The Science Fiction That Wasn't
lilysincere
phase of gafia, and have read many books during my active times. I was
a SMOF in the past, but not a super-Smof, and had my favorite authors.
Harlan Ellison was like a ghod to me, and the lesser lights were those
around me and some not what others may expect. Of course, A Stranger
In A Strange Land made its impact, but I took inspiration from The
Stars My Destination by the late self-effacing Alfred Bester. I
attended conventions, including ones that I had part in running, and
the last time I was at a Worldcon was (gasp!) at Anaheim, California in
1984, in a fog at the immediately preceding death of my father. Even
there, I kept busy at a marketing table. But, the funeral broke it up,
and I returned for the unfortunately defaulted punned Dead Dog Party,
before being on my own without him. I attended Westercon in 1989 and
worked at the Green room there. But, in 1991, I had alot of personal
stuff to deal with, and felt out of sorts to mix in with a larger
crowd. Now, fifteen years later, I have returned to thoughts about
science fiction. But, there's a catch.
A neighbor of mine looks at the SciFi Channel, and agrees with me that
there is nothing good on. He talks about aliens and I don't agree with
him. He is a strict hard science fiction fan, and I go for the soft.
And, there's been another issue brewing in my life, steeping like a
cruddy teabag on the bottom of the cup of my psyche. I am not actively
participating in any of the activities, but have found myself dealing
with the literary aspects of a past theatrical and movie production,
well known to all of you presumably, which is Rocky Horror.
To those who believe that Rocky Horror is a "spoof" of science fiction
movies, I have good news for you: it is not. If you look past the hype
and into the work, you find that it is science fiction in its purest
form, the way that I define it. I believe that the understanding of
science fiction is agreed upon by most fen. The problem in the
separation has been, in my own estimation, the kinds of people who
allowed it to be called a spoof, because they didn't want to be counted
among the larger science fiction fandom. And, in the midst of this, a
dispute of authorship operates in shadow, without much sound, as if a
tree in the forest. The author's name is that of a pseudonym, and the
author had no intention to come forward at that time when the film was
released. He wrote other musicals before it, and he wrote musicals
after it (science fiction). He wrote science fiction, is a science
fiction fan, and does not spoof science fiction. The Rocky Horror cult,
found someone of the name, and began putting him on a pedestal he
accepted for authorship. He looked enough like it, sounded enough like
it, but he permitted the wrong ideas to flourish. Now, the Rocky
Horror fans are mad at me, but I have brought it to their attention,
anyway.
I'd like to know if you would give me your feedback.
Lily Sincere
Stripping Illusion
http://lilysincere.infopace.net
David Johnston
wrote:
>To those who believe that Rocky Horror is a "spoof" of science fiction
>movies, I have good news for you: it is not.
So it's just crap?
Ilya the Recusant
*boggles*
I was under the impression that the movie was in part satirising and
critiquing the sexual mores and taboos of North America in the late
50's/early 60's.
Ilya the Recusant
-----------------
"Asshole" has a special place in my childhood, the point at which I
first learned that typical Americans were assholes.
- C&J
----
www.livejournal.com/users/ohilya
lilysincere
LOL! David, that temptation was obviously hard to resist! But, the
whole hype thing is so that no analysis of what it is about, would be
possible. And, without analysis, without thinking, like we do whenever
we read any science fiction work, we have no choice but to perceive it
as "crap". There's a prequel, and depth, which I find unique. The cult
aside from the film, shows merits to it as a body of work that could
stand up to any novella written by Ellison.
lilysincere
Ilya the Recusant wrote:
> In a not so bright galaxy nowhere near intelligent space,
> rgo...@block.net (David Johnston) wrote:
> >On 19 Feb 2006 23:51:34 -0800, "lilysincere" <ladyof...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>To those who believe that Rocky Horror is a "spoof" of science fiction
> >>movies, I have good news for you: it is not.
> >
> >So it's just crap?
>
> *boggles*
>
> I was under the impression that the movie was in part satirising and
> critiquing the sexual mores and taboos of North America in the late
> 50's/early 60's.
>
>
>
The film is based on Americana specifically as opposed to that North
American generality of region; It includes the 1974 Nixon resignation
speech "America Needs a full time president". This puts a timing to it,
but the characters are very conservative, and the style of dress is
that like the late 50's/early 60's. But when sexuality is concerned it
is the issues that the sexual revolution created, much later than that.
The main character is a transvestite, there are suggestions of sexual
encounters of homosexual natures, which laces a story that concerns
itself much with emotional and physical betrayals. The psychological
subtext is deep, the technologies are the stars, and the people are the
victims of the combination in the mix. It isn't a satire of sexual
taboos, but it is a humorous presentation of a horrific night of
imprisonment, of two lost youths at the mercy of hosts they have no
knowledge of, not even the lengths to which they would go to have their
way with them. It is a film of conflicting vanities, of consequences to
self-indulgence, and abuses of others. It begs the audience to think.
Unfortunately, the cult doesn't like to think.
willre...@yahoo.com
Trying to compare a short work of fiction with a film isn't very
satisfying but I will take a forkfull of this soup. RH is nowhere near
as good as one of the routine HE shorts from the early part of his
career. It is not "just crap" but it is not a great film or even a very
good film. Ellison wrote great short stories.
The film satirizes things that its target audience already KNOWS
(whether they are correct or not) are ludicrous. That is, of course,
one of the common features of satire but it detracts from the bite. The
film isn't bad but I won't be seeing it again. Being part of the superb
audience at the York Square cinema a few times was enough.
Will in New Haven
--
"Don't worry too much about being bluffed. D*gs DO bite."
_Poker for Cats_ by Feather
Peter D. Tillman
"lilysincere" <ladyof...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have not posted here before, but I have been in fandom before a long
> phase of gafia, and have read many books during my active times. I was
> a SMOF in the past, but not a super-Smof, and had my favorite authors.
Well, thanks for stopping by, Lily. Whatthehell's a SMOF? Senior Minion
of Fandom?
I see from your website that you're quite a fan of Rocky Horror.... <G>
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
--
"A recent survey of 2,000 male graduates of Harvard Business School
found that penis length & IQ were equally good predictors of annual
income." -- Greg Egan, in "Eugene"
David Cowie
> Whatthehell's a SMOF? Senior Minion of Fandom?
Secret Master Of Fandom.
--
David Cowie
Containment Failure + 19899:57
David Johnston
wrote:
>
>David Johnston wrote:
>> On 19 Feb 2006 23:51:34 -0800, "lilysincere" <ladyof...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >To those who believe that Rocky Horror is a "spoof" of science fiction
>> >movies, I have good news for you: it is not.
>>
>> So it's just crap?
>
>LOL! David, that temptation was obviously hard to resist! But, the
>whole hype thing is so that no analysis of what it is about, would be
>possible. And, without analysis, without thinking, like we do whenever
>we read any science fiction work, we have no choice but to perceive it
>as "crap".
If RHS isn't intended to be funny but is just accidentally funny then
that classes it with Ed Wood.
willre...@yahoo.com
Oh, it is intended to be funny but funny in a sharp, satirical, SERIOUS
sort of way. It is intended to be arch, superior, hip and scathing. It
manages to be mildly amusing, once or twice.
Will in New Haven
--
"Up to the dusty attic, out with the trusty gun,
The law book and the lawyer only go so far.
Sooner or later push going to come to shove.
Don't think it won't happen where you are."
"No High Ground" Leslie Fish
Mike Schilling
<willre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140468369.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> David Johnston wrote:
>> On 20 Feb 2006 01:09:35 -0800, "lilysincere" <ladyof...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >David Johnston wrote:
>> >> On 19 Feb 2006 23:51:34 -0800, "lilysincere" <ladyof...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >To those who believe that Rocky Horror is a "spoof" of science
>> >> >fiction
>> >> >movies, I have good news for you: it is not.
>> >>
>> >> So it's just crap?
>> >
>> >LOL! David, that temptation was obviously hard to resist! But, the
>> >whole hype thing is so that no analysis of what it is about, would be
>> >possible. And, without analysis, without thinking, like we do whenever
>> >we read any science fiction work, we have no choice but to perceive it
>> >as "crap".
>>
>> If RHS isn't intended to be funny but is just accidentally funny then
>> that classes it with Ed Wood.
>
> Oh, it is intended to be funny but funny in a sharp, satirical, SERIOUS
> sort of way.
I don't think the name "Frank N. Furter" was intended to be sharp,
satirical, or serious, nor is Tim Curry's over-the-top drag queen consistent
with those adjectives. There's a huge layer of camp on top of whatever
satire was intended, far too deep to be unintentional.
Gene Ward Smith
Mike Schilling wrote:
> I don't think the name "Frank N. Furter" was intended to be sharp,
> satirical, or serious, nor is Tim Curry's over-the-top drag queen consistent
> with those adjectives. There's a huge layer of camp on top of whatever
> satire was intended, far too deep to be unintentional.
Has anyone in the history of the universe actually failed to grasp that
Rocky Horror was an exercise in camp? "Camp" was still big, sort of
like the way "metrosexual" is hanging in there today. Susan Sontag (who
else?) kicked the ball off with her famous essay on camp. Rocky Horror
came along ten years later and was a conscious exercise in camp,
drawing on camp's pop culture and gay roots.
rja.ca...@excite.com
_Rocky Horror_ is a musical show. It would still be camp if the U.S.
Senate performed it in business suits.
