix.com>, <e...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've long used a moment of silence or a pause followed by a "Well."
>>> after one of those failed attempts at humor. The local sports talk
>>> station has raised this moment of silence, the worst possible thing you
>>> can have on the radio, to a high art. They call it "laying out."
>>> Somebody tells an awful pun or makes some stupid comment, they lay out
>>> instead of providing the expected laughs or responses. It's a
>>> remakrably effective tool.
>>
>> As perfected long ago by Jack Benny.
>
>He accompanied it as well (at least on television) with a stare -- not
>entirely blank, but ever so worldly-wise that it was a world of comment in
>itself. Even so, I still feel his true métier was his radio show, episodes
>of which (in MP3) format entertain me during my drives to and from work.
He started in vaudeville, of course, where his deadpan and his
deadly sense of timing were sharpened by years of practice.
Matthew燘. Tepper
Quite true, but the endearing schticks (his miserliness, his cowardice, his
refusal to admit his true age, and the feud with Fred Allen) were developed
in full on and for the very long-running radio show. That program also had
the benefit of as fine and remarkable a bunch of writers as any comedian on
broadcast media ever had, and (I've been gradually noticing now that I have
reached the mid-1940s) a sort of Warner Brothers-inspired craziness, helped
in no small part by the frequent participation of Mel Blanc.
Nancy Lebovitz
Not one of my standard buttons, but I may have done it as a custom
button--I certainly don't remember all of those slogans.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Now, with bumper stickers
Using your turn signal is not "giving information to the enemy"
Kip Williams
[Jack Benny]
>>He started in vaudeville, of course, where his deadpan and his
>>deadly sense of timing were sharpened by years of practice.
>
> Quite true, but the endearing schticks (his miserliness, his cowardice, his
> refusal to admit his true age, and the feud with Fred Allen) were developed
> in full on and for the very long-running radio show. That program also had
> the benefit of as fine and remarkable a bunch of writers as any comedian on
> broadcast media ever had, and (I've been gradually noticing now that I have
> reached the mid-1940s) a sort of Warner Brothers-inspired craziness, helped
> in no small part by the frequent participation of Mel Blanc.
"You wouldn't say that if I had my writers here!" --Benny on Fred Allen
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"The politics of failure has failed! And I say we must move forward,
not backward. Upward, not forward. And always twirling, twirling,
twirling toward freedom!" --Kodos
Cally Soukup
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in news:Hnx0u...@kithrup.com:
>> He started in vaudeville, of course, where his deadpan and his
>> deadly sense of timing were sharpened by years of practice.
> Quite true, but the endearing schticks (his miserliness, his cowardice, his
> refusal to admit his true age, and the feud with Fred Allen) were developed
> in full on and for the very long-running radio show. That program also had
> the benefit of as fine and remarkable a bunch of writers as any comedian on
> broadcast media ever had, and (I've been gradually noticing now that I have
> reached the mid-1940s) a sort of Warner Brothers-inspired craziness, helped
> in no small part by the frequent participation of Mel Blanc.
Also helped by the fact that he kept his writers for literally decades,
unlike most of the comedians of the era. (Fred Allen, of course, was
his own writer.) And he wasn't afraid to let someone else get the laugh
line. I understand that several comedians (who, alas, have gone
unnamed in the anecdotes I've heard) would rewrite the script after a
rehearsal (or, in extreme cases, the East Coast broadcast) to give
themselves the laugh line. Which, of course, punctured the jokes.
Jack knew that the next morning the important thing was to have people
saying, "wasn't the Jack Benny show funny last night", not "wasn't Jack
Benny funny last night".
--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup sou...@pobox.com
Matthew燘. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:bodjik$5in$1...@wheel2.two14.net:
The stability of his cast, over long stretches of time, was another plus.
Per C. Jorgensen
> So now I'm curious...is there a "you should be a credit to fandom"
> pressure, analogous to "you should be a credit to $minoritygroup" pressure?
Hmm... I remember one guy I know telling me about an
incident with another Norwegian fan at a British con.
Now, I've never been to British conventions, but I
believe that a lot of them has (had?) discos. According
to this Norwegian fan, he'd been extrovert, flirting,
and showing off his new piercing (this is a while
ago, they were less common then). Another Norwegian
fan walked up to him and critisised him for giving
Norwegian fandom a bad reputation abroad (!) and spoiling
this person's chances of 'making it' in British fandom.