As for being actual science fiction... in the film version I don't
think there's any doubt that the apparent explicit science-fiction and
horror elements in the story are mixed together from a thousand cheap
features in which mad scientists violate the human form (poor old
Meatloaf) or build a synthetic being, aliens make us their playthings
or lab rats and then they plan to fly away in their giant secret
spaceship probably leaving a smouldering crater of whatever size...
this is familiar stuff. Frank even climbs the RKO radio tower...
Taken seriously - I suppose there is a message that beyond the little
world of old-time WASP America there is the potential for a more
vibrant life and greater emotional fulfilment - a potential which can,
however, be lost. And those who tasted it, then lost it, are liable
not to be satisfied again. Well, now, the wonders of the greater
universe aren't exactly unique, but pinning them so firmly on a
conventional culture which was already archaic when the show was first
mounted, and on fulfilment of an emotionl rather than an intellectual
or even imperial imperative, that is a little bit new. Still, not
something that hadn't been seen in print before - and in Star Trek,
too.
Mike Schilling
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1140488590.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>
>> > I don't think the name "Frank N. Furter" was intended to be sharp,
>> > satirical, or serious, nor is Tim Curry's over-the-top drag queen
>> > consistent
>> > with those adjectives. There's a huge layer of camp on top of whatever
>> > satire was intended, far too deep to be unintentional.
>>
>> Has anyone in the history of the universe actually failed to grasp that
>> Rocky Horror was an exercise in camp? "Camp" was still big, sort of
>> like the way "metrosexual" is hanging in there today. Susan Sontag (who
>> else?) kicked the ball off with her famous essay on camp. Rocky Horror
>> came along ten years later and was a conscious exercise in camp,
>> drawing on camp's pop culture and gay roots.
>
> _Rocky Horror_ is a musical show. It would still be camp if the U.S.
> Senate performed it in business suits.
Hmm... was _1776_ camp?
Bateau
The plural of "fan" is "fans." Stop making up words to make you and your
dorky friends feel special.
>separation has been, in my own estimation, the kinds of people who
>allowed it to be called a spoof, because they didn't want to be counted
>among the larger science fiction fandom. And, in the midst of this, a
>dispute of authorship operates in shadow, without much sound, as if a
>tree in the forest. The author's name is that of a pseudonym, and the
>author had no intention to come forward at that time when the film was
>released. He wrote other musicals before it, and he wrote musicals
>after it (science fiction). He wrote science fiction, is a science
>fiction fan, and does not spoof science fiction. The Rocky Horror cult,
>found someone of the name, and began putting him on a pedestal he
>accepted for authorship. He looked enough like it, sounded enough like
>it, but he permitted the wrong ideas to flourish. Now, the Rocky
>Horror fans are mad at me, but I have brought it to their attention,
>anyway.
>
>I'd like to know if you would give me your feedback.
You are a terrible writer.
lilysincere
In the culture of fandom specifically, common plural expression of
"fans" is "fen". In addition, gender definitions are sometimes made:
such as for women, would be called femme fen. I didn't make the
terminology, I just learned it and used it, and all fans who are
regulars in the fannish circles know what they mean. "SMOF" does mean
Secret Master Of Fandom which only really designates those people who
have productive and influential roles in the happenings within fandom.
As far as being a terrible writer, you are welcome to critique my
writing for possible improvements.
The language is probably not familiar to you because you have not
spoken with many convention regulars in fandom, or read their various
fanzines where the language is ever-so-present that it is unavoidable.
I presumed that since most readers of science fiction with the means to
do so have exposure to these areas, that my meaning would be clear;
and, to those who know it, they recognize my use of it as familiar to
them. And, I would not even know them. Whether or not they are "dorky"
is something that arises on an individual basis. Rocky Horror is
undergoing a controversy at the moment on the subject of who wrote it
using (as a pseudonym) the name Richard O'Brien. I am dealing with the
controversy on a first hand basis and know that the writer I am
concerned with is himself a science fiction fan, and he is not in the
slightest way, dorky.
Lily Sincere
Stripping Illusion
http://lilysincere.infopace.net
lilysincere
willre...@yahoo.com wrote:
> lilysincere wrote:
> > David Johnston wrote:
> > > On 19 Feb 2006 23:51:34 -0800, "lilysincere" <ladyof...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >To those who believe that Rocky Horror is a "spoof" of science fiction
> > > >movies, I have good news for you: it is not.
> > >
> > > So it's just crap?
> >
> > LOL! David, that temptation was obviously hard to resist! But, the
> > whole hype thing is so that no analysis of what it is about, would be
> > possible. And, without analysis, without thinking, like we do whenever
> > we read any science fiction work, we have no choice but to perceive it
> > as "crap". There's a prequel, and depth, which I find unique. The cult
> > aside from the film, shows merits to it as a body of work that could
> > stand up to any novella written by Ellison.
> >
> > Lily Sincere
> > Stripping Illusion
> > http://lilysincere.infopace.net
>
> Trying to compare a short work of fiction with a film isn't very
> satisfying but I will take a forkfull of this soup. RH is nowhere near
> as good as one of the routine HE shorts from the early part of his
> career. It is not "just crap" but it is not a great film or even a very
> good film. Ellison wrote great short stories.
>
I was thinking of A Boy And His Dog, specifically when I used the
comparison to Ellison, and because he had a novella turned into that
film made it seem like a linear path to follow; however, Rocky Horror
did not make its debut between book jackets. It made its debut on
stage, before it was a film. I agree that there are differences
between film and written pieces, but interestingly, I have been viewing
it less as a package of images and more a literary piece, which in
analysis calls for some equivelant thinking. If you take a film and
subtract its production you have the original writing upon which it is
based. If you convert the thinking process, it comes down to the same
kind of thing. But, I know that there aren't the descriptions of
scenes that are inherent in the book form. This has to be "thunk up",
as if it does exist. At least, that is something that I have been
working on. I'm glad that you have taken up the topic, and hope you
could still remain.
Ellison wrote phenomenal short stories. Am I saying that the par with
Ellison, is saying that an arguable quality of work is equivelant to
that? I am saying that the story, as separate from the film, is on the
par with Ellison, because when I performed the analysis so far I found
that topics being addressed within it, were done so to genious level
proportions of metaphors and lacing throughout divergent tie-ins. To
the extent that Harlan is adept at weaving a tale, the writing of Rocky
Horror is resplendant with subtlety.
Do you think you can develop a set of thinking for Rocky Horror, to
look at the story itself?
Lily Sincere
Stripping Illusion
http://lilysincere.infopace.net
lilysincere
willre...@yahoo.com wrote:
> David Johnston wrote:
> > On 20 Feb 2006 01:09:35 -0800, "lilysincere" <ladyof...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >David Johnston wrote:
> > >> On 19 Feb 2006 23:51:34 -0800, "lilysincere" <ladyof...@yahoo.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >To those who believe that Rocky Horror is a "spoof" of science fiction
> > >> >movies, I have good news for you: it is not.
> > >>
> > >> So it's just crap?
> > >
> > >LOL! David, that temptation was obviously hard to resist! But, the
> > >whole hype thing is so that no analysis of what it is about, would be
> > >possible. And, without analysis, without thinking, like we do whenever
> > >we read any science fiction work, we have no choice but to perceive it
> > >as "crap".
> >
> > If RHS isn't intended to be funny but is just accidentally funny then
> > that classes it with Ed Wood.
>
> Oh, it is intended to be funny but funny in a sharp, satirical, SERIOUS
> sort of way. It is intended to be arch, superior, hip and scathing. It
> manages to be mildly amusing, once or twice.
I know I agree with the first part of what you say; but the
presentations are amusing to me more than mildly, and my favorite
scenes are those that entail the comedy element of the unexpected,
rather than the satire. There is nobody really rolling in the aisles
in laughter, but there is nobody saying that they didn't chuckle. Arch,
to lift up, Superior, to be holier than thou, hip, to fit in with the
social tides, and scathing, to deliver a blow of a message, or
messages. It is also, surprising.
lilysincere
The name and the character, as shown by Tim Curry, is thick with camp,
as you state. And, it is intentional. What was not intentional, was
that the entire substance of the work would be lost in a sea of
expletives and distractions being thrown against it by people who
misunderstand the media and the message. While fun-loving and
well-intentioned folks these innocent lookers have ever been, they also
shut out the ability of the film to be seen for its finer points. They
think the film is one thing, and stay that way, ever lost in a frozen
moment of imagery. I think that the over-the-top drag queen element is
a metaphor, just like the name Frank N. Furter can conjure up mental
associations. In that way, they are sharp, serious, and...satirical
last. I think of satire usually as an ends to a means.....the chuckle
in the opinion to end discussion. But satire has often been referred
to as that which is funny. It is funny, but I'm not feeling certain
that the word satire applies. It is not making fun of drag queens, even
though it definitely sits on the fence like Humpty Dumpty, as if it
does.
I grew up knowing a drag queen, and separate in experience happened to
have walked into the middle of a drag queen closed circuit broadcast
someplace. What I learned about drag queens, is that compared with the
population of non-drag queens, gay or straight, they are themselves,
simply over the top. They are perfectionists in details and are so
dramatic in their expressions. Frank N. Furter, is true to the image
of their reality as I have seen it. But, unlike drag queens, and
non-drag queens, Frank N. Furter is a dictator/predator.
lilysincere
Ed Wood, the director who had the relationship with Bela Legosi? Or Ed
Wood the movie that tried to depict it? The accidental funniness in the
film thus referenced, is because the dry humor of the character, being
serious in face and ridiculous in experience. Rocky Horror is not a
spoof of science fiction, but it is funny. I'll explain what I mean.
When I think of the phrase often used, "Spoof of science fiction" I
think of someone who decided that science fiction is so ridiculous to
them that they would show it to be so, and make fun of anyone who likes
it. So, when the proliferation of this phrase was encouraged by those
who were most familiar with the film, I took exception to it, and I
shared this taking exception with the others I discussed it with. But,
when I came into the awareness that all was not as it seemed, I looked
at this issue again. Only those who are ignorant of science fiction,
call it a spoof. The writer of my concern in the controversy over its
authorship is a science fiction fan. He does not spoof science fiction.
He uses science fiction as a dramatic vehicle. He wrote a prequel,
called The Dream Engine, and updated it and called that Neverland, and
in-between this evolution, he wrote Rocky Horror. He used the imagery
of various science fiction movies, to show elements of metaphor. He
used the setting of science fiction themes of aliens, space travel,
particle-beam teleportation, laser weaponry, magnetics, regeneration,
anti-matter, and matter transmutation. In fact, the most unexpected
technology in the film was the use of an ordinary electric carving
knife. These in the story built the plot elements, and their use in
that way puts it out of thinking as a spoof. The electric knife was
funny.
lilysincere
Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>
> > I don't think the name "Frank N. Furter" was intended to be sharp,
> > satirical, or serious, nor is Tim Curry's over-the-top drag queen consistent
> > with those adjectives. There's a huge layer of camp on top of whatever
> > satire was intended, far too deep to be unintentional.
>
> Has anyone in the history of the universe actually failed to grasp that
> Rocky Horror was an exercise in camp?
I don't think that anyone missed that boat. Camp's use as a dramatic
structure is effective, and that is the reason why it was used. The
prequel more refers to an homage to the campiness of The Marx Brothers,
rather than the reference you state of a decade earlier. I view camp
as having originated with the masters of comedy at the outset of film's
history, and The Marx Brothers, made their name with it.
lilysincere
rja.ca...@excite.com wrote:
> _Rocky Horror_ is a musical show. It would still be camp if the U.S.
> Senate performed it in business suits.
>
Mind Image, LOL!!
> Taken seriously - I suppose there is a message that beyond the little
> world of old-time WASP America there is the potential for a more
> vibrant life and greater emotional fulfilment - a potential which can,
> however, be lost. And those who tasted it, then lost it, are liable
> not to be satisfied again. Well, now, the wonders of the greater
> universe aren't exactly unique, but pinning them so firmly on a
> conventional culture which was already archaic when the show was first
> mounted, and on fulfilment of an emotionl rather than an intellectual
> or even imperial imperative, that is a little bit new. Still, not
> something that hadn't been seen in print before - and in Star Trek,
> too.
I think of reasons to see a movie numerous times might be to see if you
can get something out of it, or believe what you thought you saw at
first, and find some kind of thread running through it which would make
you understand something. But, the activities of the Rocky Horror
culture as it has stood, has been discouraging of that, in logistics
and in practise. To look for a message, is the first thing. The one
you provide, is a good start. But, as far as a message can go, it is
the most that they would allow. Suppose, we took it further. Janet
Weiss is indeed at a church at the outset, but the name is a Jewish
name, so she does not represent WASP America, even as she resides in a
small town. The groom of the wedding taken place had the name of
Hapschatt, another Jewish name. Or, definitely, not
White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant.
The chronology of the film piece is set in 1974, with Nixon's
resignation speech, and if you are old enough to remember 1974, that
was not in any way, "old-time". The sexual revolution had by then, come
and gone. The moon landing was five years earlier. Star Trek was
already known as a television phenomenon, along with Lost In Space, The
Twilight Zone, and there was even, Monty Python. The effective
imprisonment that Frank N. Furter subjected the main characters to, did
not lead to greater fulfillment in their lives. Emotionally, they were
vanquished. Spiritually, they were vacant.
Therefore, there was not any innappropriate pinning of one emotional
revelation inherent with the modern culture set against the past, it is
a combination of factors, which build a running set of metaphors. It
concerns the past, and the ramifications upon the present and the
future. The theme is one of history, and the lessons learned from
history, as represented by the narrator. The prequel has a similar
narrator, concerned with history, which takes place a generation
earlier.
lilysincere
1776 is the name of a musical based on the forefathers' development of
the Declaration Of Independence, and inasmuch as the characters burst
into song, I must say that element of music there, if done in the
chorus line of dance like I saw on commercials for it, then it must
have been camp. But, I don't think that the entirety of the show was
camp. I just think that it was strange, which is why I wasn't willing
to spend money to see it.
Rocky Horror would be camp if performed in business suits because my
definition of camp, is clever. Maybe I should have seen 1776.
lilysincere
Peter D. Tillman wrote:
> In article <1140421894.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "lilysincere" <ladyof...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I have not posted here before, but I have been in fandom before a long
> > phase of gafia, and have read many books during my active times. I was
> > a SMOF in the past, but not a super-Smof, and had my favorite authors.
>
> Well, thanks for stopping by, Lily. Whatthehell's a SMOF? Senior Minion
> of Fandom?
>
> I see from your website that you're quite a fan of Rocky Horror.... <G>
>
Secret Master Of Fandom, a pithy phrase meant to differentiate those
who make conventions and things happen, from those who come to attend
them.
My website would not have been created if there wasn't a more direct
involvement in a controversy of who wrote Rocky Horror. The people in
Rocky Land, are paying homage to a guy who looks like Riff Raff the
character, and who is called Richard O'Brien, while he rides a wave of
happiness at the adulation. But, strong indications contribute to my
justification in disagreement that he wrote the story at all. I have
my belief that the name Richard O'Brien is a pseudonym, and I know for
whom, and so I study the work of Rocky Horror against the previously
written works by this writer, to fit the two together. It became easy,
when I realized that the work preceding it, is very indicative of being
the prequel to Rocky Horror. As for Rocky Horror itself, I have in the
past been a fan, but I did not delve headlong into the cult. I was
among the first to see it, in its midnight runs, however, and know the
history of its starting first hand.
The most significant Rocky fans are not happy with me.
lilysincere
David Cowie wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:09:44 -0700, Peter D. Tillman wrote:
>
> > Whatthehell's a SMOF? Senior Minion of Fandom?
>
> Secret Master Of Fandom.
Yes, that is correct.
Peter D. Tillman
"willre...@yahoo.com" <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > If RHS isn't intended to be funny but is just accidentally funny then
> > that classes it with Ed Wood.
>
> Oh, it is intended to be funny but funny in a sharp, satirical, SERIOUS
> sort of way. It is intended to be arch, superior, hip and scathing. It
> manages to be mildly amusing, once or twice.
>
Oh, more than that, for me anyway. My wife, too, for a second data-point.
Illustrating, YA, the scattershot nature of humor.
We've both only seen it once, in a rare daylight showing for some RHS
Special Event AWB. Though I hear the audience is as much fun as the
movie, in the weekly shows.
Lily, is their a public record for "Most Times RHS Watched"?
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
[rasfm added, though I don't know how active it is of late]
Peter D. Tillman
Bateau <Batea...@MAN.invalid> wrote:
Lily Sincere wrote:
> >I'd like to know if you would give me your feedback.
>
> You are a terrible writer.
Heh. The Bateau Salute! Your signal that you've truly arrived at rasfw,
Lily.
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
--
"Never trust a man whose hair products are more expensive than
yours" --AM ("Wonkette") Cox, Dog Days
Ilya the Recusant
I want to meet the person who's seen it more than anyone else on this
planet.
And then I want their brain analysed.
They must of course immediately be given the status of Saint.
>Cheers -- Pete Tillman
>[rasfm added, though I don't know how active it is of late]
Ilya the Recusant
David Johnston
wrote:
But that's not what "spoof" means. Hogan's Heros is a spoof of German
concentration camps but doesn't mean the people who made it really
thought they were ridiculous. It just means they chose to treat it in
a nonserious manner for laughts.
Mike Schilling
"Peter D. Tillman" <Til...@toast.net_DIESPAMMERSDIE> wrote in message
news:Tillman-95AF05...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>
> Lily, is their a public record for "Most Times RHS Watched"?
>
If so, it has to be in four figures.
Peter Huebner
> But that's not what "spoof" means. Hogan's Heros is a spoof of German
>
> concentration camps but doesn't mean the people who made it really
> thought they were ridiculous.
>
POW camp. Biiiiiig difference.
-P.
--
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
Peter Huebner
Til...@toast.net_DIESPAMMERSDIE says...
Around the time when I first came to New Zealand in 81 there was a theater in
downtown Auckland (i.i.r.c.) where they showed HRPC on stage for (something
like 3?) years. Big crowd every weekend, a lot of them dressed up in costumes -
and apparently mostly the same crowd every weekend. I never went myself, I just
heard about it. So I guess there are people who watched it a hundred times or
more.
The guy who wrote it is a New Zealander from Hamilton a.f.a.i.k. -- he played
the hunchback butler in the movie.
Mike Schilling
"Peter Huebner" <no....@this.address> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e666d2c3...@news.individual.net...
> In article <43fb17b...@news.telusplanet.net>, rgo...@block.net
> says...
>> But that's not what "spoof" means. Hogan's Heros is a spoof of German
>>
>> concentration camps but doesn't mean the people who made it really
>> thought they were ridiculous.
>>
>
> POW camp. Biiiiiig difference.
The Mad Magazie parody of Hogan's Heroes ended with a spinoff set in a
concentration camp, the point being that such a thing was inconceivable.
This was before Robert Benigni, of course.
Gary R. Schmidt
[SNIP]
> Lily, is their a public record for "Most Times RHS Watched"?