This did not help make my friend exactly less extrovert...
Now, I do not know whether this is a true tale, or
even fairly told, but this quite boggled my mind.
I have sometimes felt a bit looked down on by some
other fen for belonging to the group that sometimes
just want to have a few beers in the con pub and
relax for a couple of hours.
- Per
David G. Bell
<c59a6ad2.03110...@posting.google.com>
p.c.jo...@east-stud.uio.no "Per C. Jorgensen" wrote:
> Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<bo6p28$188duv$1...@ID-98943.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
> > So now I'm curious...is there a "you should be a credit to fandom"
> > pressure, analogous to "you should be a credit to $minoritygroup" pressure?
[snip]
> I have sometimes felt a bit looked down on by some
> other fen for belonging to the group that sometimes
> just want to have a few beers in the con pub and
> relax for a couple of hours.
You sound as though you would be right at home at a British con, where
the traditional reply to the question "Where is <somebody>" is a cry of
"He's in the bar!".
Consider as another example of different customs the American idea of
the con suite.
(And if you really want to imagine a panic, British fans of a certain
era can consider the effect Lucy Bond would have had at an American
con.)
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"History shows that the Singularity started when Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Celtic Ferret
""David G. Bell"" <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:20031106.16...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk...
> On 6 Nov, in article
> era can consider the effect Lucy Bond would have had at an American
> con.)
>
tradition?
Us poor Americans with no knowldedge outside of our own 50 states and
sometime not even then. Do you know that some people think the Grand Canyon
is a tourist spot just outside of Chicago?
KG
Michael Kube-McDowell
("David G. Bell") wrote:
>(And if you really want to imagine a panic, British fans of a certain
>era can consider the effect Lucy Bond
[*]
>would have had at an American con.)
--
Michael Kube-McDowell - author of VECTORS, THE QUIET POOLS, and EMPRISE
James Nicoll
David G. Bell <db...@zhochaka.org.uk> wrote:
>
>You sound as though you would be right at home at a British con, where
>the traditional reply to the question "Where is <somebody>" is a cry of
>"He's in the bar!".
>
onto stage with a drink that did not appear to be water in one hand. Gave
a solid reading, though. After the reading, he and another British author
passed by me, talking about looking for a good local bar...
Let's see, does google help me identify the authors? One was a
lady named Welsh, from Scotland I think. Not sure who the man was but
most of his stories that he read, vignettes really, were tales of incredibly
self-centered absurdity, often centering on the author and his beautiful
girlfriend.
--
It's amazing how the waterdrops form: a ball of water with an air bubble
inside it and inside of that one more bubble of water. It looks so beautiful
[...]. I realized something: the world is interesting for the man who can
be surprised. -Valentin Lebedev-
Per C. Jorgensen
A different experience, but still a bit rude:
I was walking through the Oslo Central Station (which has
been shopping mall-ified) with an older female relative
when we met a
fannish oldtimer that certainly has his good points, but
sometimes can be a bit trying because he does not
exactly have a good sense of, hm, what shall I call
it? conversational timing.
I just intended to say something like, hullo, this is
relative ..., this is... Nice to meet you, we're going
to... see you later, sometime.
Instead, I had an Ancient Mariner-like experience,
with my relative and me as the wedding guests. You see,
this fan wanted to go on a chartered bus to a con
outside of Oslo. I told him that he had to contact
fan NN, as I was traveling by a different route,
and had nothing to do with the bus. Fan starts again
on the same conversational track, his need to have
information about the bus trip. I tell him again that
I do not know anything about the bus trip. He
explains again that he needs information about the
bus trip from Oslo. I try politely to say something
about my mother and I having to go somewhere. Doesn't
help. I start wondering about having to be really
rude, when my non-information source status finally
seeps in.
I have actually encountered this personality type
sometimes in fandom: the kind that is so eager to
ask you a lot of questions, but never listens to the
answers when they do get them.
:-)
PC
David G. Bell
katgall@"nospam'voyager.net "Celtic Ferret" wrote:
> ""David G. Bell"" <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:20031106.16...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk...