Well, here in Melbourne, Oz, it ran on Friday Nights for _years_. Only
recently exceeded by "The Blues Brothers".
As a data point - I've seen the movie (RHPS), at the cinema, around 50
times, and I've seen the stage show (RHS) probably a dozen times.
Oh, and the stage show is _much_ better than the movie, it usually has
all of the songs, RHPS drops "Once in a while", frex, and, of course,
you get encores, and, sometimes, a snog with a Transylvanian!
Cheers,
Gary B-)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
Armful of chairs: Something some people would not know
whether you were up them with or not
- Barry Humphries
Howard Brazee
wrote:
> And, it is intentional. What was not intentional, was
>that the entire substance of the work would be lost in a sea of
>expletives and distractions being thrown against it by people who
>misunderstand the media and the message.
So *that's* what they were throwing at it!
westprog
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KwKKf.35871$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
There are people for whom the weekly Rocky outing is a way of life. Most
cities have their own Rocky community.
J/
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
Did that come after Ellison's proposed "Berkowitz of Belsen"
sitcom?
There are enough people prepared to believe anything of
Ellison that I should probably mention that he was being
sarcastic.
--
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
Mike Schilling
"westprog" <west...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dthmbj$h7c$1...@news.datemas.de...
Berkeley was like that, when the world was young and the UC theatre was
still open. It played to a loyal audience once a week (twice a week at
times) for well over a decade, so a mere three figures wouldn't even be
remarkable.
Mike Schilling
<wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:yv7zhd6r...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu...
> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> The Mad Magazine parody of Hogan's Heroes ended with a spinoff set in a
>> concentration camp, the point being that such a thing was inconceivable.
>> This was before Robert Benigni, of course.
>
> Did that come after Ellison's proposed "Berkowitz of Belsen"
> sitcom?
>
> There are enough people prepared to believe anything of
> Ellison that I should probably mention that he was being
> sarcastic.
Ellison, sarcastic with all the subtlety of a knee in your groin? If you
say so.
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
Bill Snyder
Considerably so, if IRC the discussion of pizza. Can't help with the
timing, tho', other than being reasonably sure it's from one of the
_Glass Teat_ books.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Jordan
>t isn't a satire of sexual
taboos, but it is a humorous presentation of a horrific night of
imprisonment, of two lost youths at the mercy of hosts they have no
knowledge of, not even the lengths to which they would go to have their
way with them. It is a film of conflicting vanities, of consequences to
self-indulgence, and abuses of others. It begs the audience to think.
Unfortunately, the cult doesn't like to think. <
Actually, I agree with you.
The RHPS is funny primarily because of character reactions and their
timing. The basic point has to do with cultural collision and the
danger of getting lost in someone else's culture. Frank N. Furter is a
deviant both by the standards of our culture AND his own, precisely
because he is trying to straddle two cultures and failing miserably.
That was the whole point of Dr. Scott understanding Riff and Magenta's
attitude towards Frank.
We only get glimpses of what the Transylvanian culture is like, however
I would suspect some sort of telepathic, semi-group mind with
absolutely no taboos involving sex or cannibalism but other very strong
taboos, perhaps involving non-conformity to proper times at which
killing may be done, and the types artistic ideas deemed decently
expressible. When Frank abandons his own taboos to embrace aspects of
Earth culture, he is unrestrained by the taboos we Earthlings would
have, and hence he behaves in an irresponsible and highly violent
fashion.
The reason WHY the movie is funny (I've never seen the stage play) is
precisely because the humor is built ON a real science fiction premise.
_Ghostbusters_ is funny for the same reason -- the humor is built on a
real basis in Lovecraftian horror. Many imitators have failed because
they thought the PREMISE had to be silly -- but a silly PREMISE kills
comedy. You need a serious premise which the characters then react to
in silly ways to make it work.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
Jordan
>The plural of "fan" is "fans."
Actually, in the sf community, it's "fen." And has been for a long
time.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
Bateau
>Hello,
>
>In the culture of fandom specifically, common plural expression of
>"fans" is "fen".
There is no fandom culture. That is my point. It is just wishful
thinking because you believe no other cultures want you.
>In addition, gender definitions are sometimes made:
>such as for women, would be called femme fen. I didn't make the
>terminology, I just learned it and used it, and all fans who are
>regulars in the fannish circles know what they mean. "SMOF" does mean
>Secret Master Of Fandom which only really designates those people who
>have productive and influential roles in the happenings within fandom.
>As far as being a terrible writer, you are welcome to critique my
>writing for possible improvements.
>
>The language is probably not familiar to you because you have not
>spoken with many convention regulars in fandom, or read their various
>fanzines where the language is ever-so-present that it is unavoidable.
>I presumed that since most readers of science fiction with the means to
>do so have exposure to these areas, that my meaning would be clear;
>and, to those who know it, they recognize my use of it as familiar to
>them. And, I would not even know them. Whether or not they are "dorky"
>is something that arises on an individual basis. Rocky Horror is
>undergoing a controversy at the moment on the subject of who wrote it
>using (as a pseudonym) the name Richard O'Brien. I am dealing with the
>controversy on a first hand basis and know that the writer I am
>concerned with is himself a science fiction fan, and he is not in the
>slightest way, dorky.
I go to 3 conventions a year and read the local fanzines. No one ever
pretends that there's a "fan culture." You're as bad as those deaf
people who think they have their own culture.
Bateau
>Bateau said:
>
>>The plural of "fan" is "fans."
>
>Actually, in the sf community, it's "fen." And has been for a long
>time.
Being a sci fi fan does not entitle you to your own dialect.
trike
Copy the cosplay slans and droogs who rishathra the bems in meatspace
while grokking the filk, bro.
Doug
Aaron Denney
That's right. Being a human being does.
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
Joe Bernstein
Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "westprog" <west...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dthmbj$h7c$1...@news.datemas.de...
> > Most cities have their own Rocky community.
Eh? How do you define "cities" to come up with that? (Given your
apparently German news provider, I'm particularly curious...)
> Berkeley was like that, when the world was young and the UC theatre was
> still open. It played to a loyal audience once a week (twice a week at
> times) for well over a decade, so a mere three figures wouldn't even be
> remarkable.
I think it's currently roughly every other week in Milwaukee, and
there was recently a big anniversary. (30th?) But at least the
advertising for the Milwaukee show makes an issue of its having
been relatively early and also having continued relatively long.
I don't remember much from Madison. It's eight years since I lived
in Chicago, but I don't remember weekly shows there, and am not sure
there were shows at all...
Really, <Rocky Horror> seems to be on the wane, at least in the US.
I'm not sure *why* - in many ways it seems tailor-made for the 1990s,
and there are still a lot of people out there who were young in the
90s. But maybe because public showings are so strongly identified
with the cult that people who didn't want to do that were scared
off, and people who did try it, identified it mainly with that cult
or anyway with the ritual, and didn't register the movie itself
all that much. Dunno. Personally, I'm actually inclined to half-
agree with the original poster - I think it's a good musical (though
not one of my favourites) and pretty good science fiction in its
own right, independent of games played by the audience. I certainly
prefer it to <Liquid Sky> in the "Science fiction movies from sources
outside the sf community from when I was growing up" category. But then
the OP says (rasfm, y'all missed this) it *isn't* from outside the
community, so hmmm.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://www.panix.com/~josephb/> "She suited my mood, Sarah Mondleigh
did - it was like having a kitten in the room, like a vote for unreason."
<Glass Mountain>, Cynthia Voigt
krijn
<snip>
> Rocky Horror is
> undergoing a controversy at the moment on the subject of who wrote it
> using (as a pseudonym) the name Richard O'Brien. I am dealing with the
> controversy on a first hand basis and know that the writer I am
> concerned with is himself a science fiction fan, and he is not in the
> slightest way, dorky.
>
You do know that the person on who you base your own pseudonym spelled
her name as "Lily St. Cyr"? See also
http://www.striporama.co.uk/lilystcyr.html
Krijn
J. Clarke
> In article <H41Lf.51234$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "westprog" <west...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:dthmbj$h7c$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
>> > Most cities have their own Rocky community.
>
> Eh? How do you define "cities" to come up with that? (Given your
> apparently German news provider, I'm particularly curious...)
FWIW, there is a site that tracks US theaters showing Rocky Horror, it's
<http://www.rockytheaters.com>. The stage play is currently making a
European tour. I believe that the German fan club has links to theaters in
which the movie or the play are appearing, but my very meager German (which
has degenerated from a not too promising start to uttering "Bahnhof" in a
pleading tone) is not up to the task of determining that for sure.
>> Berkeley was like that, when the world was young and the UC theatre was
>> still open. It played to a loyal audience once a week (twice a week at
>> times) for well over a decade, so a mere three figures wouldn't even be
>> remarkable.
>
> I think it's currently roughly every other week in Milwaukee, and
> there was recently a big anniversary. (30th?) But at least the
> advertising for the Milwaukee show makes an issue of its having
> been relatively early and also having continued relatively long.
Monthly shows.
> I don't remember much from Madison.
2-3 shows a month.
> It's eight years since I lived
> in Chicago, but I don't remember weekly shows there, and am not sure
> there were shows at all...
Currently there are monthly shows in Chicago.
> Really, <Rocky Horror> seems to be on the wane, at least in the US.
> I'm not sure *why* - in many ways it seems tailor-made for the 1990s,
> and there are still a lot of people out there who were young in the
> 90s. But maybe because public showings are so strongly identified
> with the cult that people who didn't want to do that were scared
> off, and people who did try it, identified it mainly with that cult
> or anyway with the ritual, and didn't register the movie itself
> all that much. Dunno. Personally, I'm actually inclined to half-
> agree with the original poster - I think it's a good musical (though
> not one of my favourites) and pretty good science fiction in its
> own right, independent of games played by the audience. I certainly
> prefer it to <Liquid Sky> in the "Science fiction movies from sources
> outside the sf community from when I was growing up" category. But then
> the OP says (rasfm, y'all missed this) it *isn't* from outside the
> community, so hmmm.
I always thought that "Liquid Sky" was fun.
Note, I'm not really into Rocky Horror, but I find the cult to be
fascinating in its own right.
> Joe Bernstein
>
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Bill Snyder
Yes, but now you are stepping outside Bateau's sphere of experience.
Jordan
> Being a sci fi fan does not entitle you to your own dialect.
Why not? Every other group of fans (sports, racing, etc.) have their
own specialized jargons ...
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
Craig Richardson
<wno...@ofb.net> wrote:
Shibboleths exist for a reason. How to you distinguish a "SF fan"
from someone who merely has read a lot of SF? They use terms like
"fen"...
--Craig
--
Craig Richardson (crichar...@worldnet.att.net)
"Then I heard the whirring of the motorized snowmen, sound[ing] like the
death rattle of very small robot lizards, and I left the seasonal aisle"
-- James Lileks, "The Bleat", 2005/10/10
Joe Bernstein
lilysincere <ladyof...@yahoo.com> wrote, quoting Bateau to whom
she is here responding:
> As far as being a terrible writer, you are welcome to critique my
> writing for possible improvements.
Watch out. He is perfectly capable of doing this; as far as I know,
his self-introduction to rasfw was a close reading of <A Game of
Thrones>, a book of several hundred pages. The hostility towards
him you may sense in this thread pretty much started there, but I
haven't seen all of whatever happened since (I tend to be an
occasional visitor here myself). Anyway, bottom line, improvements
suggested by Bateau may perhaps not be improvements in the eyes
of most other readers.
That said, I also have a bone to pick with you:
> The language is probably not familiar to you because you have not
> spoken with many convention regulars in fandom, or read their various
> fanzines where the language is ever-so-present that it is unavoidable.
> I presumed that since most readers of science fiction with the means to
> do so have exposure to these areas, that my meaning would be clear;
> and, to those who know it, they recognize my use of it as familiar to
> them. And, I would not even know them.
You say you were still active in sf fandom as late as 1988 if not
later. So either fandom is even more insular than I ever imagined
it as, or you were uncommonly unperceptive; which d'you think it is?
I heard about things like "gafiate" and "SMOF" as a kid because I was
more than usually absorptive of written material *about* sf. I still
wouldn't have known "fen" until I got a job at an sf bookstore. That
job and this newsgroup are my closest contacts with organised fandom;
the only convention I've attended remains a single World Fantasy (though
I did try to attend one other). I've been researching the history
of fantasy off and on for a decade; if I ever do produce a book from
that, I'm going to be just as much an unknown on the convention circuit
as any other first-time author.
So yeah, this is a bit of a sore point with me, but I'm not *just*
relying on anecdotal evidence here. What percentage of convention
goers do you think learn fan lingo? Counting as convention goers
people who go to things like Star Trek cons, for example. Now in
turn, what percentage of readers of the top best-sellers in SF are
convention goers? I submit that there can't be that many millions
who go to cons on a regular basis.
(And let's not even get started on fanzine readership.)
It's true that I normally haven't had the means to do much fan
activity, but when I have had such means, my priority has been on
getting *books*, not on attending cons and getting fanzines. I very
much doubt I'm unusual in that regard.
You're still free to defend your copious use of fan vocabulary, but
you may wish to consider what it conveys here. I was over halfway
through your opening post before I realised that it wasn't really
a rec.arts.sf.fandom post, and only near the end before I realised it
had any claim on rec.arts.sf.written.
Gene Ward Smith
Jordan wrote:
> The reason WHY the movie is funny (I've never seen the stage play) is
> precisely because the humor is built ON a real science fiction premise.
> _Ghostbusters_ is funny for the same reason -- the humor is built on a
> real basis in Lovecraftian horror.
It also constantly riffs off of psychical research--Zenner cards,
trepanning, ectoplasm, and on and on.
Mike Schilling
"Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140744991.7...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I loved the first scene, where Bill Murray is cynically cheating a Rhine
cards test in favor of the pretty girl and against her boyfirend, and was
disappointed that the film portrayed ghosts as real, rather than as a hoax
for the benefit of "psychic researchers".
lilysincere
Jordan wrote:
> Lily Sincere said:
>
> >t isn't a satire of sexual
> taboos, but it is a humorous presentation of a horrific night of
> imprisonment, of two lost youths at the mercy of hosts they have no
> knowledge of, not even the lengths to which they would go to have their
> way with them. It is a film of conflicting vanities, of consequences to
> self-indulgence, and abuses of others. It begs the audience to think.
> Unfortunately, the cult doesn't like to think. <
>
> Actually, I agree with you.
>
> The RHPS is funny primarily because of character reactions and their
> timing. The basic point has to do with cultural collision and the
> danger of getting lost in someone else's culture. Frank N. Furter is a
> deviant both by the standards of our culture AND his own, precisely
> because he is trying to straddle two cultures and failing miserably.
> That was the whole point of Dr. Scott understanding Riff and Magenta's
> attitude towards Frank.
Trying to straddle two cultures? In the sense that FNF found something
different on the earth, and tried to exploit it; what if, FNF was
trying to capture earhlings? I see that FNF was trying to overpower the
earthlings, and make his own universe upon them. It was his decadence,
not the earthlings' that pervaded the night. And I don't think that Dr.
Scott was understanding R and M quite as much as he was both
insensitive to life, and going along. His own nephew was killed. I have
other ideas of what the movie is about. There is a prequel, and it
follows from it. In the prequel, there is an element of capturing and
taming, of youth that escapes oppression. In the prequel, the elders
could be the same as Transylvanians in the movie Rocky Horror, and the
youth the same as Brad and Janet. Characters cross over: Eddie
existed with another name in the prequel, and Dr. Scott the brother of
one of the main characters there. The cult does not acknowledge the
actual authorship of the story, and hence does not recognize the
prequel, but its comparisons add to the understanding of each other. As
such series' tends to work.
>
> We only get glimpses of what the Transylvanian culture is like,
In the prequel, Transylvanians are not in the form as such, but the
construct of social structures is essentially the same. In there, the
Transyvanians tend to be the established order of society, and in the
prequel they are oppositioned against youth.
however
> I would suspect some sort of telepathic, semi-group mind with
> absolutely no taboos involving sex or cannibalism
Truth is, the original story of Rocky Horror only suggests cannibalism,
but has not the concept written into it. It is actually, a slab of
proper meat. But the suggestion formed the terror, and Eddie was
present beneath the table, because of....an allegory to Christ.
but other very strong
> taboos, perhaps involving non-conformity to proper times at which
> killing may be done, and the types artistic ideas deemed decently
> expressible. When Frank abandons his own taboos to embrace aspects of
> Earth culture, he is unrestrained by the taboos we Earthlings would
> have, and hence he behaves in an irresponsible and highly violent
> fashion.
The level of violence even in symbolism present in the prequel is
stronger than in Rocky Horror. But, the prequel does not contain
murders (and neither does the stage play of Rocky Horror).
>
> The reason WHY the movie is funny (I've never seen the stage play) is
> precisely because the humor is built ON a real science fiction premise.
I agree. It is on a solid foundation of familiar principles; familiar
to fans of science fiction. How overwhelmed would a non-science
fiction fan find the presence of the technology, to be lost of the
comedy?
> _Ghostbusters_ is funny for the same reason -- the humor is built on a
> real basis in Lovecraftian horror. Many imitators have failed because
> they thought the PREMISE had to be silly -- but a silly PREMISE kills
> comedy. You need a serious premise which the characters then react to
> in silly ways to make it work.
There are also layers of subtext.
lilysincere
Rocky Horror takes what ectoplasm exists in Ghostbusters long after it,
and has spiritual underpinnings. The reference to Tarot cards, the
sisteen chapel fresco, the quest of earthlings to build technologies
that are advanced by aliens.
lilysincere
Deviousness appealed to you, and the presentation of something you
object to, disappointed you? What part of science fiction can't apply
to the possibility of Ghosts to be real, or a real branch of research?
And do ghosts have to mean, ghosts?
lilysincere
Ilya the Recusant wrote:
> >Lily, is their a public record for "Most Times RHS Watched"?
>
> planet.
>
> And then I want their brain analysed.
>
> They must of course immediately be given the status of Saint.
I've just looked up the top ten science fiction movies. I came up with
this URL,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/news/page/0,12983,1290764,00.html
In which the movies are listed. Blade Runner, 2001 A Space Odyssey,
Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back listed together, Alien, Solaris,
Terminator and Terminator II listed together, The Day The Earth Stood
Still, War Of The Worlds(1953), The Matrix, and Close Encounters of The
Third Kind.
Of these movies, I haven't heard any news of people keeping track of
how many times they've seen it in terms of validity of their admiration
of them, knowledge of them, or level of involvement in them. We all
know, that many people see them many times. But, when they come out of
the show or in conversation, it is not a requisite inquisitive or
response as to the number of times are the background to the talk.