> > On 6 Nov, in article
> > (And if you really want to imagine a panic, British fans of a certain
> > era can consider the effect Lucy Bond would have had at an American
> > con.)
> >
> Who is Lucy Bond? What would we need to be aware of? Is it fun? Is it
> tradition?
A young lady who, around 15 years ago, looked _seriously_ under-age, and
carried her passport into the con bar when she wanted a drink. Her
boyfriend appeared old enough to be her father.
It was rather disconcerting.
Incidentally, people in those days tended to over-estimate my age.
Trinker
Jay E. Morris wrote:
> In message <bo6407$17pjht$1...@ID-98943.news.uni-berlin.de>, Trinker
> <trinke...@yahoo.com> got all excited and spit out::
[...]
>>
>>What's up with the idea that there's some monolithic block o' "mundanes"
>
> ?
>
>
> Not us = mundane; not mundane = us*
>
> *For various values of "us".
It's *STUPID*. There's this thing where SCAdians assume that people who
aren't SCAdian are "mundane", WITH ALL THE ATTENDANT MORON STEREOTYPES.
Which is just...argh!
--Trinker
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>In article <20031106.16...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>,
>David G. Bell <db...@zhochaka.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>You sound as though you would be right at home at a British con, where
>>the traditional reply to the question "Where is <somebody>" is a cry of
>>"He's in the bar!".
>>
> I was somewhat charmed to see at IFOA a British author wandering
>onto stage with a drink that did not appear to be water in one hand. Gave
>a solid reading, though. After the reading, he and another British author
>passed by me, talking about looking for a good local bar...
>
> Let's see, does google help me identify the authors? One was a
>lady named Welsh, from Scotland I think. Not sure who the man was but
>most of his stories that he read, vignettes really, were tales of incredibly
>self-centered absurdity, often centering on the author and his beautiful
>girlfriend.
Could that be the author of _Things My Girlfriend and I Have Argued About_?
(Mil Millington, although his character's name seems to be "Pel".)
-- Alan
--
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
Dale
> Why the hostility towards mundanes?
Probably because many people in fandom feel that the mundanes picked
on them in school for liking whatever they like in fandom. Or maybe
the hositility comes when fans get mind boggled because not everyone
likes or understands what they are obessed about. "How could you not
know who Terry Pratchet is? Do you live in a cave?"
I personally really get pissed when fans refer refer to non-fans as
"normals" or "mundanes" I know plenty of non-fandom types who are far
from being mundane. The oppositte also applies, I have met too many
obessive fans who are mundane because they only talk about the same
things over and over and over again.
What is the etymology of "mundane" anyway?
Del Cotter
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> said:
>David G. Bell <db...@zhochaka.org.uk> wrote:
>>You sound as though you would be right at home at a British con, where
>>the traditional reply to the question "Where is <somebody>" is a cry of
>>"He's in the bar!".
>
> I was somewhat charmed to see at IFOA a British author wandering
>onto stage with a drink that did not appear to be water in one hand. Gave
>a solid reading, though. After the reading, he and another British author
>passed by me, talking about looking for a good local bar...
>
> Let's see, does google help me identify the authors? One was a
>lady named Welsh, from Scotland I think. Not sure who the man was but
>most of his stories that he read, vignettes really, were tales of incredibly
>self-centered absurdity, often centering on the author and his beautiful
>girlfriend.
Could that be A. A. Gill? Last time I lived in London and read the
:Evening Standard:, he was a restaurant critic who invariably dropped
into the narrative the fact that his girlfriend was a beautiful blond
model. Did he refer to her, not by name, but as "The Blonde"?
A Scottish writer person called Welsh could be Irvine Welsh, author of
_Trainspotting_, but I shouldn't think you'd mistake him for a lady.
--
Del Cotter
Thanks to the overwhelming volume of UBE, I am now rejecting *all* email
sent to d...@branta.demon.co.uk. Please send your email to del2 instead.
Dorothy J Heydt
Dale <Shado...@aol.com> wrote:
>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote in message news:<bo5tpa$ami$1...@panix3.panix.com>...
>> Why the hostility towards mundanes?
>
>Probably because many people in fandom feel that the mundanes picked
>on them in school for liking whatever they like in fandom. Or maybe
>the hositility comes when fans get mind boggled because not everyone
>likes or understands what they are obessed about. "How could you not
>know who Terry Pratchet is? Do you live in a cave?"