What is unique about the cult of Rocky Horror is that the number of
times has always been tantamount to a loyalty or belonging badge. I
don't know who saw it how many times. I am not part of the cult. I
know that I have seen it xx number of times, because when I was
counting it, I was surrounded by people who encouraged people to count
and announce. It was the beginning stages of the cult as it now
exists. What is interesting is that the ones who don't measure their
quantity are the ones who are probably best able to see the film for
what it is.
The people who "see" the movie are not really watching the movie, but
using it as the backdrop for their cult activities. They watch the
movie but know and volunteer to the fact that the soundtrack is
inaudible. And, so much activity involves visuals that they look more
often at the goings ons of the audience than the film. How many times
people have done that, is not how many times they have seen the movie.
lilysincere
Joe Bernstein wrote:
> Really, <Rocky Horror> seems to be on the wane, at least in the US.
> I'm not sure *why* - in many ways it seems tailor-made for the 1990s,
> and there are still a lot of people out there who were young in the
> 90s. But maybe because public showings are so strongly identified
> with the cult that people who didn't want to do that were scared
> off, and people who did try it, identified it mainly with that cult
> or anyway with the ritual, and didn't register the movie itself
> all that much. Dunno. Personally, I'm actually inclined to half-
> agree with the original poster - I think it's a good musical (though
> not one of my favourites) and pretty good science fiction in its
> own right, independent of games played by the audience. I certainly
> prefer it to <Liquid Sky> in the "Science fiction movies from sources
> outside the sf community from when I was growing up" category. But then
> the OP says (rasfm, y'all missed this) it *isn't* from outside the
> community, so hmmm.
What I have recently learned of the Rocky Horror cult is that they
support their "family" by having the shows, and they do make as many in
as many cities as they could, using their own casts to reenact the film
in addition to watching it. If a visual analogy might apply it is like
going to a show at Radio City Music Hall and the "rockettes" are the
cast, and the movie is the cult and the fans alike: the cult enjoys the
fact that they can overpower the celluloid presentation, and the fans
are swept away from greater involvement because they came to see a
movie. Those that stay, are those indoctrinated in advance to the pros
of covering of a media.
The person whom I am concerned pertaining to the authorship is a
science fiction fan, and has been present in both east coast and west
coast fandom. However, I knew them mostly in Philadelphia fandom.
Other people who know him well are very active in Los Angeles fandom.
lilysincere
> Note, I'm not really into Rocky Horror, but I find the cult to be
> fascinating in its own right.
>
> > Joe Bernstein
It is not really possible, I think, to be into Rocky Horror and not
have the cult involved in what you are seeing, in a way. I agree that
taken in their own right, they are a phenomenon unto themself.
However, in my perception, they entirely misunderstand what the movie
is about, and don't even know who actually wrote it. They couldn't care
less about science fiction, literary or production values, or subtexts.
lilysincere
westprog wrote:
The groups in various cities are overlaps of one another; one does not
operate independently of the entire Rocky Horror cult. They are all one
cult. Nobody has actually tapped into yet, not since the first showings
of the film in 1975 and 1976, the pleasure of the film on its own
basis, or tried to figure anything out about it. And, unlike 1976 when
I was asked who wrote it, they don't wonder anymore, as they got
someone to fill the role. He walks a little bit like a duck, he talks
a little bit like a duck, so they think he's a duck..by analogy. And,
they really like this person, better than the truth!
> There are people for whom the weekly Rocky outing is a way of life. Most
lilysincere
Mike Schilling wrote:
>
> Ellison, sarcastic with all the subtlety of a knee in your groin? If you
> say so.
I don't know Harlan to be sarcastic. The man has so much scathing wit
and a scurously impressive vocabulary as to make that an impossible
resort for him. He says, he writes, what he means. Look at Waiting
For Godot, for the most sarcastic he could ever get.
lilysincere
Bateau wrote:
> "lilysincere" <ladyof...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >In the culture of fandom specifically, common plural expression of
> >"fans" is "fen".
>
> There is no fandom culture. That is my point. It is just wishful
> thinking because you believe no other cultures want you.
>
> I go to 3 conventions a year and read the local fanzines. No one ever
> pretends that there's a "fan culture." You're as bad as those deaf
> people who think they have their own culture.
Which three conventions do you go to? In Eastern fandom, it is
possible to go to twelve each year. On the west coast, I know of
Loscon, Westercon, and I don't recall the other because I haven't been
there in awhile. If you are in the west coast, you are surely removed
geographically from the culture I refer to because the SMOF's on the
west coast don't like to talk about it. But, when they go amongst
other SMOF's you can be sure, they are speaking the language I do. And,
they know what fandom is, it is a subculture. Some regions don't have
the intensity as others. As a fan in the east coast before my
fannishly bad judgement to move west, I enjoyed the fandom. You can
find out more about it by finding the fanzine "File 770" put out by
Mike Glyer.
lilysincere
krijn wrote:
> You do know that the person on who you base your own pseudonym spelled
> her name as "Lily St. Cyr"? See also
> http://www.striporama.co.uk/lilystcyr.html
Yes I do know that. But, she didn't write it into the movie herself,
being long gone by then. The writer of the story opportuned, imho, the
felicitous coincidence that Lily St. Cyr is also in the English accent,
pronounced "Lily Sincere". The story began as a musical stage play in
London.
lilysincere
Joe Bernstein wrote:
> In article <1140509688....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> lilysincere <ladyof...@yahoo.com> wrote, quoting Bateau to whom
> she is here responding:
>
> > As far as being a terrible writer, you are welcome to critique my
> > writing for possible improvements.
>
> Watch out. He is perfectly capable of doing this; as far as I know,
> his self-introduction to rasfw was a close reading of <A Game of
> Thrones>, a book of several hundred pages. The hostility towards
> him you may sense in this thread pretty much started there, but I
> haven't seen all of whatever happened since (I tend to be an
> occasional visitor here myself). Anyway, bottom line, improvements
> suggested by Bateau may perhaps not be improvements in the eyes
> of most other readers.
Thanks for the heads up.
Joe, I could help only as much as my own experience. I started out in
fandom in 1975, and was not exposed to the fannish language until I
actually became involved in discussions with frequent science fiction
convention goers, APA publishers, and fanzine editors, around 1977. I
was involved mainly in the circles of those who were running the
conventions and had little interaction with the average attendees. So,
amongst those who are active in the happenings, writings,
communications, between the most frequent attendees, there is a high
percentage of those who support the conventions and such by
participating. In these circles, the language exists; however, it
doesn't exist as any sort of exclusive language; those interested perk
up their ears and ask, what does that mean? Those who hear and decide
not to ask, don't tend to learn. At conventions, these people can be
found in Saturday night room parties, wearing custom name badges in
addition to their convention badges.
I shied away from this group at first because I sensed that there would
be a lesser awareness of fannish language, but being as my interest is
in the works of the genre, I delved in; by contrast, those on the
fandom board don't seem to post often about science fiction. It is a
belly of miscellaneous, at the s.f. fandom board, but I never knew an
s.f. fan, not interested in s.f. Hence, I took my chances here, and
because of my background, I feel out of place not employing the
language that, to me, goes along with it, like hair goes on my head.
lilysincere
Thank you for your support.
lilysincere
Fandom has existed for lo these many years, and the dialect exists for
as long. They don't call themselves sci-fi however, but there are many
who do. What exists, is that there are groups of s.f. fen who are not
part of the more concentrated group which honors the history and
evolution of fandom; in that, there are those who ignore it. That they
choose not to participate in it, is pretty much the same as if they
don't go to see the overnight film program at a convention. One does
not exlusively shut out the other, but I never heard anyone actually
criticise it.
lilysincere
LOL!
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>krijn wrote:
>
>> You do know that the person on who you base your own pseudonym spelled
>> her name as "Lily St. Cyr"? See also
>> http://www.striporama.co.uk/lilystcyr.html
>
>Yes I do know that. But, she didn't write it into the movie herself,
>being long gone by then.
No, she was not; I corresponded with her in the '80s, long after the
movie came out. She was living comfortably (if modestly) in
retirement, always happy to hear from fans.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
Bateau
>
>Bateau wrote:
>> "lilysincere" <ladyof...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Hello,
>> >
>> >In the culture of fandom specifically, common plural expression of
>> >"fans" is "fen".
>>
>> There is no fandom culture. That is my point. It is just wishful
>> thinking because you believe no other cultures want you.
>>
>
>> I go to 3 conventions a year and read the local fanzines. No one ever
>> pretends that there's a "fan culture." You're as bad as those deaf
>> people who think they have their own culture.
>
>Which three conventions do you go to? In Eastern fandom, it is
>possible to go to twelve each year. On the west coast, I know of
>Loscon, Westercon, and I don't recall the other because I haven't been
>there in awhile. If you are in the west coast, you are surely removed
>geographically from the culture I refer to because the SMOF's on the
>west coast don't like to talk about it.
*rolls eyes*
Australian conventions, you internet noob.
>But, when they go amongst
>other SMOF's you can be sure, they are speaking the language I do. And,
>they know what fandom is, it is a subculture. Some regions don't have
>the intensity as others. As a fan in the east coast before my
>fannishly bad judgement to move west, I enjoyed the fandom. You can
>find out more about it by finding the fanzine "File 770" put out by
>Mike Glyer.
It's not a subculture. It's the same as the local culture. It's just a
hobby. My dad is in a veteran car club but they don't pretend they are a
seperate culture.
Bateau
I hang out with cosplayers and they don't pretend they have their own
dialect or culture either.
Bateau
>On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 06:57:34 +0000 (UTC), Aaron Denney
><wno...@ofb.net> wrote:
>
>>On 2006-02-23, Bateau <Batea...@MAN.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Jordan" <JSBass...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>Bateau said:
>>>>
>>>>>The plural of "fan" is "fans."
>>>>
>>>>Actually, in the sf community, it's "fen." And has been for a long
>>>>time.
>>>
>>> Being a sci fi fan does not entitle you to your own dialect.
>>
>>That's right. Being a human being does.
>
>Shibboleths exist for a reason. How to you distinguish a "SF fan"
>from someone who merely has read a lot of SF? They use terms like
>"fen"...
There is no difference between such people. No one would read a lot of a
genre if they didn't enjoy it.
Bateau
>Bateau said:
>
>> Being a sci fi fan does not entitle you to your own dialect.
>
>Why not? Every other group of fans (sports, racing, etc.) have their
>own specialized jargons ...
For their own good reasons. They don't make up alternatives to words for
no reason other than to feel special.
Bateau
You honour the history and evolution of being a fan? There's no such
thing as a history of "fandom." Why don't you honour something that
exists, such as the history of science fiction, instead of trying to
recruit people to the belief that being a fan can make you special so
that in years to come they will honour you?
Joe Bernstein
Bateau <Batea...@MAN.invalid> wrote:
> "Jordan" <JSBass...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Bateau said:
Well, OK, then. So if sf fans had reasons to make up jargon, they'd
be justified, if you mean what you're saying here.
Well, one important purpose for jargon is abbreviation. Fan lingo
has a bunch of words that are abbreviations: "fanac", "gafiate",
"SMOF", "con" (though this has spread well beyond SF fandom).
Another important purpose for jargon is to provide words for things
specific to the subject. Arguably, "fanac" and "SMOF" fit in here
too, but this is, I suspect, a tougher way to justify most such
words. (I mean, fundamentally what fandom has as its core topics
are holding conventions and printing magazines, and neither is
exclusive to it.)
"Fen" as the plural of "fan" is about the only example springing to
my mind as widely recognised *and* "for no reason other than to feel
special". I've known individual groups more or less involved in
fandom who had other such words, but they were specific to those
groups.
Peter D. Tillman
"lilysincere" <ladyof...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Heh, missed that one. Good on ya!
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
--
> Just becuae you misees the point of the article lady, don;t think it
> is not irrelevant. --'Lazarus Cain', to Dorothy J Heydt, rasfw 6/7/04
Peter D. Tillman
Bateau <Batea...@MAN.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >Which three conventions do you go to? In Eastern fandom, it is
> >possible to go to twelve each year. On the west coast, I know of
> >Loscon, Westercon, and I don't recall the other because I haven't been
> >there in awhile. If you are in the west coast, you are surely removed
> >geographically from the culture I refer to because the SMOF's on the
> >west coast don't like to talk about it.
>
> *rolls eyes*
> Australian conventions, you internet noob.
Yeah, Lily, how *could* you have missed this? <GG>
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
--
One of the most successful promotions of 1926 was based on
a picture of a sinister cluster of masked & gowned surgeons,
looking down at something unspeakable, over the caption:
"And it all began with harsh toilet tissue."
-- Nature v 383, 17 Oct 96. p 589
John Schilling
says...
>> Jordan wrote:
Oh, that was fine. I mean, really, to what higher purpose can we be asked
to suspend our disbelief of ghosts, than to imagine the real thing being
pitted against the sort of cynical nonbelievers who would hypocritically
exploit other people's belief for their own personal gain?
Well, them and Egon, who was just far enough out of his league (with the
ghosts and with his colleagues) for it to be extraordinarily funny. And
funny-happy to watch them forced to rise to the occasion and become halfway
decent, halfway competent people.
If it had been a bunch of honest, competent paranormal experts defeating
the ghosts and convincing the unbelievers, then I could see your point.
But Murray, Ackroyd et al were way to smart to try and pull that one off.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Michael Stemper
>"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> "Peter Huebner" <no....@this.address> wrote in message news:MPG.1e666d2c3...@news.individual.net...
>> > In article <43fb17b...@news.telusplanet.net>, rgo...@block.net says...
>> >> But that's not what "spoof" means. Hogan's Heros is a spoof of German
>> >> concentration camps but doesn't mean the people who made it really
>> >> thought they were ridiculous.
>> >
>> > POW camp. Biiiiiig difference.
>>
>> The Mad Magazie parody of Hogan's Heroes ended with a spinoff set in a
>> concentration camp, the point being that such a thing was inconceivable.
>> This was before Robert Benigni, of course.
>
> Did that come after Ellison's proposed "Berkowitz of Belsen"
> sitcom?
Googling on "Berkowitz of Belsen" gives me no information. However, I
remember the Mad Magazie parody, so it would have been roughly 1965
to 1968, since that's about when I read Mad. Another data point would
be that such a parody probably would have come out some time towards
the end of HH's first season at the earliest (due to lead times) and
no later than the end of HH's second season (due to topicality issues).
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
A preposition is something that you should never end a sentence with.
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> In article <yv7zhd6r...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu>, wthyde writes:
> >"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >> "Peter Huebner" <no....@this.address> wrote in message news:MPG.1e666d2c3...@news.individual.net...
> >> > In article <43fb17b...@news.telusplanet.net>, rgo...@block.net says...
>
> >> >> But that's not what "spoof" means. Hogan's Heros is a spoof of German
> >> >> concentration camps but doesn't mean the people who made it really
> >> >> thought they were ridiculous.
> >> >
> >> > POW camp. Biiiiiig difference.
> >>
> >> The Mad Magazie parody of Hogan's Heroes ended with a spinoff set in a
> >> concentration camp, the point being that such a thing was inconceivable.
> >> This was before Robert Benigni, of course.
> >
> > Did that come after Ellison's proposed "Berkowitz of Belsen"
> > sitcom?
>
> Googling on "Berkowitz of Belsen" gives me no information
Sorry to have put you to that trouble.
"Berkowitz of Belsen" was one of half a dozen sitcoms
satirically proposed by Ellison in the late 1960s (this one
in response to "Hogan's Heros") in a newspaper column,
later collected in one of his "Glass Teat" books.
So I can't say whether this was before or after Mad, but
Ellison's satire was rather darker than Mad's, I suspect.
--
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
Gary Thompson
Jerry Brown
<genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Jordan wrote:
>
>> The reason WHY the movie is funny (I've never seen the stage play) is
>> precisely because the humor is built ON a real science fiction premise.
>> _Ghostbusters_ is funny for the same reason -- the humor is built on a
>> real basis in Lovecraftian horror.
>
>It also constantly riffs off of psychical research--Zenner cards,
>trepanning,
"That would have worked if you hadn't stopped me!"
>ectoplasm, and on and on.
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Mark Atwood
>
> If it had been a bunch of honest, competent paranormal experts defeating
> the ghosts and convincing the unbelievers, then I could see your point.
Which was actually the basis of the basis of the movie. There was a
Saturday Morning semi-live action kids show in the 70s that basically
was that. I think it even was called "The Ghostbusters".
--
Mark Atwood When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@mark.atwood.name you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/ http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
RelMark
> In article <1140509688....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> lilysincere <ladyof...@yahoo.com> wrote, quoting Bateau to whom
> she is here responding:
>
> > As far as being a terrible writer, you are welcome to critique my
> > writing for possible improvements.
>
> Watch out. He is perfectly capable of doing this; as far as I know,
> his self-introduction to rasfw was a close reading of <A Game of
> Thrones>, a book of several hundred pages. The hostility towards
I believe you may be thinking of Wolfspawn and the long-running
"Reading A Game of Thrones" thread. I think the hostility toward
Bateau is more due to his personality/posting style than anything else.
RelMark
Craig Richardson
wrote:
>John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> writes:
>>
>> If it had been a bunch of honest, competent paranormal experts defeating
>> the ghosts and convincing the unbelievers, then I could see your point.
>
>Which was actually the basis of the basis of the movie. There was a
>Saturday Morning semi-live action kids show in the 70s that basically
>was that. I think it even was called "The Ghostbusters".
"The Ghost Busters" - <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072505/> -
featuring the F-Troop dynamic duo of Forrest Tucker and Larry Storch?
--Craig
--
Craig Richardson (crichar...@worldnet.att.net)
"Then I heard the whirring of the motorized snowmen, sound[ing] like the
death rattle of very small robot lizards, and I left the seasonal aisle"
-- James Lileks, "The Bleat", 2005/10/10
lilysincere
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2006 01:10:45 -0800, "lilysincere" <ladyof...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >krijn wrote:
> >
> >> You do know that the person on who you base your own pseudonym spelled
> >> her name as "Lily St. Cyr"? See also
> >> http://www.striporama.co.uk/lilystcyr.html
> >
> >Yes I do know that. But, she didn't write it into the movie herself,
> >being long gone by then.
I am happy to be corrected on this point. I had the impression from
random wrong information that she was active in her business during the
early part of the 20th Century and was indeed long past. But, she
still didn't, as far as I am aware or logic would dictate, have any
direct involvement in the making of the story or the film even though
her name was being referenced. Some accounts I read place the spelling
of her name to be Lilly with two l's. Whatever she represented in her
reputation or legacy, does not invalidate my use of "Lily Sincere". I
am generally in awe of the early woman entrepreneurs, and so I hope it
is known that my deviation is meant to show no disrespect. The
reference is a line in the story "God Bless Lily St. Cyr" pronounced
"God Bless Lily Sincere". My first name is Susan, oftentimes shown in
dictionaries to be the meaning "Lily" and I am sincere. Hence, this
and my personal relationship with the writer, I feel that taking this
version of it as a functional pseudonym is appropriate.