*sigh* I know who Terry Pratchett is, but I can't read him.
>
>I personally really get pissed when fans refer refer to non-fans as
>"normals" or "mundanes" I know plenty of non-fandom types who are far
>from being mundane. The oppositte also applies, I have met too many
>obessive fans who are mundane because they only talk about the same
>things over and over and over again.
Well, "mundane" may equal "boring" now but its original meaning
(Latin _mundanus_) is "of the world, worldly," as distinguished
from "heavenly," or at the very least trending in a heavenly
direction. If you lived in a monastery, those outside were
mundanes.
Pause to go look up Bede....
Well, that was no help. I was looking for the bit where Abbess
Hilda persuades Caedmon to put off the worldly life and adopt the
monastic one. In Old English it's _wuruldhade_ vs. _munuchade_
(ISTR), and I was hoping for _mundanitas_ in the Latin version,
but no, the Venerable let me down, he uses _saecularum habitum_
vs. _monachichum_, the secular habit vs. the monastic one.
Shucks.
>
>What is the etymology of "mundane" anyway?
Well, see the Latin above. How it started getting used by fandom
I've no idea, but it might be in Moskowitz or someplace like
that.
Dan Kimmel
"Matthew B. Tepper" <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns942B4C571F8...@207.217.77.206...
> Cally Soukup <sou...@pobox.com> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in news:bodjik$5in$1...@wheel2.two14.net:
> > Also helped by the fact that he kept his writers for literally decades,
> > unlike most of the comedians of the era. (Fred Allen, of course, was
his
> > own writer.) And he wasn't afraid to let someone else get the laugh
line.
> > I understand that several comedians (who, alas, have gone unnamed in the
> > anecdotes I've heard) would rewrite the script after a rehearsal (or, in
> > extreme cases, the East Coast broadcast) to give themselves the laugh
> > line. Which, of course, punctured the jokes. Jack knew that the next
> > morning the important thing was to have people saying, "wasn't the Jack
> > Benny show funny last night", not "wasn't Jack Benny funny last night".
>
> The stability of his cast, over long stretches of time, was another plus.
Nor was Jack Benny shy about giving credit. In his famous "feud" with Fred
Allen, they did gag appearances on each other's shows. One night Benny
showed up on Allen's show and Allen had a field day with him. Benny's
capper was, "You wouldn't get away with that if my writers were here!"
Bernard Peek
<Shado...@aol.com> writes
>
>What is the etymology of "mundane" anyway?
Derived, I believe from "ultra montane", literally "over the
mountains." Thus it refers to people who come from a long way away, over
the horizon.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
In search of cognoscenti
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
>In message <127e4692.0311...@posting.google.com>, Dale
><Shado...@aol.com> writes
>
>
>>
>>What is the etymology of "mundane" anyway?
>
>
>Derived, I believe from "ultra montane", literally "over the
>mountains." Thus it refers to people who come from a long way away, over
>the horizon.
I think not; it seems to be from the Latin "mundanus"
(citizen of the world). Probably came to English via Old French.
--
Leif Kjønnøy, Geek of a Few Trades. http://www.pvv.org/~leifmk
Disclaimer: Do not try this at home.
Void where prohibited by law.
Batteries not included.
Cally Soukup
> "Matthew B. Tepper" <oy?@earthlink.net> wrote in message
His writers even showed up, named, in some of the shows. For those who
never heard the radio shows, they were, in some respects, situation
comedies. Benny played "himself", and his Jack Benny character did, in
fact, have a radio show. (And the character was much stingier and more
of an egotist than the real Benny, according to people who knew him,)
Shows were frequently set at, before, or after rehearsals, and every so
often the writers got a look in, too.
Jay E. Morris
Just to be sure, there are implied sarcasm marks around that.
Trinker
> In message <boe7mn$1ea2up$1...@ID-98943.news.uni-berlin.de>, Trinker
> <trinke...@yahoo.com> got all excited and spit out::
>>Jay E. Morris wrote:
>>
>>>In message <bo6407$17pjht$1...@ID-98943.news.uni-berlin.de>, Trinker
>>><trinke...@yahoo.com> got all excited and spit out::
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>What's up with the idea that there's some monolithic block o' "mundanes"
>>>
>>>Not us = mundane; not mundane = us*
>>>
>>>*For various values of "us".
>>
>>It's *STUPID*. There's this thing where SCAdians assume that people who
>>aren't SCAdian are "mundane", WITH ALL THE ATTENDANT MORON STEREOTYPES.
>> Which is just...argh!
> Just to be sure, there are implied sarcasm marks around that.
I figured as much, but...it's become one of those "don't feed the
idjits" sort of things, y'know?
--Trinker
Dale
> In article <127e4692.0311...@posting.google.com>,
> Dale <Shado...@aol.com> wrote:
> >jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote in message news:<bo5tpa$ami$1...@panix3.panix.com>...
> >> Why the hostility towards mundanes?
> >
> >Probably because many people in fandom feel that the mundanes picked
> >on them in school for liking whatever they like in fandom. Or maybe
> >the hositility comes when fans get mind boggled because not everyone
> >likes or understands what they are obessed about. "How could you not
> >know who Terry Pratchet is? Do you live in a cave?"
>
> *sigh* I know who Terry Pratchett is, but I can't read him.
> >
I actually don't like Terry Pratchet either. I thought he served as
the perfect example of an author with a high degree of respect in
fandom but not much out of it. Most people involved in fandom know who
he is but I imagine that most people outside of fandom don't. Honestly
I don't read that much SF/Fantasy. I like Jeff Noon, Philip K Dick,
Gibson, Stephenson and some others but I don't get into the huge mass
produced SF/FANTASY paperbacks. I never liked Robert Jordan, Piers
Anthony, Whoever Salvatore, et al. I personally think they publish way
too much. There comes a point where if you publish a lot, your
quantity outweighs your quality.
Dale
> Jay E. Morris wrote:
>
> >
> > Not us = mundane; not mundane = us*
> >
> > *For various values of "us".
>
> It's *STUPID*. There's this thing where SCAdians assume that people who
> aren't SCAdian are "mundane", WITH ALL THE ATTENDANT MORON STEREOTYPES.
> Which is just...argh!
>
>
> --Trinker
What if someone refused to join the SCA because they were a committed
pacifist and felt that even playing at war was too violent? Would they
still be considered mundane?
Dale
> jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>
> Or alternatively, it's like cats and mice; mundanes and fans are just
> natural enemies.
You see this is the problem. The majority of people just want to lock
themselves into one clique and segregate themselves from the rest of
the social scenes around them. In high school and especially
university, I had friends from many different areas and interests. I
have friends with different sorts of interests and they don't overlap
(usually) I have my fan friends, my theatre/film friends, my art
friends, politics friends, etc. I never understood the need for being
in only one clique. It's too limiting.
Matthew燘. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:cKzqb.207876$0v4.16421392@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> "Matthew B. Tepper" <oyž@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Benny even plugged for Allen when Allen was for a time without a radio
show, and then plugged Allen's return to radio, all under the guise of the
"feud," of course. I don't know if there was any tit-for-tat involved, but
given the level of real-life camaraderie between them, and Benny's natural
generosity, it could well one great radio comic saluting a friend.
Matthew燘. Tepper
> Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
> <cKzqb.207876$0v4.16...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
>
>> "Matthew B. Tepper" <oy?@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns942B4C571F8...@207.217.77.206...
>>> Cally Soukup <sou...@pobox.com> appears to have caused the following
>>> letters to be typed in news:bodjik$5in$1...@wheel2.two14.net:
>
>>> > Also helped by the fact that he kept his writers for literally
>>> > decades, unlike most of the comedians of the era. (Fred Allen, of
>>> > course, was his own writer.) And he wasn't afraid to let someone
>>> > else get the laugh line. I understand that several comedians (who,
>>> > alas, have gone unnamed in the anecdotes I've heard) would rewrite
>>> > the script after a rehearsal (or, in extreme cases, the East Coast
>>> > broadcast) to give themselves the laugh line. Which, of course,
>>> > punctured the jokes. Jack knew that the next morning the important
>>> > thing was to have people saying, "wasn't the Jack Benny show funny
>>> > last night", not "wasn't Jack Benny funny last night".
Yes, Benny was quite generous about giving good lines to "civilians," such
as public figures outside of showbiz. I just heard a show where he played
stooge to none other than Earl Warren, then Governor of California (an
which has had a showbiz type or two occupying it since then). Benny did
the set-ups, and Warren delivered the punches perfectly.
>>> The stability of his cast, over long stretches of time, was another
>>> plus.
>
>> Nor was Jack Benny shy about giving credit. In his famous "feud" with
>> Fred Allen, they did gag appearances on each other's shows. One night
>> Benny showed up on Allen's show and Allen had a field day with him.
>> Benny's capper was, "You wouldn't get away with that if my writers were
>> here!"
>
> His writers even showed up, named, in some of the shows. For those who
> never heard the radio shows, they were, in some respects, situation
> comedies. Benny played "himself", and his Jack Benny character did, in
> fact, have a radio show. (And the character was much stingier and more
> of an egotist than the real Benny, according to people who knew him,)
> Shows were frequently set at, before, or after rehearsals, and every so
> often the writers got a look in, too.
In this respect, Benny's best friend George Burns got to go one step
further when he and Gracie had their television series: his character
would occasionally excuse himself from the main action in living room or
kitchen, go upstairs to his study, watch the action that was taking place
without him (usually commenting on it at length to the audience, a practice
known as "breaking the fourth wall"), and then return downstairs, often
acting on the basis of knowledge he would not have had if he hadn't been
"eavesdropping"! Wonderful! They just don't do it like that any more
today, although "It's Garry Shandling's Show" came close.
David Dyer-Bennet
Me neither. I've got gun friends, and photographer friends, and
fannish friends, and computer-center friends, and so forth. Often
overlapping groups. In fact one of my common problems is being on
speaking terms with people who aren't mutually speaking.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd...@dd-b.net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>
mike weber
<oy兀earthlink.net> typed
>In this respect, Benny's best friend George Burns got to go one step
>further when he and Gracie had their television series: his character
>would occasionally excuse himself from the main action in living room or
>kitchen, go upstairs to his study, watch the action that was taking place
>without him (usually commenting on it at length to the audience, a practice
>known as "breaking the fourth wall"), and then return downstairs, often
>acting on the basis of knowledge he would not have had if he hadn't been
>"eavesdropping"! Wonderful! They just don't do it like that any more
>today, although "It's Garry Shandling's Show" came close.
I remember that stuff.
Some of the local BritCom fans were rather confused when some of us
older types, remembering the old Burns & Allen Show, laughed at some
points in "No Honestly" which were not obviously funny
--
Who would speak truth should have one foot in the stirrup.
(Church bulletin board, Dunwoody GA)
==========================================================
mike weber <mike....@INVALID.electronictiger.com>
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com
(Remove "INVALID" to reply)
Dan Kimmel
> Yes, Benny was quite generous about giving good lines to "civilians," such
> as public figures outside of showbiz. I just heard a show where he played
> stooge to none other than Earl Warren, then Governor of California (an
> which has had a showbiz type or two occupying it since then). Benny did
> the set-ups, and Warren delivered the punches perfectly.
I've got copies of some of his TV shows in which non-comedians like Peter
Lorre and Raymond Burr (!) got big laughs. In one of the Orson Welles
biographies there's a story about him wanting to return to the radio in the
late '40s in a comedy show. When asked why comedy rather than the radio
dramas he had previously done, Welles said it was because he had gotten such
big laughs when he was a guest on Benny's show. The producers told him that
if he had Benny's writers, he might have a shot doing a comedy show, but
otherwise forget it.
mike weber
<oy兀earthlink.net> typed
>The stability of his cast, over long stretches of time, was another plus.
To the extent that the third "Topper" film -- an original murder
mystery story -- gets a laugh out of Eddie Anderson, as Topper's
chauffeur, anouncing to Mrs. Topper (Billie Burke, marvellously
befuddled) "I'm goin' back!"
"Back where, Edward?"
"Back to Mr Benny's place -- nothin' like this ever happened there!"
Kevin J. Maroney
>I actually don't like Terry Pratchet either. I thought he served as
>the perfect example of an author with a high degree of respect in
>fandom but not much out of it.
Well, actually, he is (*) the third best-selling author in the UK, so
no, he doesn't really fit that model terribly well.
*Or, actually, has been within the past decade. I don't know if he's
doing better or worse than that now.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.