> --
> My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I visited your site and love the house! I wish all Victorian style
houses were preserved. I never saw one which didn't fill me with a
sense of awe, haunted or not. Your writing of fantasy works is
heretofore unknown by me I am sorry to say because of several reasons,
one a long gafia in which I strayed from literacy altogether, and a
shyness from the genres related to horror. Despite the title Rocky
Horror, which is my focus as of present, it is within my range of
stomaching, but I very nearly missed it because of the title
originally. I like fantasies that involve the basic struggles between
good and evil, magic and whatever, without grungy gory kinds of stuff
that might give me nightmares. I inhaled The Amber Series and Lord Of
The Rings, and began some of Stephen R. Donaldson's works particularly
The Elfstones Of Shanara. How close do your works ever come to any of
those in topic? Congratulations on your awards and achievements, and a
pleasure to make your internet acquaintance.
lilysincere
Bateau wrote:
> "lilysincere" <ladyof...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >Bateau wrote:
> >> "lilysincere" <ladyof...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >Hello,
> >> >
> >> >In the culture of fandom specifically, common plural expression of
> >> >"fans" is "fen".
> >>
> >> There is no fandom culture. That is my point. It is just wishful
> >> thinking because you believe no other cultures want you.
I never sought a subculture; I simply discovered that the social
interests I found was being considered one, and was operating as one
around me. I don't have problems fitting in with various sorts of
people.
> >>
> >
> >> I go to 3 conventions a year and read the local fanzines. No one ever
> >> pretends that there's a "fan culture." You're as bad as those deaf
> >> people who think they have their own culture.
> >
> >Which three conventions do you go to? In Eastern fandom, it is
> >possible to go to twelve each year. On the west coast, I know of
> >Loscon, Westercon, and I don't recall the other because I haven't been
> >there in awhile. If you are in the west coast, you are surely removed
> >geographically from the culture I refer to because the SMOF's on the
> >west coast don't like to talk about it.
>
> *rolls eyes*
> Australian conventions, you internet noob.
Of course....I never have gone to the land down under, so please excuse
me. I know of many of the fen who are in fandom who go to whatever
Worldcons are held there. I could definitely see how your experience
would be different than mine.
> >But, when they go amongst
> >other SMOF's you can be sure, they are speaking the language I do. And,
> >they know what fandom is, it is a subculture. Some regions don't have
> >the intensity as others. As a fan in the east coast before my
> >fannishly bad judgement to move west, I enjoyed the fandom. You can
> >find out more about it by finding the fanzine "File 770" put out by
> >Mike Glyer.
>
> It's not a subculture. It's the same as the local culture. It's just a
> hobby. My dad is in a veteran car club but they don't pretend they are a
> seperate culture.
In your region, perhaps it is not, but in the United States, it is, and
I assume due to the overlapping that it is known of. Such as this
example: In 1983 a visiting Aussie fan was in Los Angeles who had
noplace to sleep while he waited for a flight back home. My friend at
the time took him in simply and only because he is a fan. We spent a
fun couple of days together taking him around sight-seeing. Hence, this
is the meaning of subculture, in that regard. Neither of us had met him
before.
lilysincere
My goodness I didn't realize what a debate I was beginning. I
understand, that you want to be as close to the mainstream as possible
and that is fine....the fen who enjoy the distinctions present within
fandom are enjoying it because it is something extra, a bit of
comaraderie. It doesn't make for communal living or standards of
behavior, and is not meant to be confused with "cult". A cult is
something different entirely. Science Fiction fandom in this country
is mainly considered to be the circuit of conventions, which began in
Philadelphia about fifty something years ago. What was special to
people who attended there, was how they found out there was going to be
a convention because it was run by one of the publishers in order to
bring their readers together. Therefore, those who went were avid
science fiction readers, and are still, despite the proliferation in
the modern era of more media types. In honor of the celebration in the
transfer between being lone science fiction readers, and being
socializing science fiction readers, the fannish traditions were
developed and by those who do, are honored. If I made this clearer in
any kind of sense, I hope this helps.
willre...@yahoo.com
Confusing him with Wolfspawn would actually be an insult to Bateau. Who
knew it was possible?
Will in New Haven
--
"He just couldn't get it through his head that I didn't want to hear
about Interlisp, and I damn sure didn't want to hear about
9-fucking-millimeter automatics; we were a Zetalisp/.223 project."
-- Olin Shivers, discussing the east/west coast split in Lisp
style and weapons choice.
Joe Bernstein
willre...@yahoo.com <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> RelMark wrote:
> > "Joe Bernstein" <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
> > > Watch out. He is perfectly capable of doing this; as far as I know,
> > > his self-introduction to rasfw was a close reading of <A Game of
> > > Thrones>, a book of several hundred pages. The hostility towards
> > I believe
Correctly, and I owe an apology both to Bateau and to the person I
was warning.
> > you may be thinking of Wolfspawn and the long-running
> > "Reading A Game of Thrones" thread.
Multiple threads, actually. (There seem to be people on this newsgroup
at the moment agressively pushing the false view that threads are
defined by their subject lines; well, in this case, the threads had
different subject lines *as well as* being different threads.)
> > I think the hostility toward
> > Bateau is more due to his personality/posting style than anything else.
> Confusing him with Wolfspawn would actually be an insult to Bateau. Who
> knew it was possible?
Well, he isn't nearly as much of a troll as at least one other here,
and since I don't think of trolling as a good thing, clearly I
think it's possible for people to be worse than he is.
And for that matter, he usually seems to post on-topic. Another
point in his favour.
Bateau
>In article <kq7uv11f537vfa2i7...@4ax.com>,
> Bateau <Batea...@MAN.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Which three conventions do you go to? In Eastern fandom, it is
>> >possible to go to twelve each year. On the west coast, I know of
>> >Loscon, Westercon, and I don't recall the other because I haven't been
>> >there in awhile. If you are in the west coast, you are surely removed
>> >geographically from the culture I refer to because the SMOF's on the
>> >west coast don't like to talk about it.
>>
>> *rolls eyes*
>> Australian conventions, you internet noob.
>
>Yeah, Lily, how *could* you have missed this? <GG>
Why make assumptions on no evidence about someone's location when you
can just look at their headers? That's what everyone else does.
Bateau
Not from what I've seen around usenet. You're all just a bunch of
wankers pretending you have a culture.
>I assume due to the overlapping that it is known of. Such as this
>example: In 1983 a visiting Aussie fan was in Los Angeles who had
>noplace to sleep while he waited for a flight back home. My friend at
>the time took him in simply and only because he is a fan. We spent a
>fun couple of days together taking him around sight-seeing. Hence, this
>is the meaning of subculture, in that regard. Neither of us had met him
>before.
No it's not. I am a big scary looking guy with a pony tail and a long
beard. Yet tonight after an anime club screening around 11 pm a female
student who'd never met me before accepted a ride home from me just
because we were members of the same club. Actually we got picked up by
my mum who had my car cause she was working late, but she waited in a
university car park with me. At conventions people always end up
crashing in other peoples' rooms who they have never met before. It's
not cultural, it's social. Conventions and clubs are extremely social
events, and when you meet people at them you can quickly become chummy
and help each other out if either of you needs it. It happens at any
social gathering. It's part of the larger culture, not fan culture.
Bateau
Yeah I tend not to read shitty fantasy novels. <--- An example.
Bateau
Sorry I shouldn't have made you write all that. I already knew what you
were going to say. You think you're a TRUE fan because you use stupid
words like "fen" and "filk" and you honour people for being the "best
fans." You think people who just enjoy science fiction without the
delusion that they are part of some society, the practices and secret
signs of which have NOTHING to do with science fiction, aren't REAL fans
like you.
I feel pity for people who think they need to take on all these
meaningless trappings of "fandom" to prove that they like science
fiction more than other people do.
Bateau
And it is the word they use to identify themselves. How fitting that it
should be as pointless and vain as they are.
Peter D. Tillman
Bateau <Batea...@MAN.invalid> wrote:
> ...I already knew what you
> were going to say. You think you're a TRUE fan because you use stupid
> words like "fen" and "filk" and you honour people for being the "best
> fans." You think people who just enjoy science fiction without the
> delusion that they are part of some society, the practices and secret
> signs of which have NOTHING to do with science fiction, aren't REAL fans
> like you.
> I feel pity for people who think they need to take on all these
> meaningless trappings of "fandom" to prove that they like science
> fiction more than other people do.
Did it ever occur to you that people do this sort of thing for fun? Not
to mention the deeply-hardwired human tribal group-creation thing.
Sheesh.
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
--
First, God created idiots. That was just for practice.
Then He created school boards. -- Mark Twain
Sea Wasp
> In article <v43102dt3r1t3tb3l...@4ax.com>,
> Bateau <Batea...@MAN.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>...I already knew what you
>>were going to say. You think you're a TRUE fan because you use stupid
>>words like "fen" and "filk" and you honour people for being the "best
>>fans." You think people who just enjoy science fiction without the
>>delusion that they are part of some society, the practices and secret
>>signs of which have NOTHING to do with science fiction, aren't REAL fans
>>like you.
>
>
>>I feel pity for people who think they need to take on all these
>>meaningless trappings of "fandom" to prove that they like science
>>fiction more than other people do.
>
>
> Did it ever occur to you that people do this sort of thing for fun?
No. Bateau has no fun. And he is not morg or ey-morg.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Jordan
> There's no such thing as a history of "fandom."
Of course that is. SF fandom is a social phenomenon which has evolved
over time and hence has a history, just like any other social
phenomenon.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan