Starship Troopers; is there an end to the film?
K. Hu
On Fri, 29 May 1998 05:17:32 GMT, sjog...@mindspring.com (Ernest
Sjogren) wrote:
>nospa...@u.washington.edu (K. Hu) wrote:
>> Let me give you some reasons for you to reconsider your judgement: If
>>you would look at the rest of his fiction it would be pretty damned
>>obvious that he has been putting non-white protagonists in his novels
>>since nearly the beginning - AGAINST the prevailing cultural norms.
>>Sometimes he had to hide it because the publishers simply wouldn't
>>allow such positive portrayals of non-white characters. Heinlein
>>celebrates the goodness and competence of people - *all* people, of
>>all cultures, "races", and genders.
>
>Does this _really_ support your argument?
Yes.
>Consider this: _Starship Troopers_ and _Stranger in a Strange Land_
>are right on the cusp of Heinlein's transition from writing to please
>the public to writing to please himself once he had become
>"established" and could afford to do so. _Starship Troopers_,
Wrong, right off the bat. _Stranger in a Strange Land_ was plotted
years (as early as 1949) before it was finished and published. Many of
the ideas and themes he explored (sexuality, religion) were well
established in his mind before it was released. He discusses this
briefly in _Expanded Universe_. He says, essentially, that he knew the
book would be too controversial at the time he concieved it, and
decided to wait until the time was right ("I could see the public
mores changing").
So your so-called cusp of transition is not nearly as well defined as
you think it is.
>although still quite readable, was more of a rant than Heinlein's
>previous books -- it certainly contained a higher proportion of
>preaching and a lower proportion of action than the books that came
Sure, he wrote it to address a particular political issue. To that
end, it's got more didactic content than the ealier works.
As such, it's really not intended to be a gee-whiz slam-bang action
thriller to keep you on the edge of your seat, although personally I
find its action sequences to be some of the most exciting in science
fiction.
>before it. In _Stranger in a Strange Land_, at least in some parts
>of the book, Heinlein was even more self indulgent.
Just what does this mean? "Self indulgent"? You'll have to explain his
'self' before you explain how he indulged himself.
>With a couple of exceptions, _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ and (to a
>lesser extent) _Podkayne of Mars_, Heinlein never again overcame this
>self-indulgence in his writing. His Wise Old Man character, who
>appeared in almost all of his books, and with whom Heinlein always
>seemed to identify, nearly overwhelmed his writerly personality. In
>consequence almost everything he wrote after 1960 is didactic,
>self-indulgent, inferior fiction.
In your (rather unconvincing) opinion. I find quality works througout
his career.
>Perhaps Heinlein was simply expressing his "true" feelings in
>_Farnham's Freehold_, since his fiction would likely be published no
>matter what he wrote.
Perhaps you can't understand _Farnham's Freehold_. Given your track
record in this post thus far, I wouldn't doubt that.
Just what do you find racist about _Farnham's Freehold_? Do you think
because the black master race in this fictional future world is cruel
it somehow indicates that Heinlein views all blacks this way? How can
you prove this magical transference? Does this mean Colin Campbell,
black hero of _Cat Who Walks Through Walls_, is actually a villain in
Heinlein's 'racist' eyes?
>Or, consider this: People as they grow older often grow more
>conservative. Among writers, Wordsworth is perhaps the prime example
>(or at least he's the one I remember from my college days :-)). From
>a "revolutionary" poet in his younger days, he became stodgy and
>boring as a writer (granted, like Heinlein, a few fitful exceptions),
>and the revolutionary politics of his early days changed into
>conservatism -- so much so that he became Poet Laureate and bored the
>world with "effusions" on right-wing supporters of the monarchy.
This does not convince. Wordsworth was not Heinlein, that's pretty
obvious. No one is Heinlein but Heinlein. Anectdotal evidence that
Wordsworth changed later on in life says exactly *nothing* about
Heinlein.
>Perhaps Heinlein, too, underwent such a change in later middle age,
>the generous, liberal spirit of his younger days died, and he became
>merely a reactionary, carmudgeonly racist by the time he wrote
>_Farnham's Freehold_.
>I'm NOT saying whether I think Heinlein was a racist or not -- I
>haven't read him closely enough to hazard a guess. I haven't read
>_Farnham's Freehold_ since I was fourteen. But to be convincing,
>you'll have to say more -- as you offered to do.
Fine. Simply consider the portrayal of non-white characters in his
later "inferior, self-indulgent, curmugeonly racist" novels. Generally
speaking, they are no different from his white heroes and heroines.
The aforementioned (black) Colin Campbell (1985) and the mixed-race
Friday (1982) are portrayed as courageous, moral, etc etc. Surely, if
your theory was correct, Heinlein wouldn't have written such
portrayals of non-white characters, since he would have already been
well into his conservative, racist, curmudgeon phase, right?
As I see it, we have two theories we can explore:
1) You're right, and he turned into a racist in 1960.
* Advantage: Would explain seemingly negative portrayal of blacks in
_Farnham's Freehold_ (1965)
* Disadvantages: Does not explain positive portrayals of blacks and
other 'minority' characters like Manny from _Moon_ (1966, just one
year after _Freehold_), or Colin Campbell from _Cat_(1985), or Friday
from _Friday_(1982).
2) I'm right, and Heinlein stuck to his guns and remained the
freethinking, rational, non prejudiced person he had been since early
on in his writing career.
* Advantage: Fits his characterization of minority characters in an
overwhelming majority of his works, a disregard of race as a
determining factor in a person's worth, ability, or potential.
* Disadvantage: Does not readily explain the nasty blacks in
_Freehold_.
There you have it. I submit that Heinlein's heroes are people at their
best; they fulfill the potential that he thinks all humans are capable
of. 'Race' never enters the equation.
Vidal A Rodriguez
I would have to agree with you on this one. I think that whoever you are
replying to has the misfortune of believing that a role of a harsh person or
group is in fact racist, however they never seem to get that if they used
common sence then they would know there are bad and good in all groups and
has a whole the group could change the course for all. One example of goo
and bad effecting there groups would be Martin Luther King and the bad eddi
amien.
So whoever you where responding to was and is an idiot.
Andrew Stoner
<snip banter on Farnham's Freehold ad StarShip Troopers>
*As I see it, we have two theories we can explore:
*
*1) You're right, and he turned into a racist in 1960.
** Advantage: Would explain seemingly negative portrayal of blacks in
*
*_Farnham's Freehold_ (1965)
** Disadvantages: Does not explain positive portrayals of blacks and
*other 'minority' characters like Manny from _Moon_ (1966, just one
*year after _Freehold_), or Colin Campbell from _Cat_(1985), or Friday
*from _Friday_(1982).
*
*2) I'm right, and Heinlein stuck to his guns and remained the
*freethinking, rational, non prejudiced person he had been since early
*on in his writing career.
** Advantage: Fits his characterization of minority characters in an
*overwhelming majority of his works, a disregard of race as a
*determining factor in a person's worth, ability, or potential.
** Disadvantage: Does not readily explain the nasty blacks in
*_Freehold_.
Um, has anyone else considered one simple possibility? IIRC, there is
very little that the "Master Race" of Farnham's Freehold did to
non-blacks that whites have not done to non-whites. Could it be that
Heinlein was just writing a "see what we've done? Lets not do this
again." thing.
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day.
Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
-- Terry Pratchett, "Jingo"
K. Hu
Um, what makes you think no one considered this possibility?
K. Hu
On Sat, 30 May 1998 02:21:23 GMT, sjog...@mindspring.com (Ernest
Sjogren) wrote:
>> K. Hu wrote:
>>As I see it, we have two theories we can explore:
>>
>>1) You're right, and he turned into a racist in 1960.
>>* Advantage: Would explain seemingly negative portrayal of blacks in
>>_Farnham's Freehold_ (1965)
>>* Disadvantages: Does not explain positive portrayals of blacks and
>>other 'minority' characters like Manny from _Moon_ (1966, just one
>>year after _Freehold_), or Colin Campbell from _Cat_(1985), or Friday
>>from _Friday_(1982).
>
[snip]
>The ways I could now attempt to justify arguing Heinlein showed
>himself to be a racist in _Freehold_, are to say, either a) Heinlein
>_was_ a racist when (and only when) he wrote _Freehold_, but he
>recovered afterwards;
Be reasonable; you can't honestly think a man like Heinlein would be
pushing the boundaries of racism for the first 25 years of his life,
suddenly turn into a racist, write one book under this newfound
bigotry in 1965, then revert immediately back *the very next year* to
portraying non-white characters with just as much heroism as his white
characters.
>or b) Heinlein had racist leanings (new or long
>standing) and in _Freehold_ he let them show -- but he didn't make the
>same mistake twice.
Then why did he do what he did, namely, put non-white characters in
his works so consistently, against our society's cultural and racial
stereotypes? Why bother, if he was a racist? Far easier to just leave
his characters as standard whites. His characterizations were so
contrary to popular thought he often had to make them hard to see at
first glance. Again, why bother? Just take the societal status quo and
leave the minority characters as servants or enemies or whatever. He
had nothing to gain from this.
>I won't say either one -- I haven't read enough Heinlein recently to
>support any arguments I might make. So, what _is_ the story with
>_Freehold_?
It's open to interpretation, but here some possible avenues of
thought. I have not read _Freehold_ more than twice or so, so these
are merely general ideas:
1) He's trying to emphasize that racism isn't confined to just whites;
all people of all cultures and races are vulnerable to bigotry - a
point that might have gotten lost in the civil rights era. It could be
an early move to pre-empt 'white backlash'; a warning against certain
elements of society which, in seeking equal rights for all, have
instead painted all whites as oppressors. There's racism within both
races, no race has a monopoly on bigotry.
2) It's an allegory for the slave trade, except with the racial roles
reversed. Making the protagonists readily accessible helps the reader
understand the horror of slavery and makes it more real.
[snip allegations of Heinlein's literary decline]
>What about male chauvinism? Heinlein's condescension to his wife in
>the first chapter of _Tramp Royale_ is nauseating. I think his
>beliefs were in "the right place" -- and that is what usually got into
>his fiction -- but sometimes his instincts or habits were not.
I have not read _Tramp_, so I'm not fit to judge, but it seems to me
that he was also pushing limits of gender in his fiction. His women
are often just as capable, brilliant, and brave as his men.
Jojo O'Donnell
> I have not read _Tramp_, so I'm not fit to judge, but it seems to me
> that he was also pushing limits of gender in his fiction. His women
> are often just as capable, brilliant, and brave as his men.
Often....
Ok, often his female characters were as capable, etc, and when they
weren't, they were smarter, more courageous, etc. than the males (-often-
making them feel a bit dumb).
I find the word "often" a bit condescending in this regard.
jojo
ROCKilroy
>Um, has anyone else considered one simple possibility? IIRC, there is very
little that the "Master Race" of Farnham's Freehold did to non-blacks that
whites have not done to non-whites. Could it be that Heinlein was just writing
a "see what we've done? Lets not do this again." thing.
> Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
This sounds about right. As far as sterilization/removal of thumbs? Actually
rather enlightened, given the other possibilities... Look at say, the Nazi
death camps during the Second World War...
J. Page
A wandering Internet person...
K. Hu
I say 'often' only because some of his short stories have no
significant female characters.
Ward Donald Griffiths III
Jojo O'Donnell wrote:
>
> > I have not read _Tramp_, so I'm not fit to judge, but it seems to me
> > that he was also pushing limits of gender in his fiction. His women
> > are often just as capable, brilliant, and brave as his men.
>
> Often....
> Ok, often his female characters were as capable, etc, and when they
> weren't, they were smarter, more courageous, etc. than the males (-often-
> making them feel a bit dumb).
> I find the word "often" a bit condescending in this regard.
Yeah, I find the word "consistently" to be more accurate than "often"
both in RAH's fiction and in my own experience. Then again, I may have
picked up my fetish for competent women from growing up with RAH's
fiction starting about age eight in 1963. (I still love both RAH's
fiction _and_ competent women -- the only reasons I've been married more
than once are a co-husband's psychosis and my own incompetence).
--
Ward Griffiths
They say that politics makes strange bedfellows.
Of course, the main reason they cuddle up is to screw somebody else.
Michael Flynn, _Rogue Star_
Dave Stone
Andrew Stoner <ast...@wesleyan.Quest.Rulez.edu> wrote:
> "Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day.
> Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
> -- Terry Pratchett, "Jingo"
"'Have you ever been in a pub when everyone goes armed? Oh, things are a
little polite at first, I'll grant you, and then some twerp drinks out
of the wrong mug or picks up someone else's change by mistake and five
minutes later you're picking noses out of the beer nuts ...'"
Oops. Sorry. Wrong thread.
--
Take care. Have fun. Bring your own banjo.
http://www.sgloomi.demon.co.uk
Antonio B. Leal
>What about male chauvinism? Heinlein's condescension to his wife in
>the first chapter of _Tramp Royale_ is nauseating. I think his
>beliefs were in "the right place" -- and that is what usually got into
>his fiction -- but sometimes his instincts or habits were not.
You mean when he's doing the he-man thing, laying down the law and
giving orders, and then the little woman goes and does whatever she
wants ? Like having ten suitcases for both, instead of two apiece,
and so being able to have them both dress appropriately wherever they
are, which RAH later finds pleasing ?
I think he was being ironic - at his own expense, I mean. After all,
wasn't it Heinlein who said that "Women and cats do as they please,
men and dogs had better get used to it" ? (oops, _that_ is "sexist"
and "chauvinist" and "patronizing" and largely true ...)
I read Tramp Royale recently (note to non-American readers: www.books.com
is my dealer - they have decent Air Mail rates, instead of extortion;
their down side is recycled paper wrap/box filling, which settles down
and protects poorly; books get creased when the box is tossed around).
For those who don't know, TR it's about their jury-rig round-the-world
cruise; they had to improvise, after telling everybody they were taking
the cruise, and then getting a letter from the intended line, saying
"sorry, check returned, booked solid for the next two years" ...
As usual, Heinlein is addictively readable. It's amusing to see how
things changed (and some didn't) in 45 years. His reaction to things and
people foreign makes hash of the usual accusations that he was this or
that, other than a decent man who believed in acting decently to others.
But then, Heinlein's usual detractors are the sort that could find
damning evidence of whatever in a laundry list (as shown by Umberto Eco
in his long bitter joke titled Foucault's Pendulum). The closest RAH
comes to prejudice is in New Zealand, but that was because of the food.
I can sympathize with that, having been subjected to the boiled meat,
boiled vegetable, boiled potato, no taste treatment myself (elsewhere,
and for a shorter period, mercifully). It does throw you off your feed.
The final notes, with travel advice, are a nice bonus. I've been thankful
to RAH ever since a piece of his advice ("fill socks with cream") kept
my feet in the (unblistered) pink when I was invited to a boot camp march.
Ob-rasfw-thread-tie-in: "Tramp Royale" is derived from a Kipling line.
(yikes - that proves it ! hang him! hang him!)
ObSF: the latest Vance, Egan, Glen Cook and Stirling were tasty; now I
need a W.J.Williams dessert (a Majstral book, please, if possible with
a tad less slapstick on it than the last).
Keith Morrison
Ward Donald Griffiths III wrote:
> Yeah, I find the word "consistently" to be more accurate than "often"
> both in RAH's fiction and in my own experience. Then again, I may have
> picked up my fetish for competent women from growing up with RAH's
> fiction starting about age eight in 1963. (I still love both RAH's
> fiction _and_ competent women -- the only reasons I've been married more
> than once are a co-husband's psychosis and my own incompetence).
I've just now realized why I've gone out with some of the women
I have--I fell in love with Friday after I bought the book when
I was 14 (it was Whelan's cover...so sue me) and I've been looking
for her ever since.
Well, that certainly explains a lot.
--
Keith Morrison
kei...@polarnet.ca
mac...@alaska.net
In article <6l10ul$o54$1...@archie.inesc.pt>,
abl...---...@inesc.pt (Antonio B. Leal) wrote:
(snip)
> Ob-rasfw-thread-tie-in: "Tramp Royale" is derived from a Kipling line.
What did you think of the Kipling itself? Despite Virginia's comment of the
awkwardness of the sestina form, I found it rather attractive... although the
Tennyson poem from which RAH derived the title of his last published novel
appeals to me more.
And that segues into another topic. Do you think it fair to say that RAH
preferred to art and literature of an earlier era to that of the 20th
century? He certainly has a few sour comments to make about "modern art"
(especially sculpture) in TR... which seem to confirm the notion, about which
I would otherwise be duly skeptical, that Jubal Harshaw's lectures on Rodin,
critics, etc., pretty much reflect Heinlein's own opinions.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <35741B91...@polarnet.ca>,
Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote:
>
>I've just now realized why I've gone out with some of the women
>I have--I fell in love with Friday after I bought the book when
>I was 14 (it was Whelan's cover...so sue me) and I've been looking
>for her ever since.
>
>Well, that certainly explains a lot.
>
self-esteem problems and a non-romantic approach to sex, or women who
looked more or less like the Whelan cover, or both?
--
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
May '98 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Georgiana Gates
Gregory Cook wrote:
>
>
> -I think he was being ironic - at his own expense, I mean. After all,
> -wasn't it Heinlein who said that "Women and cats do as they please,
> -men and dogs had better get used to it" ? (oops, _that_ is "sexist"
> -and "chauvinist" and "patronizing" and largely true ...)
>
> LOL! Well, it's true about some women and cats, but I've met plenty of
> men and dogs that are the same way. #;-}> And I have a cat who acts
> like a dog... heh...
I thought the quote was "Never try to outstubborn a cat". Speaking
as a cat owner, I always believed Heinlein to be a kindred spirit.
Keith Morrison
Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
> >I've just now realized why I've gone out with some of the women
> >I have--I fell in love with Friday after I bought the book when
> >I was 14 (it was Whelan's cover...so sue me) and I've been looking
> >for her ever since.
> >
> >Well, that certainly explains a lot.
> >
> Do you mean you went out with assassins/couriers who had bad
> self-esteem problems and a non-romantic approach to sex, or women who
> looked more or less like the Whelan cover, or both?
Oh, someone I could go to a bar with and, when a fight broke out,
I would only have to intervene if she became badly outnumbered.
Looking like the Whelan cover wouldn't hurt, though.
Oh the girls I *did* go out with? Some of them would have
given Gwen Ingolfsson a good fight in a wrestling match.
--
Keith Morrison
kei...@polarnet.ca
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Wed, 3 Jun 1998 14:29:50 -0400, pixel *meow*
<s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
> My problems are with the
>likes of Rothko and Pollock. Yech. Just my 'learned' opinion, tho!
I'm curious -- what about Tony Stella?
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 4/24/98
Gregory Cook
nospa...@u.washington.edu (K. Hu) wrote:
-On Fri, 29 May 1998 05:17:32 GMT, sjog...@mindspring.com (Ernest
-Sjogren) wrote:
->nospa...@u.washington.edu (K. Hu) wrote:
-
->> Let me give you some reasons for you to reconsider your judgement: If
->>you would look at the rest of his fiction it would be pretty damned
->>obvious that he has been putting non-white protagonists in his novels
->>since nearly the beginning - AGAINST the prevailing cultural norms.
->>Sometimes he had to hide it because the publishers simply wouldn't
->>allow such positive portrayals of non-white characters. Heinlein
->>celebrates the goodness and competence of people - *all* people, of
->>all cultures, "races", and genders.
First of all, besides the human need for conversation, why is this
such an issue? Authors aren't required to have a "quota" of mixed
races in their stories, and as was pointed out, Heinlein had pressure
from publishers before he gained fame. I'm a writer-to-be, and
although I certainly don't wish to completely alter my stories
according to the will of a publisher who thinks the public won't
accept them, I will be willing to bend them slightly so that I can
actually GET published in the first place....
damnit, getting off-track... anyway, overall, I'd say Heinlein uses a
wider variety than most authors I read, and though he is to be
commended for it, it shouldn't really be that much of a point of
debate over when he started doing it...
->before it. In _Stranger in a Strange Land_, at least in some parts
->of the book, Heinlein was even more self indulgent.
-
-Just what does this mean? "Self indulgent"? You'll have to explain his
-'self' before you explain how he indulged himself.
Probably just a ref to the earlier talk of a "cusp" at which Heinlein
abruptly stopped writing for the public and started writing for
himSELF, although I don't agree with that. #;-}>
->With a couple of exceptions, _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ and (to a
->lesser extent) _Podkayne of Mars_, Heinlein never again overcame this
->self-indulgence in his writing. His Wise Old Man character, who
->appeared in almost all of his books, and with whom Heinlein always
->seemed to identify, nearly overwhelmed his writerly personality. In
->consequence almost everything he wrote after 1960 is didactic,
->self-indulgent, inferior fiction.
-
-In your (rather unconvincing) opinion. I find quality works througout
-his career.
As do I. Unfortunately, I've read mainly his later works so far, but I
must say they are my favorite books, and if his earlier works are
truly that much better, I have a lot of good reading to look forward
to in the future. #;-}>
->Perhaps Heinlein was simply expressing his "true" feelings in
->_Farnham's Freehold_, since his fiction would likely be published no
->matter what he wrote.
-
-Perhaps you can't understand _Farnham's Freehold_. Given your track
-record in this post thus far, I wouldn't doubt that.
-
-Just what do you find racist about _Farnham's Freehold_? Do you think
-because the black master race in this fictional future world is cruel
-it somehow indicates that Heinlein views all blacks this way? How can
-you prove this magical transference? Does this mean Colin Campbell,
-black hero of _Cat Who Walks Through Walls_, is actually a villain in
-Heinlein's 'racist' eyes?
I'd guess (yes, this is IMHO #;-}>) that Heinlein was merely
illustrating that ALL humans have the capacity for cruel behavior and
that mob mentality strikes other races besides white. I'm sure he only
used blacks in that story because of America's particular white/black
issues, to flip them around and show people what it would have been
like the other way around, to get them to think.
I should note that I haven't read the book you're talking about, BTW.
#;-}>
->I'm NOT saying whether I think Heinlein was a racist or not -- I
->haven't read him closely enough to hazard a guess. I haven't read
->_Farnham's Freehold_ since I was fourteen. But to be convincing,
->you'll have to say more -- as you offered to do.
-
-Fine. Simply consider the portrayal of non-white characters in his
-later "inferior, self-indulgent, curmugeonly racist" novels. Generally
-speaking, they are no different from his white heroes and heroines.
-The aforementioned (black) Colin Campbell (1985) and the mixed-race
-Friday (1982) are portrayed as courageous, moral, etc etc. Surely, if
-your theory was correct, Heinlein wouldn't have written such
-portrayals of non-white characters, since he would have already been
-well into his conservative, racist, curmudgeon phase, right?
It should be mentioned that in his later works, the ones I've actually
read (I'm referring to TEFL, TNOTB, TCWWTW, etc. etc. here), the
reason that non-white characters were not portrayed any differently is
that Heinlein never let racial background influence the characters
that much in the first place. Of course, characters such as Lazarus,
who were born in 20th century America, have a cultural tie to their
home towns/countries/planets, and thus indirectly to their race, but
this is never that much of an issue besides the environmental shaping
of the character in his childhood years. To put it another way, his
white characters don't ACT like modern stereotypes of whites, his
black characters don't ACT like modern stereotypes of blacks.
-As I see it, we have two theories we can explore:
-
-1) You're right, and he turned into a racist in 1960.
-* Advantage: Would explain seemingly negative portrayal of blacks in
-
-_Farnham's Freehold_ (1965)
-* Disadvantages: Does not explain positive portrayals of blacks and
-other 'minority' characters like Manny from _Moon_ (1966, just one
-year after _Freehold_), or Colin Campbell from _Cat_(1985), or Friday
-from _Friday_(1982).
I think this one can be thrown in the trashbin. #;-}> I can vouch for
those disadvantages whole-heartedly, and while I haven't read the
novel cited in the advantages section, I don't believe Heinlein would
have been making a subtle anti-black statement. I believe he was
showing the universality of the darker (no one take that the skin
color way, okay? #;-}>) parts of human nature.
-2) I'm right, and Heinlein stuck to his guns and remained the
-freethinking, rational, non prejudiced person he had been since early
-on in his writing career.
-* Advantage: Fits his characterization of minority characters in an
-overwhelming majority of his works, a disregard of race as a
-determining factor in a person's worth, ability, or potential.
-* Disadvantage: Does not readily explain the nasty blacks in
-_Freehold_.
It doesn't implicitly or directly explain them, but I think my
explanation holds just as much merit as the anti-black one, and so do
many other explanations that haven't been given.
-There you have it. I submit that Heinlein's heroes are people at their
-best; they fulfill the potential that he thinks all humans are capable
-of. 'Race' never enters the equation.
Well, they're not PERFECT people, all of them do have qualities that I
certainly wouldn't consider wonderful. And they don't always act the
best way they can, but they ARE good people of conscience, and none of
them are limited (or helped) by their racial make-up (meaning I agree
exactly with your short and sweet final sentence there). #;-}>
------------------------------------------------------------
Greg "Fox" Cook -- Rice University 1999 -- English Major
Robert Heinlein/The X-Files/Star Wars/Star Trek: NextGen fan
U2/Led Zeppelin/Pink Floyd/Tori Amos/The Who/David Bowie fan
http://www.wco.com/~coolness/ -- ftp.wco.com/users/coolness/
"Nothing happens in contradiction to nature,
only in contradiction to what we know of it."
------------------------------ -Dana Scully (in Herrenvolk)
Gregory Cook
"Vidal A Rodriguez" <VIDA...@prodigy.net> wrote:
-I would have to agree with you on this one. I think that whoever you are
-replying to has the misfortune of believing that a role of a harsh person or
-group is in fact racist, however they never seem to get that if they used
-common sence then they would know there are bad and good in all groups and
-has a whole the group could change the course for all. One example of goo
-and bad effecting there groups would be Martin Luther King and the bad eddi
-amien.
Yup.
-So whoever you where responding to was and is an idiot.
Now now, let's not turn these two wonderful ngs into examples of
Usenet's crappier side by throwing insults around like flamers here.
Gregory Cook
da...@sgloomi.demon.co.uk (Dave Stone) wrote:
-Andrew Stoner <ast...@wesleyan.Quest.Rulez.edu> wrote:
-
-> "Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day.
-> Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
-> -- Terry Pratchett, "Jingo"
-
-"'Have you ever been in a pub when everyone goes armed? Oh, things are a
-little polite at first, I'll grant you, and then some twerp drinks out
-of the wrong mug or picks up someone else's change by mistake and five
-minutes later you're picking noses out of the beer nuts ...'"
-
-Oops. Sorry. Wrong thread.
Take that gun control argument stuff out of this thread, damnit! #;-}>
Gregory Cook
abl...---...@inesc.pt (Antonio B. Leal) wrote:
-On Sat, 30 May 1998 02:21:23 GMT, sjog...@mindspring.com (Ernest
-Sjogren) wrote:
-
->What about male chauvinism? Heinlein's condescension to his wife in
->the first chapter of _Tramp Royale_ is nauseating. I think his
->beliefs were in "the right place" -- and that is what usually got into
->his fiction -- but sometimes his instincts or habits were not.
I haven't read Tramp Royale, but what makes you think any
condescension he's displaying towards his wife is based on her being
female? He could just as easily be condescending towards a male,
couldn't he?
-You mean when he's doing the he-man thing, laying down the law and
-giving orders, and then the little woman goes and does whatever she
-wants ? Like having ten suitcases for both, instead of two apiece,
-and so being able to have them both dress appropriately wherever they
-are, which RAH later finds pleasing ?
... uhh... no comment on all the suitcase stuff, but as for the first
part, I'd imagine he took control of the situation simply because it's
his personality to do so, and that it had nothing to do with the
gender of him, his wife, or anyone else.
-I think he was being ironic - at his own expense, I mean. After all,
-wasn't it Heinlein who said that "Women and cats do as they please,
-men and dogs had better get used to it" ? (oops, _that_ is "sexist"
-and "chauvinist" and "patronizing" and largely true ...)
LOL! Well, it's true about some women and cats, but I've met plenty of
men and dogs that are the same way. #;-}> And I have a cat who acts
like a dog... heh...
-Ob-rasfw-thread-tie-in: "Tramp Royale" is derived from a Kipling line.
- (yikes - that proves it ! hang him! hang him!)
First of all, I know what Ob-things are all, but may I inquire what
word Ob is derived from and it's actual meaning? ...
Secondly, do you recall where the Kipling line is from? I was
wondering where that title came from just yesterday.
Ogden Johnson III
Gregory Cook (gfox...@rice.edu) wrote:
: First of all, I know what Ob-things are all, but may I inquire what
: word Ob is derived from and it's actual meaning? ...
Ob = obligatory
OJ III
Anton Sherwood
Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> writes
: I've just now realized why I've gone out with some of the women
: I have--I fell in love with Friday after I bought the book when
: I was 14 (it was Whelan's cover...so sue me) and I've been looking
: for her ever since.
Kyla told me she looks like Mia Farrow, but I can't quite see it.
--
"How'd ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" --Porky Pine 70.6.19
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher at netcom point com
pixel *meow*
On Tue, 2 Jun 1998 mac...@alaska.net wrote:
>In article <6l10ul$o54$1...@archie.inesc.pt>,
> abl...---...@inesc.pt (Antonio B. Leal) wrote:
>(snip)
>> Ob-rasfw-thread-tie-in: "Tramp Royale" is derived from a Kipling line.
>
>What did you think of the Kipling itself? Despite Virginia's comment of the
>awkwardness of the sestina form, I found it rather attractive... although the
>Tennyson poem from which RAH derived the title of his last published novel
>appeals to me more.
>
>And that segues into another topic. Do you think it fair to say that RAH
>preferred to art and literature of an earlier era to that of the 20th
>century? He certainly has a few sour comments to make about "modern art"
>(especially sculpture) in TR... which seem to confirm the notion, about which
>I would otherwise be duly skeptical, that Jubal Harshaw's lectures on Rodin,
>critics, etc., pretty much reflect Heinlein's own opinions.
I have found that I heartily agree with RAH, if he preferred earlier art
to anything at all that came about during the 20th century. There is a
garden on the Mall in Washington D.C. that contains quite a few of the
works of Rodin, and it is awe-inspiring to look at. For that matter,
compared to almost anything from the 20th century, almost anything is
better. My $.02, anyway. I hated the last 2 weeks of Art History, when
we got into what came after Impressionism. Most of it is not for me at
all. Oh, well.
--
~teresa~
^..^ One man's theology is another man's belly laugh. ^..^
Notebooks of L. L. _Robert A. Heinlein_
William Clifford
pixel *meow* <s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Jun 1998 mac...@alaska.net wrote:
>>In article <6l10ul$o54$1...@archie.inesc.pt>,
>> abl...---...@inesc.pt (Antonio B. Leal) wrote:
>>(snip)
>>preferred to art and literature of an earlier era to that of the 20th
>>century? He certainly has a few sour comments to make about "modern art"
>>(especially sculpture) in TR... which seem to confirm the notion, about which
>>I would otherwise be duly skeptical, that Jubal Harshaw's lectures on Rodin,
>>critics, etc., pretty much reflect Heinlein's own opinions.
>I have found that I heartily agree with RAH, if he preferred earlier art
>to anything at all that came about during the 20th century. There is a
>garden on the Mall in Washington D.C. that contains quite a few of the
>works of Rodin, and it is awe-inspiring to look at. For that matter,
>compared to almost anything from the 20th century, almost anything is
>better. My $.02, anyway. I hated the last 2 weeks of Art History, when
>we got into what came after Impressionism. Most of it is not for me at
>all. Oh, well.
In terms of his own influence much of what you read in Heinlein is
inspired by Mark Twain (which jives with the previous century art
preference mentioned above). I haven't read _Tramp Royale_ but I'll
bet _Life on the Mississippi_ and _Roughing It_ shine through. And
Heinlein is likely to be much more calming on one's political
sensitivities than Twain.
Heinlein's other major influence on his own work is Edgar Rice
Burroughs. I don't recall him having anything nice to say about Art
Nouveau though.
-William Clifford
Warning!! From fields foiled! (you figure it out)
Larry M Headlund
In article <Pine.A32.3.95.980603...@titan.vcu.edu>,
pixel *meow* <s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Jun 1998 mac...@alaska.net wrote:
>
>>In article <6l10ul$o54$1...@archie.inesc.pt>,
>> abl...---...@inesc.pt (Antonio B. Leal) wrote:
>>And that segues into another topic. Do you think it fair to say that RAH
>>preferred to art and literature of an earlier era to that of the 20th
>>century? He certainly has a few sour comments to make about "modern art"
>>(especially sculpture) in TR... which seem to confirm the notion, about which
>>I would otherwise be duly skeptical, that Jubal Harshaw's lectures on Rodin,
>>critics, etc., pretty much reflect Heinlein's own opinions.
>
>I have found that I heartily agree with RAH, if he preferred earlier art
>to anything at all that came about during the 20th century. There is a
>garden on the Mall in Washington D.C. that contains quite a few of the
>works of Rodin, and it is awe-inspiring to look at. For that matter,
>compared to almost anything from the 20th century, almost anything is
>better. My $.02, anyway. I hated the last 2 weeks of Art History, when
>we got into what came after Impressionism. Most of it is not for me at
>all. Oh, well.
Of course, Rodin was a 20th century artist, if being alive in the 20th
and crating works during it qualifies one. He was controversial for
his times also. Of course, you can't jump from that to assuming that
some controversial now will be admired 80 years from now.
They laughed at Van Gogh, but they also laughed at Bozo the colown.
As far as art goes, RAH in his prose fitted in praise for Rodin,
a reference to the Wounded Lion of Lucerne, and seemed to be
amused by the Tiger Balm gardens in Singapore.
In _Grumbles from the Grave_ he seemed impressed by _Gile's Goat Boy_.
What other actual art works did he comment on, directly or
with a character.
--
--
Larry Headlund l...@world.std.com Mathematical Engineering, Inc.
(617) 242 7741
Unix, X and Motif Consulting
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <Pine.A32.3.95.980603...@titan.vcu.edu>,
pixel *meow* <s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Jun 1998 mac...@alaska.net wrote:
>
>>In article <6l10ul$o54$1...@archie.inesc.pt>,
>> abl...---...@inesc.pt (Antonio B. Leal) wrote:
>>> Ob-rasfw-thread-tie-in: "Tramp Royale" is derived from a Kipling line.
>>
>>What did you think of the Kipling itself? Despite Virginia's comment of the
>>awkwardness of the sestina form, I found it rather attractive... although the
>>Tennyson poem from which RAH derived the title of his last published novel
>>appeals to me more.
>>
>>preferred to art and literature of an earlier era to that of the 20th
>>century? He certainly has a few sour comments to make about "modern art"
>>(especially sculpture) in TR... which seem to confirm the notion, about which
>>I would otherwise be duly skeptical, that Jubal Harshaw's lectures on Rodin,
>>critics, etc., pretty much reflect Heinlein's own opinions.
What surprised me was that he hated primitive art--this is no doubt
my lack of imagination, but I don't see how anyone could not like
Northwestern art.
>
>I have found that I heartily agree with RAH, if he preferred earlier art
>to anything at all that came about during the 20th century. There is a
>garden on the Mall in Washington D.C. that contains quite a few of the
>works of Rodin, and it is awe-inspiring to look at. For that matter,
>compared to almost anything from the 20th century, almost anything is
>better. My $.02, anyway. I hated the last 2 weeks of Art History, when
>we got into what came after Impressionism. Most of it is not for me at
>all. Oh, well.
Even Georgia O'Keefe?
RicknMers
pixel *meow* <s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.A32.3.95.980603...@titan.vcu.edu>...
> On Tue, 2 Jun 1998 mac...@alaska.net wrote:
>
> >In article <6l10ul$o54$1...@archie.inesc.pt>,
> > abl...---...@inesc.pt (Antonio B. Leal) wrote:
> >(snip)
> >> Ob-rasfw-thread-tie-in: "Tramp Royale" is derived from a Kipling line.
> >
> >What did you think of the Kipling itself? Despite Virginia's comment of
the
> >awkwardness of the sestina form, I found it rather attractive...
although the
> >Tennyson poem from which RAH derived the title of his last published
novel
> >appeals to me more.
> >
> >And that segues into another topic. Do you think it fair to say that
RAH
> >preferred to art and literature of an earlier era to that of the 20th
> >century? He certainly has a few sour comments to make about "modern
art"
> >(especially sculpture) in TR... which seem to confirm the notion, about
which
> >I would otherwise be duly skeptical, that Jubal Harshaw's lectures on
Rodin,
> >critics, etc., pretty much reflect Heinlein's own opinions.
>
> to anything at all that came about during the 20th century. There is a
> garden on the Mall in Washington D.C. that contains quite a few of the
> works of Rodin, and it is awe-inspiring to look at. For that matter,
> compared to almost anything from the 20th century, almost anything is
> better. My $.02, anyway. I hated the last 2 weeks of Art History, when
> we got into what came after Impressionism. Most of it is not for me at
> all. Oh, well.
I'll throw my hat in on this one too. My impression has always been that
if *I* can do it, it ain't art. Most "modern art" can be done by anyone
who isn't a quadraplegic. Example: I knew an "artist" who took pictures
of teddy bears that he had nailed to crosses. This is a psychological
disturbance, not art.
As for his preferences in literature, if such can be determined by looking
at the attendants of the final shin-dig in NotB, I would say that he
preferred writers of this century. (although I'm not sure on all the dates
for the authors involved). Where is Simon's list when I need it?
-Mers
Nobody can be exactly like me.
Sometimes even I have trouble doing it.
-Tallulah Bankhead
David G. Bell
In article <Pine.A32.3.95.980603...@titan.vcu.edu>
s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu "pixel *meow*" writes:
> On Tue, 2 Jun 1998 mac...@alaska.net wrote:
>
> >In article <6l10ul$o54$1...@archie.inesc.pt>,
> > abl...---...@inesc.pt (Antonio B. Leal) wrote:
> >(snip)
> >> Ob-rasfw-thread-tie-in: "Tramp Royale" is derived from a Kipling line.
> >
> >What did you think of the Kipling itself? Despite Virginia's comment of the
> >awkwardness of the sestina form, I found it rather attractive... although the
> >Tennyson poem from which RAH derived the title of his last published novel
> >appeals to me more.
> >
> >And that segues into another topic. Do you think it fair to say that RAH
> >preferred to art and literature of an earlier era to that of the 20th
> >century? He certainly has a few sour comments to make about "modern art"
> >(especially sculpture) in TR... which seem to confirm the notion, about which
> >I would otherwise be duly skeptical, that Jubal Harshaw's lectures on Rodin,
> >critics, etc., pretty much reflect Heinlein's own opinions.
>
> I have found that I heartily agree with RAH, if he preferred earlier art
> to anything at all that came about during the 20th century. There is a
> garden on the Mall in Washington D.C. that contains quite a few of the
> works of Rodin, and it is awe-inspiring to look at. For that matter,
> compared to almost anything from the 20th century, almost anything is
> better. My $.02, anyway. I hated the last 2 weeks of Art History, when
> we got into what came after Impressionism. Most of it is not for me at
> all. Oh, well.
Several years ago, there was an effort to put good quality prints of a
series of 'significant' paintings into the schools in the UK, and this
was accompanied by a series of short TV programs, one for each painting.
It struck me then that the change that came in the 20th Century was in
how the works required external information. The paintings of the past
are full of classical references, that the educated customers of the
artists would understand. But they were also detailed pictures of real
things. Which means that the painting needs a larger proportion of the
information in the work of art to define it.
At the opposite extreme you get Mondrian -- I mean the guy who did
paintings which are essentially rectilinear patterns of lines and blocks
of colour. How many bits of data does it need to store one of those
images. How much is there to the work of art without the external data?
And somewhere in the middle are the people like Picasso, who take
reality and warp it. You need a little more knowledge about Guernica,
in the real world, to catch on to what Guernica, the painting, is about,
but it is far less dependent on the viewer's knowledge than is, for
instance, half a shark in a tank of formaldehyde.
And some art is almost totally non-representational, but appeals in some
sensual way. But there is something extra when you can see the curves
of a Henry Moore sculpture echoed in one of Bill Brandt's photos of a
naked woman.
--
Cheap Food \
Safe Food > Pick any two of three.
Healthy Food /
mac...@alaska.net
In article <6l2okd$ocn$1...@news.cns.net>,
wi...@gr.cns.foiled.net wrote:
(snip)
> In terms of his own influence much of what you read in Heinlein is
> inspired by Mark Twain (which jives with the previous century art
> preference mentioned above).
Absolutely spot on!
> I haven't read _Tramp Royale_ but I'll
> bet _Life on the Mississippi_ and _Roughing It_ shine through. And
> Heinlein is likely to be much more calming on one's political
> sensitivities than Twain.
For some people, perhaps.
> Heinlein's other major influence on his own work is Edgar Rice
> Burroughs. I don't recall him having anything nice to say about Art
> Nouveau though.
What about H.G. Wells... and (to some extent) E. E. "Doc" Smith?
mac...@alaska.net
In article <357e971e...@news.rice.edu>,
gfox...@rice.edu wrote:
(snip)
> Secondly, do you recall where the Kipling line is from? I was
> wondering where that title came from just yesterday.
It's not really from "a line", it's from the title of a poem: "Sestina of the
Tramp Royale", which is printed at the back of RAH's "Tramp Royale".
Andrew Plotkin
RicknMers (RICK...@prodigy.net) wrote:
> I'll throw my hat in on this one too. My impression has always been that
> if *I* can do it, it ain't art.
How terrible.
Mind you, I have zero interest in hanging a huge-blue-square-with-one-
red-stripe in my living room.
That's a *personal preference*.
I've done art. I rather enjoy it.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
J.A.Scott
In article <dasherEt...@netcom.com>, das...@netcom.com says...
> Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> writes
> : I've just now realized why I've gone out with some of the women
> : I have--I fell in love with Friday after I bought the book when
> : I was 14 (it was Whelan's cover...so sue me) and I've been looking
> : for her ever since.
>
> Kyla told me she looks like Mia Farrow, but I can't quite see it.
>
Welch.
J.A.Scott - Remove mapson to repsond
pixel *meow*
On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Larry M Headlund wrote:
>In article <Pine.A32.3.95.980603...@titan.vcu.edu>,
>pixel *meow* <s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
>>On Tue, 2 Jun 1998 mac...@alaska.net wrote:
>>
>>>In article <6l10ul$o54$1...@archie.inesc.pt>,
>>> abl...---...@inesc.pt (Antonio B. Leal) wrote:
> <deleted>
>>>And that segues into another topic. Do you think it fair to say that RAH
>>>preferred to art and literature of an earlier era to that of the 20th
>>>century? He certainly has a few sour comments to make about "modern art"
>>>(especially sculpture) in TR... which seem to confirm the notion, about which
>>>I would otherwise be duly skeptical, that Jubal Harshaw's lectures on Rodin,
>>>critics, etc., pretty much reflect Heinlein's own opinions.
>>
>>I have found that I heartily agree with RAH, if he preferred earlier art
>>to anything at all that came about during the 20th century. There is a
>>garden on the Mall in Washington D.C. that contains quite a few of the
>>works of Rodin, and it is awe-inspiring to look at. For that matter,
>>compared to almost anything from the 20th century, almost anything is
>>better. My $.02, anyway. I hated the last 2 weeks of Art History, when
>>we got into what came after Impressionism. Most of it is not for me at
>>all. Oh, well.
>
>Of course, Rodin was a 20th century artist, if being alive in the 20th
>and crating works during it qualifies one. He was controversial for
>his times also. Of course, you can't jump from that to assuming that
>some controversial now will be admired 80 years from now.
>They laughed at Van Gogh, but they also laughed at Bozo the colown.
We didn't cover Rodin in class, darnit, so I didn't know when he was
around. But interestingly enough, Van Gogh is part of what I do like
from the 20th century. There are others, but not many.
>As far as art goes, RAH in his prose fitted in praise for Rodin,
>a reference to the Wounded Lion of Lucerne, and seemed to be
>amused by the Tiger Balm gardens in Singapore.
>
>In _Grumbles from the Grave_ he seemed impressed by _Gile's Goat Boy_.
>
>What other actual art works did he comment on, directly or
>with a character.
His commentary from SiaSL by Jubal is what interested me in art history in
the first place, and that was about Rodin. I still haven't seen those
sculptures.
pixel *meow*
On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, William Clifford wrote:
>pixel *meow* <s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
>>On Tue, 2 Jun 1998 mac...@alaska.net wrote:
>>>In article <6l10ul$o54$1...@archie.inesc.pt>,
>>> abl...---...@inesc.pt (Antonio B. Leal) wrote:
>>>(snip)
>>>And that segues into another topic. Do you think it fair to say that RAH
>>>preferred to art and literature of an earlier era to that of the 20th
>>>century? He certainly has a few sour comments to make about "modern art"
>>>(especially sculpture) in TR... which seem to confirm the notion, about which
>>>I would otherwise be duly skeptical, that Jubal Harshaw's lectures on Rodin,
>>>critics, etc., pretty much reflect Heinlein's own opinions.
>>I have found that I heartily agree with RAH, if he preferred earlier art
>>to anything at all that came about during the 20th century. There is a
>>garden on the Mall in Washington D.C. that contains quite a few of the
>>works of Rodin, and it is awe-inspiring to look at. For that matter,
>>compared to almost anything from the 20th century, almost anything is
>>better. My $.02, anyway. I hated the last 2 weeks of Art History, when
>>we got into what came after Impressionism. Most of it is not for me at
>>all. Oh, well.
>
>In terms of his own influence much of what you read in Heinlein is
>inspired by Mark Twain (which jives with the previous century art
>preference mentioned above). I haven't read _Tramp Royale_ but I'll
>bet _Life on the Mississippi_ and _Roughing It_ shine through. And
>Heinlein is likely to be much more calming on one's political
>sensitivities than Twain.
>
>Heinlein's other major influence on his own work is Edgar Rice
>Burroughs. I don't recall him having anything nice to say about Art
>Nouveau though.
One of my very favorite movements, also not covered in art history last
semester. Damn!!! At least we have a fine exhibit here in Richmond, VA
at the Va. Museum of Fine Arts. Also home to a HUGE collection of Faberge
eggs, and a very impressive ancient Greek/Roman/Egyptian collection. And
more, etc, a wonderful place to spend a day!
pixel *meow*
On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>In article <Pine.A32.3.95.980603...@titan.vcu.edu>,
>pixel *meow* <s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
>>On Tue, 2 Jun 1998 mac...@alaska.net wrote:
>>
>>>In article <6l10ul$o54$1...@archie.inesc.pt>,
>>> abl...---...@inesc.pt (Antonio B. Leal) wrote:
>>>(snip)
>>>> Ob-rasfw-thread-tie-in: "Tramp Royale" is derived from a Kipling line.
>>>
>>>And that segues into another topic. Do you think it fair to say that RAH
>>>preferred to art and literature of an earlier era to that of the 20th
>>>century? He certainly has a few sour comments to make about "modern art"
>>>(especially sculpture) in TR... which seem to confirm the notion, about which
>>>I would otherwise be duly skeptical, that Jubal Harshaw's lectures on Rodin,
>>>critics, etc., pretty much reflect Heinlein's own opinions.
>
>What surprised me was that he hated primitive art--this is no doubt
>my lack of imagination, but I don't see how anyone could not like
>Northwestern art.
I like primitive art, but of the European (especially Greek and Middle
Eastern) persuasion.
>>I have found that I heartily agree with RAH, if he preferred earlier art
>>to anything at all that came about during the 20th century. There is a
>>garden on the Mall in Washington D.C. that contains quite a few of the
>>works of Rodin, and it is awe-inspiring to look at. For that matter,
>>compared to almost anything from the 20th century, almost anything is
>>better. My $.02, anyway. I hated the last 2 weeks of Art History, when
>>we got into what came after Impressionism. Most of it is not for me at
>>all. Oh, well.
>
>Even Georgia O'Keefe?
Never will she be included in the category of what I do NOT like. Her
paintings of flowers are very dear to me, but she is another we didn't
look at, that I was hoping to see and study. My problems are with the
likes of Rothko and Pollock. Yech. Just my 'learned' opinion, tho!
--
Jay Random
pixel *meow* wrote:
>
> We didn't cover Rodin in class, darnit, so I didn't know when he was
> around. But interestingly enough, Van Gogh is part of what I do like
> from the 20th century. There are others, but not many.
But Van Gogh committed suicide in 1890.
--J. Random Penny Encyclopaedia, D.G.F.V.
pixel *meow*
On 3 Jun 1998, RicknMers wrote:
>pixel *meow* <s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote in article
><Pine.A32.3.95.980603...@titan.vcu.edu>...
>>
>> I have found that I heartily agree with RAH, if he preferred earlier art
>> to anything at all that came about during the 20th century. There is a
>> garden on the Mall in Washington D.C. that contains quite a few of the
>> works of Rodin, and it is awe-inspiring to look at. For that matter,
>> compared to almost anything from the 20th century, almost anything is
>> better. My $.02, anyway. I hated the last 2 weeks of Art History, when
>> we got into what came after Impressionism. Most of it is not for me at
>> all. Oh, well.
>
>I'll throw my hat in on this one too. My impression has always been that
>if *I* can do it, it ain't art. Most "modern art" can be done by anyone
>who isn't a quadraplegic. Example: I knew an "artist" who took pictures
>of teddy bears that he had nailed to crosses. This is a psychological
>disturbance, not art.
I agree with you. That is my problem with the 'abstract expressionist'
movement, which came up with just big blocks of color or just swishing
paint all over a canvas. Not for me at all! Of course, there's more to
the movement than what I have written above, but it's no better, IMO.
pixel *meow*
On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, David G. Bell wrote:
>In article <Pine.A32.3.95.980603...@titan.vcu.edu>
> s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu "pixel *meow*" writes:
>> I have found that I heartily agree with RAH, if he preferred earlier art
>> to anything at all that came about during the 20th century. There is a
>> garden on the Mall in Washington D.C. that contains quite a few of the
>> works of Rodin, and it is awe-inspiring to look at. For that matter,
>> compared to almost anything from the 20th century, almost anything is
>> better. My $.02, anyway. I hated the last 2 weeks of Art History, when
>> we got into what came after Impressionism. Most of it is not for me at
>> all. Oh, well.
>
>Several years ago, there was an effort to put good quality prints of a
>series of 'significant' paintings into the schools in the UK, and this
>was accompanied by a series of short TV programs, one for each painting.
>
>It struck me then that the change that came in the 20th Century was in
>how the works required external information. The paintings of the past
>are full of classical references, that the educated customers of the
>artists would understand. But they were also detailed pictures of real
>things. Which means that the painting needs a larger proportion of the
>information in the work of art to define it.
Another factor was that education was done orally, and much of the art was
for use in churches and public buildings, before the time of marketing of
previously made paintings. Works were made to teach, and no one expected
someone to be able to read, so symbolism was used heavily. Some of the
symbolism is lost, for some paintings you may see, because of the advent
of widespread literacy.
>At the opposite extreme you get Mondrian -- I mean the guy who did
>paintings which are essentially rectilinear patterns of lines and blocks
>of colour. How many bits of data does it need to store one of those
>images. How much is there to the work of art without the external data?
I don't understand Mondrian, tho I think it is the least offensive of the
abstracts. I actually don't mind his works, but it is so much like
wallpaper that I don't see it as great art.
Dave Stone
RicknMers <RICK...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> I'll throw my hat in on this one too. My impression has always been that
> if *I* can do it, it ain't art. Most "modern art" can be done by anyone
> who isn't a quadraplegic.
The point being that you didn't, and neither did they. You *could* have,
but you didn't.
> Example: I knew an "artist" who took pictures
> of teddy bears that he had nailed to crosses. This is a psychological
> disturbance, not art.
The other point being that you thought it worth mentioning and arguing
with - rather like the famous pile of bricks in the Tate. One of the
functions of art is to disseminate that sort of controversy - check out
the contemporary references to Dada and Cezanne.
--
Take care. Have fun. Bring your own banjo.
http://www.sgloomi.demon.co.uk
Alexandre Pechtchanski
What are a few dozen years between friends ;-)
[ When replying, remove *'s from address ]
Alexandre Pechtchanski, Systems Manager, RUH, NY
Tamela R. Germano
>
> His commentary from SiaSL by Jubal is what interested me in art history in
> the first place, and that was about Rodin. I still haven't seen those
> sculptures.
>
> --
> ~teresa~
We have had an exhibition of Rodin's work here in Reno (NV). There were
two works spoken of in Stranger on display. It was fun to see where I
differed from the book in my likes. If you see the sculpture of Balzac as
an athlete, you will be able to see what kind of athlete he was :-)
Dino in Reno
Ernest Sjogren
wi...@gr.cns.foiled.net (William Clifford) wrote:
>pixel *meow* <s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
>>On Tue, 2 Jun 1998 mac...@alaska.net wrote:
>>>In article <6l10ul$o54$1...@archie.inesc.pt>,
>>> abl...---...@inesc.pt (Antonio B. Leal) wrote:
>>>(snip)
>>>And that segues into another topic. Do you think it fair to say that RAH
>>>preferred to art and literature of an earlier era to that of the 20th
>>>century? He certainly has a few sour comments to make about "modern art"
>>>(especially sculpture) in TR... which seem to confirm the notion, about which
>>>I would otherwise be duly skeptical, that Jubal Harshaw's lectures on Rodin,
>>>critics, etc., pretty much reflect Heinlein's own opinions.
>>I have found that I heartily agree with RAH, if he preferred earlier art
>>to anything at all that came about during the 20th century. There is a
>>garden on the Mall in Washington D.C. that contains quite a few of the
>>works of Rodin, and it is awe-inspiring to look at. For that matter,
>>compared to almost anything from the 20th century, almost anything is
>>better. My $.02, anyway. I hated the last 2 weeks of Art History, when
>>we got into what came after Impressionism. Most of it is not for me at
>>all. Oh, well.
>
>In terms of his own influence much of what you read in Heinlein is
>inspired by Mark Twain (which jives with the previous century art
>preference mentioned above). I haven't read _Tramp Royale_ but I'll
>bet _Life on the Mississippi_ and _Roughing It_ shine through. And
>Heinlein is likely to be much more calming on one's political
>sensitivities than Twain.
>
>Heinlein's other major influence on his own work is Edgar Rice
>Burroughs. I don't recall him having anything nice to say about Art
>Nouveau though.
FWIW, I always figured that Kipling was one of Heinlein's strongest
influences -- somewhat in regard to writing, but much more so in
regard to outlook.
I guess it would be only fair to quote the lines that caused my remark
about Heinlein's "nauseating" condescension to his wife (in _TR_).
As soon as I get ahold of a copy of the book, I'll do so. (May not be
worth it, though. This has become a far more interesting thread than
a discussion of what I think is chauvinist pigism.)
-- Ernie Sjogren
Tom Nicolaides
>We didn't cover Rodin in class, darnit, so I didn't know when he was
>around. But interestingly enough, Van Gogh is part of what I do like
>from the 20th century. There are others, but not many.
>
Well, actually, Van Gogh was 19th century. 1853-1890. His ear's lifespan was
somewhat less.
Tom
Tom Nicolaides
>On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>>
>>Even Georgia O'Keefe?
>
Pixel wrote:
>Never will she be included in the category of what I do NOT like. Her
>paintings of flowers are very dear to me...
Ummm Were those FLOWERS????
Tom "Sometimes a Flower is Just a Flower" Nicolaides
Lance
Gregory Cook wrote:
>
>
> -Ob-rasfw-thread-tie-in: "Tramp Royale" is derived from a Kipling line.
> - (yikes - that proves it ! hang him! hang him!)
>
> First of all, I know what Ob-things are all, but may I inquire what
> word Ob is derived from and it's actual meaning? ...
Obligatory. General usage here "ObSF" for Obligatory SF reference.
Since the ng (newsgroup) is dedicated to SF, but threads tend to
wander far afield, a common joke is that some sort of SF reference
is necessary, so one is thrown in in an attempt to make the off topic
post fit in. Like many other phrases (IMO, IMNSHO, TANSTAAFL)
this one comes up so often that it is abbrieviated for ease of typing.
By the way, that TANSTAAFL was, of course, my ObSF, ObRAH,
ObSMOF reference...:)
--
Lance Berg
http://empyre.net
Big Egg
Does anybody have a copy of Tramp they would be willing to trade?
I will swap for any other Heinlein book. ( I have them all in PB) and
pay postage both ways.
(It's the only one I haven't got).
--
Big Egg
Any unsolicited commercial email will be stored and charged for at US$1.00 per byte per day.
20. Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.
Anton Sherwood
: > Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> writes
: > : I've just now realized why I've gone out with some of the women
: > : I have--I fell in love with Friday after I bought the book when
: > : I was 14 (it was Whelan's cover...so sue me) and I've been looking
: > : for her ever since.
: das...@netcom.com says...
: > Kyla told me she looks like Mia Farrow, but I can't quite see it.
J.A.Scott <jas...@mapsonici.net> writes
: Which cover is this? The one I have has Friday looking a lot like Raquel
: Welch.
Mostly blue cover, right? Same one.
Anton Sherwood
RicknMers <RICK...@prodigy.net> writes
: .... My impression has always been that
: if *I* can do it, it ain't art. ...
Rather like the common anti-definition of artificial intelligence!
RicknMers
Dave Stone <da...@sgloomi.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<1da20cn.lsc...@sgloomi.demon.co.uk>...
> RicknMers <RICK...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> > Example: I knew an "artist" who took pictures
> > of teddy bears that he had nailed to crosses. This is a psychological
> > disturbance, not art.
>
> The other point being that you thought it worth mentioning and arguing
> with - rather like the famous pile of bricks in the Tate. One of the
> functions of art is to disseminate that sort of controversy - check out
> the contemporary references to Dada and Cezanne.
>
I also think it's fun to laugh at Yanni. That doesn't mean I consider him
a good musician.
-Mers
Dorothy J Heydt
In article <5217a15048%big...@hardboiled.demon.co.uk>,
Big Egg <big...@hardboiled.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Does anybody have a copy of Tramp they would be willing to trade?
You can't have mine; however:
I don't know if it's in print in the UK. I don't know if it's
still in print at all. But I do know that The Other Change of
Hobbit has a copy, because I saw it this evening. Trade
paperback, new, at $15 US, plus $7 mailing. (That's per order, so
if you wanted to order some other things at the same time....)
Send them email, if you're interested, as follows.
The Other Change of Hobbit
2020 Shattuck Ave.
Berkeley CA 94704-1117 USA
voice: 1-510-848-0413
fax: 1-510-595-9029
email: ocho...@dnai.com
home page: http://www.dnai.com/~ochobbit
(No, I don't work for them, but they're friends.)
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
_A Point of Honor_ is out....
(Hobbit has that too.)
Tamela R. Germano
In article <5217a15048%big...@hardboiled.demon.co.uk>, Big Egg
<big...@hardboiled.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Does anybody have a copy of Tramp they would be willing to trade?
> I will swap for any other Heinlein book. ( I have them all in PB) and
> pay postage both ways.
> (It's the only one I haven't got).
>
Is hardback o.k.? Shipping will cost more than the book though.
Dino in Reno
Avram Grumer
In article <6l4k2m$tp2$2...@camel21.mindspring.com>,
shado...@DIE.SPAMMERS.mindspring.com (Tom Nicolaides) wrote:
> >On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
> >>
> >>Even Georgia O'Keefe?
> >
> Pixel wrote:
>
> >Never will she be included in the category of what I do NOT like. Her
> >paintings of flowers are very dear to me...
>
> Ummm Were those FLOWERS????
I seem to recall that one of them was bright green. I hope it was a flower.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@bigfoot.com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~avram/
"...it is significant that we are called the 'information society' --
not the thinking society, not the deliberative society, not the society
of reason and rationality." -- Lloyd Morrisett
Avram Grumer
> I have found that I heartily agree with RAH, if he preferred earlier art
> to anything at all that came about during the 20th century. There is a
> garden on the Mall in Washington D.C. that contains quite a few of the
> works of Rodin, and it is awe-inspiring to look at.
There's a museum at 11 West 53rd Street in Manhattan that contains quite a
few of the works of 20th century artists, and I find it pretty
awe-inspiring.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@bigfoot.com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~avram/
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.
Teach him how to fish, and you can sell him equipment.
Avram Grumer
> I agree with you. That is my problem with the 'abstract expressionist'
> movement, which came up with just big blocks of color or just swishing
> paint all over a canvas. Not for me at all! Of course, there's more to
> the movement than what I have written above, but it's no better, IMO.
More to which movement? Abstract Expressionism came about in the 1940s if
I remember correctly. That covers only about half of "20th century art,"
and about a third of "Modern Art" (which goes back into the mid-19th
century).
--
Avram Grumer | av...@bigfoot.com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~avram/
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.
Teach him how to fish, and you drive up the price of
bait and tackle, and disrupt the local ecosystem.
Avram Grumer
> My problems are with the likes of Rothko and Pollock. Yech.
I've never had much use for Rothko.
Pollock's Action Paintings sound like a parody of modern painting when
described, but I find that there's something in me that responds to the
composition and sense of movement in them when I actually look at them.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@bigfoot.com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~avram/
"Oh my God! They killed Kennedy! You bastard!"
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <6l3ri4$hna$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <mac...@alaska.net> wrote:
>In article <6l2okd$ocn$1...@news.cns.net>,
> wi...@gr.cns.foiled.net wrote:
>(snip)
>> In terms of his own influence much of what you read in Heinlein is
>> inspired by Mark Twain (which jives with the previous century art
>> preference mentioned above).
>
>
>> I haven't read _Tramp Royale_ but I'll
>> bet _Life on the Mississippi_ and _Roughing It_ shine through. And
>> Heinlein is likely to be much more calming on one's political
>> sensitivities than Twain.
>
>
>> Heinlein's other major influence on his own work is Edgar Rice
>> Burroughs. I don't recall him having anything nice to say about Art
>> Nouveau though.
>
>
And Kipling.
I have a vague impression that some of his stories like "Delilah
and the Space Rigger" and the one about the spaceman who acquired
a fear of heights are simply based on cliche plots, but I don't
have sources.
Any sources for his wiseass humor? I'm thinking about Oscar's
style in _Glory Road_.
--
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
May '98 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Nancy Lebovitz
>
>>At the opposite extreme you get Mondrian -- I mean the guy who did
>>paintings which are essentially rectilinear patterns of lines and blocks
>>of colour. How many bits of data does it need to store one of those
>>images. How much is there to the work of art without the external data?
>
>I don't understand Mondrian, tho I think it is the least offensive of the
>abstracts. I actually don't mind his works, but it is so much like
>wallpaper that I don't see it as great art.
>
his early flower paintings (?), and they're excellent. I find it hard
to imagine why someone would abandon that sort of talent, but so
did Picasso--and he could do better representational art than
Mondrian.
jonathan dale mccall
nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
(Snip)
>
>Any sources for his wiseass humor? I'm thinking about Oscar's
>style in _Glory Road_.
>--
>Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
>
>May '98 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
I had always assumed that RAH's wiseassery was cinematic in origin -
the patter reminds me of some 40's and 50's Hollywood film dialogue.
That's just a guess, though - I don't have anything to back it up.
--
Jonathan McCall
Alexandre Pechtchanski
On Thu, 04 Jun 1998 01:37:59 -0400, av...@bigfoot.com (Avram Grumer) wrote:
[ Courtesy cc'ed through e-mail to the quoted author ]
>In article <Pine.A32.3.95.980603...@titan.vcu.edu>, pixel
>*meow* <s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
>
>> I agree with you. That is my problem with the 'abstract expressionist'
>> movement, which came up with just big blocks of color or just swishing
>> paint all over a canvas. Not for me at all! Of course, there's more to
>> the movement than what I have written above, but it's no better, IMO.
>
>More to which movement? Abstract Expressionism came about in the 1940s if
>I remember correctly. That covers only about half of "20th century art,"
>and about a third of "Modern Art" (which goes back into the mid-19th
>century).
Just a nit to pick: Malevitch's "Black Square", which is probably as close to
defining abstractionism as it gets, was painted when? 1920? or earlier?
Avram Grumer
In article <3576d8a3.11536854@Rockyd>, alex*@*rockvax.rockefeller.edu
(Alexandre Pechtchanski) wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jun 1998 01:37:59 -0400, av...@bigfoot.com (Avram Grumer) wrote:
> [ Courtesy cc'ed through e-mail to the quoted author ]
> >
> >More to which movement? Abstract Expressionism came about in the 1940s if
> >I remember correctly. That covers only about half of "20th century art,"
> >and about a third of "Modern Art" (which goes back into the mid-19th
> >century).
>
> Just a nit to pick: Malevitch's "Black Square", which is probably as close to
> defining abstractionism as it gets, was painted when? 1920? or earlier?
I think the "White on White" series was painted in 1918. But I'll pick
that nit right back at ya: Kasimir Malevitch was a Suprematist, not an
Abstract Expressionist. I'm not sure why; it may be just that the term
"Abstract Expressionism" hadn't been coined yet, and Malevitch died too
early (1935) to hang out in post-WW2 New York.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@bigfoot.com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~avram/
"My whole life is interactive, and that doesn't mean a lot
of it doesn't suck" -- Daniel Radosh
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Fri, 5 Jun 1998 11:25:23 -0400, pixel *meow*
<s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 3 Jun 1998 14:29:50 -0400, pixel *meow*
>><s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> My problems are with the
>>>likes of Rothko and Pollock. Yech. Just my 'learned' opinion, tho!
>>
>>I'm curious -- what about Tony Stella?
>
>We didn't look at any by him, so I don't know. Sorry...
Okay. You might want to look for his work, especially the "Gates of
Heaven" series. Totally abstract, just curved bands of color, but I,
at least, find them gorgeous and fascinating.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 4/24/98
LaffnBear
> IIRC, there is
>very little that the "Master Race" of Farnham's Freehold did to
>non-blacks that whites have not done to non-whites. Could it be that
>Heinlein was just writing a "see what we've done? Lets not do this
>again." thing.
Yah. I always thought that "Farnham" was Heinlien's way of switching the two
sides, and showing that racism was still stupid. The same flawed logic, the
same weird ideas, and the skin color of the oppressors didn't matter. I loved
the part where one of the high-up's complained that whites didn't smell good no
matter how many times they bathed. It sounded so much like some of the racist
crap I've seen in some older books that I had to laugh.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh my God! Verhoeven killed 'Starship Troopers!'
Y O U B A S TA R D!
LaffnBear
>Then again, I may have
>picked up my fetish for competent women from growing up with RAH's
>fiction starting about age eight in 1963. (I still love both RAH's
>fiction _and_ competent women --
Hah! I thought maybe it was only me. Nice to know that I'm not the only one
with a competent women fetish. And I'm pretty sure that I picked it up from
Heinlien too.
Large amount of my reading nowdays is taken up by series involving strong
female characters, and I always felt that my early Heinlein days proably
started it . Characters like:
Honor Harrington
Anita Blake
Cordelia Naismith from the Miles Vorkosigan series
Martha Washington
Hell, even Red Shetland ( don't worry if you've never herd of her.)
For visual media, you can't beat Riply from Aliens, or Xena.
Kicken butt and takin' names!
The only down-side that I've noticed is I have a real problem dealing with
women who were brought up to go with the "Helpless Female" attitude. I don't
blame them, so much as I do their up-bringers ( Is that even a word?) but it
still irks me when I see otherwise smart women going with this game. Makes me
want to make Heinlein required reading for school. At gunpoint if necessary.
< Joke. I don't really want to do that. >
pixel *meow*
On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Jun 1998 14:29:50 -0400, pixel *meow*
><s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
>
>> My problems are with the
>>likes of Rothko and Pollock. Yech. Just my 'learned' opinion, tho!
>
>I'm curious -- what about Tony Stella?
We didn't look at any by him, so I don't know. Sorry...
--
~teresa~
^..^ One man's theology is another man's belly laugh. ^..^
Notebooks of L. L. _Robert A. Heinlein_
pixel *meow*
On 3 Jun 1998, Tamela R. Germano wrote:
>In article <Pine.A32.3.95.980603...@titan.vcu.edu>, pixel
>*meow* <s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> His commentary from SiaSL by Jubal is what interested me in art history in
>> the first place, and that was about Rodin. I still haven't seen those
>> sculptures.
>
> We have had an exhibition of Rodin's work here in Reno (NV). There were
>two works spoken of in Stranger on display. It was fun to see where I
>differed from the book in my likes. If you see the sculpture of Balzac as
>an athlete, you will be able to see what kind of athlete he was :-)
You have piqued my curiosity! Maybe I'll be out on your side of the
country someday...
pixel *meow*
On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Jay Random wrote:
>pixel *meow* wrote:
>>
>> We didn't cover Rodin in class, darnit, so I didn't know when he was
>> around. But interestingly enough, Van Gogh is part of what I do like
>> from the 20th century. There are others, but not many.
>
>
>But Van Gogh committed suicide in 1890.
Yeah, just need to talk around my teeth here a minute: We didn't need to
know any dates, just period (ie post impressionism for VG) and name and
title. The art history courses I took are intro level, 100 courses, so
don't get too deep. But this makes it easier for me to say I don't like
most of 20th century art! (most, that is)
pixel *meow*
On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Avram Grumer wrote:
>In article <Pine.A32.3.95.980603...@titan.vcu.edu>, pixel
>*meow* <s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
>
>> I agree with you. That is my problem with the 'abstract expressionist'
>> movement, which came up with just big blocks of color or just swishing
>> paint all over a canvas. Not for me at all! Of course, there's more to
>> the movement than what I have written above, but it's no better, IMO.
>
>More to which movement? Abstract Expressionism came about in the 1940s if
>I remember correctly. That covers only about half of "20th century art,"
>and about a third of "Modern Art" (which goes back into the mid-19th
>century).
I was speaking only of the A.E. movement. I think you remember correctly,
but we didn't need to know exact dates, and I didn't really enjoy this
part of the class at all. I believe A.E. phased into something else in
the 50's or 60's, though, but like I said, I didn't like it, so I didn't
pay it the same attention as, say, Baroque or Romantic.
pixel *meow*
On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>In article <Pine.A32.3.95.980603...@titan.vcu.edu>,
>pixel *meow* <s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
>>On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, David G. Bell wrote:
>>
>>>At the opposite extreme you get Mondrian -- I mean the guy who did
>>>paintings which are essentially rectilinear patterns of lines and blocks
>>>of colour. How many bits of data does it need to store one of those
>>>images. How much is there to the work of art without the external data?
>>
>>I don't understand Mondrian, tho I think it is the least offensive of the
>>abstracts. I actually don't mind his works, but it is so much like
>>wallpaper that I don't see it as great art.
>>
>What astonishes me is that he could draw well. I've seen posters of
>his early flower paintings (?), and they're excellent. I find it hard
>to imagine why someone would abandon that sort of talent, but so
>did Picasso--and he could do better representational art than
>Mondrian.
Have you seen the drawings Degas made of horses and riders? So much
better than the paintings... There's an exhibit at the Smithsonian Nat'l
Gallery right now called 'At the Races' that is all about Degas' horses
and jockeys. Enlightening... We looked at a few by Picasso from before
Cubism, and yes, they were much more to my liking than his more famous
works. But then, I like representational So much better than non-rep.
pixel *meow*
On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Avram Grumer wrote:
>In article <Pine.A32.3.95.980603...@titan.vcu.edu>, pixel
>*meow* <s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
>
>> My problems are with the likes of Rothko and Pollock. Yech.
>
>I've never had much use for Rothko.
>
>Pollock's Action Paintings sound like a parody of modern painting when
>described, but I find that there's something in me that responds to the
>composition and sense of movement in them when I actually look at them.
I had a change of heart about Impressionism by actually seeing some at the
Smithsonian National Gallery. I didn't like it before, but after seeing
some that were not garden parties and landscapes, I decided that I did
like it. Also, I adore Degas' ballerinas, and when I found out that he
was part of the Impressionist movement, I had to lighten up a little. I
will say that I may change my mind about Pollock if I ever see any of his
work, but I am not a fan of abstract, in general. Mondrian is one of the
few that I can stand.
Tom Mailloux
pixel *meow* wrote:
>
> On 3 Jun 1998, Tamela R. Germano wrote:
<snip>
> > We have had an exhibition of Rodin's work here in Reno (NV). There were
> >two works spoken of in Stranger on display. It was fun to see where I
> >differed from the book in my likes. If you see the sculpture of Balzac as
> >an athlete, you will be able to see what kind of athlete he was :-)
>
> You have piqued my curiosity! Maybe I'll be out on your side of the
> country someday...
The Rodin Museum in Philadelphia is closer, and they have the balzac
sculpture, too, Teresa. Oh, don't bring Heather unless she is
comfortable with male nudity.... ;-)
Tom
--
¬ is spambane.
Tom Mailloux
pixel *meow* wrote:
> I
> will say that I may change my mind about Pollock if I ever see any of his
> work, but I am not a fan of abstract, in general. Mondrian is one of the
> few that I can stand.
Trust me, Teresa, you won't change your mind about Pollock. He is as bad
up close and personal as on the printed page.
I adore Piet Mondrian, btw. If you follow his developement from
representational art into pure abstract you will be astonished by how
logical it all becomes. Also Mondrian is the mathematician's artist.
<grin>
pixel *meow*
She'll be comfortable with it WAY before I will be comfortable with her
being comfortable with it! How's that for a run-around sentence? :)
She doesn't know why daddy stopped letting her get into the shower with
him, or accompanying him to the bathroom at all, O blessed innocence. I
hope she keeps it for a long time...
pixel *meow*
On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Tom Mailloux wrote:
>pixel *meow* wrote:
>
>> I
>> will say that I may change my mind about Pollock if I ever see any of his
>> work, but I am not a fan of abstract, in general. Mondrian is one of the
>> few that I can stand.
>
>Trust me, Teresa, you won't change your mind about Pollock. He is as bad
>up close and personal as on the printed page.
This from the one who suggested I look at some Impressionist stuff before
I made up my mind that I hated it... :) You are probably right, since
you were right about Impressionism.
>I adore Piet Mondrian, btw. If you follow his developement from
>representational art into pure abstract you will be astonished by how
>logical it all becomes. Also Mondrian is the mathematician's artist.
><grin>
One of the Smithsonian magazines from the last year or so had an article
about Mondrian, I need to look it up but it is in a box somewhere. I can
deal with his stuff, at least! :)
Tom Mailloux
Chris and Elisabeth Zakes wrote:
>
> Tom Mailloux <tgm&n...@k2nesoft.com> wrote:
> > Also Mondrian is the mathematician's artist.
>
> Gee, I thought that would be M.C. Escher. <G>
Well, I've always considered Escher more of a graphic designer than an
artist. The mathematical part is dead on, though.
Tom Mailloux
pixel *meow* wrote:
> >
> > Oh, don't bring Heather unless she is
> >comfortable with male nudity.... ;-)
>
> She'll be comfortable with it WAY before I will be comfortable with her
> being comfortable with it! How's that for a run-around sentence? :)
> She doesn't know why daddy stopped letting her get into the shower with
> him, or accompanying him to the bathroom at all, O blessed innocence. I
> hope she keeps it for a long time...
Reminds me of a friend's daughter who wanted to come into the bathroom
with me. I gently encouraged her back outside, not because I was worried
about her (she was about 2) but because I was worried about me. I kept
hearing in my mind, "Why can't Tom go?" ;-)
Tom Mailloux
pixel *meow* wrote:
> >Trust me, Teresa, you won't change your mind about Pollock.
> This from the one who suggested I look at some Impressionist stuff before
> I made up my mind that I hated it... :) You are probably right, since
> you were right about Impressionism.
That was based partly on my knowledge of Impressionism, partly on my
knowledge of *you*. My comment about Pollock is based on the same,
actually. ;-)
>
> >I adore Piet Mondrian, btw.
> One of the Smithsonian magazines from the last year or so had an article
> about Mondrian, I need to look it up but it is in a box somewhere. I can
> deal with his stuff, at least! :)
Sounds like fun. If you find the article, drop me a note with the
month/year and I'll see if I can find a copy in the library.
Nuclear Waste
Tom Mailloux wrote in message <357834...@k2nesoft.com>...
>I adore Piet Mondrian, btw. If you follow his developement from
>representational art into pure abstract you will be astonished by how
>logical it all becomes. Also Mondrian is the mathematician's artist.
><grin>
Hell, folks, take a few semesters of art history from your local JC, it is
a real eye opener, and the logical progression throughout is a wonder to
behold. (You still won't like Pollok, but you will understand why he does
it.) I originally took the class because I was forced to pick one like it
for my degree, and the description looked like an easy A to me. Actually
worked harder in it than any other class, period! (I had no background, and
was completely lost.) Then voluntarily took the second for fun, and found
out I could draw...never did become an art major, love math too much, but I
can at least use a pencil and make a decent sketch.
Nuclear Waste
Chris and Elisabeth Zakes
Tom Mailloux <tgm&n...@k2nesoft.com> wrote:
>pixel *meow* wrote:
>
>> I
>> will say that I may change my mind about Pollock if I ever see any of his
>> work, but I am not a fan of abstract, in general. Mondrian is one of the
>> few that I can stand.
>
>Trust me, Teresa, you won't change your mind about Pollock. He is as bad
>up close and personal as on the printed page.
>
>I adore Piet Mondrian, btw. If you follow his developement from
>representational art into pure abstract you will be astonished by how
>logical it all becomes. Also Mondrian is the mathematician's artist.
Gee, I thought that would be M.C. Escher. <G>
-Chris Zakes
Texas
C and E Zakes
Tivar Moondragon (Patience and Persistence)
and Aethelyan of Moondragon (Decadence is its own reward)
moon...@bga.com
pixel *meow*
On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Chris and Elisabeth Zakes wrote:
>Tom Mailloux <tgm&n...@k2nesoft.com> wrote:
>
>>pixel *meow* wrote:
>>
>>> I
>>> will say that I may change my mind about Pollock if I ever see any of his
>>> work, but I am not a fan of abstract, in general. Mondrian is one of the
>>> few that I can stand.
>>
>>Trust me, Teresa, you won't change your mind about Pollock. He is as bad
>>up close and personal as on the printed page.
>>
>>I adore Piet Mondrian, btw. If you follow his developement from
>>representational art into pure abstract you will be astonished by how
>>logical it all becomes. Also Mondrian is the mathematician's artist.
>
>
>Gee, I thought that would be M.C. Escher. <G>
Smarty. 100 lines on the blackboard. Grin.
pixel *meow*
On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Tom Mailloux wrote:
>pixel *meow* wrote:
>
>
>> >Trust me, Teresa, you won't change your mind about Pollock.
>
>> This from the one who suggested I look at some Impressionist stuff before
>> I made up my mind that I hated it... :) You are probably right, since
>> you were right about Impressionism.
>
>That was based partly on my knowledge of Impressionism, partly on my
>knowledge of *you*. My comment about Pollock is based on the same,
>actually. ;-)
Don't I know it. Very well! :)
>> >I adore Piet Mondrian, btw.
>
>> One of the Smithsonian magazines from the last year or so had an article
>> about Mondrian, I need to look it up but it is in a box somewhere. I can
>> deal with his stuff, at least! :)
>
>Sounds like fun. If you find the article, drop me a note with the
>month/year and I'll see if I can find a copy in the library.
I'll look it up, it's here somewhere. I'll let y'all know...
Tom Mailloux
Nuclear Waste wrote:
<snip>
> (You still won't like Pollok, but you will understand why he does
> it.)
<snip again>
I never said I didn't *understand* Pollock. I never saw much point in
looking at his paintings more than once. I can't bring myself to call it
successful art because of that.
Simon Slavin
In article <357834...@k2nesoft.com>,
Tom Mailloux <tgm&n...@k2nesoft.com> wrote:
> pixel *meow* wrote:
>
> > I may change my mind about Pollock if I ever see any of his
> > work, but I am not a fan of abstract, in general. Mondrian is one of the
> > few that I can stand.
>
> Trust me, Teresa, you won't change your mind about Pollock. He is as bad
> up close and personal as on the printed page.
>
> I adore Piet Mondrian, btw. If you follow his developement from
> representational art into pure abstract you will be astonished by how
> logical it all becomes. Also Mondrian is the mathematician's artist.
> <grin>
Escher.
Simon.
--
Simon Slavin | [T-rations] were supposed to serve 8
Check email address for UBE-guard. | soldiers, but since no one would eat
Junktrap deletes >4 UBEs/day unread. | them one tray would do for an infinite
<http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk> | number. -- Dave Wilton
Nuclear Waste
Tom Mailloux wrote in message <357938...@k2nesoft.com>...
>I never said I didn't *understand* Pollock. I never saw much point in
>looking at his paintings more than once. I can't bring myself to call it
>successful art because of that.
In that it fails to speak to the viewer and convey the emotions of the
artist I agree, however it is a commercial success, but if we judge art by $
earned, then wallpaper designers are the best artists
Nuclear Waste
Tom Mailloux
Nuclear Waste wrote:
> but if we judge art by $
> earned, then wallpaper designers are the best artists
Why would we want to judge art by dollars earned? In *that* case, Bill
Gates is the best artist the world has ever seen....
And Vincent Van Gogh, who sold one painting, would be the worst....
I can't quite grasp that concept.
Jay Random
Tom Mailloux wrote:
>
> Nuclear Waste wrote:
>
> > but if we judge art by $
> > earned, then wallpaper designers are the best artists
>
> Why would we want to judge art by dollars earned? In *that* case, Bill
> Gates is the best artist the world has ever seen....
Um.... What has Bill Gates done that _anyone_ would describe as art?
Pablo Picasso was a wealthier artist than Vincent van Gogh, for whatever
that's worth; but John D. Rockefeller was not a wealthier artist than
Picasso. Capisce?
--J. Random Knows A Hawk From A Handsaw, D.G.F.V.
Bill Miller
Tom Mailloux wrote:
> I adore Piet Mondrian, btw. If you follow his developement from
> representational art into pure abstract you will be astonished by how
> logical it all becomes. Also Mondrian is the mathematician's artist.
> <grin>
>
> Tom
> --
> ¬ is spambane.
I'd nominate Escher as the "mathematician's artist." Not that there has to be
just one, I guess. Also Dali's ("Corpus Hypercubus") comes to mind...
Bill
--
==================================================================
"Remember Thor Five!"
Work: william....@jsc.nasa.gov
Play: wbmi...@ghgcorp.com
Homepage: http://www.ghg.net/wbmiller3
Nuclear Waste
Tom Mailloux wrote in message <3579B1...@k2nesoft.com>...
>Nuclear Waste wrote:
>> but if we judge art by $
>> earned, then wallpaper designers are the best artists
>Why would we want to judge art by dollars earned? In *that* case, Bill
>Gates is the best artist the world has ever seen....
>
>And Vincent Van Gogh, who sold one painting, would be the worst....
>
>I can't quite grasp that concept.
Tom, isn't it obvious that what I said was not meant to be taken literally?
Honest to god, I don't really think that wallpaper designers are the best
artists, and I do not equate comercial success with artistic merit. (If I
did, then I would not collect any of the impressionists, I would stick to
the figures put out by the French Academy.)
Nuclear Waste
Nuclear Waste
Tom Mailloux wrote in message <357A17...@k2nesoft.com>...
>Actually, no. I don't. If you have a point there, make it.
I think he was saying that Rockefeller and Gates would not traditionally be
classified as artists. We seem to be alternating in taking the other posts
to seriously. Oh, well, at least it leads to fun counterposts.
Nuclear Waste
Tom Mailloux
Bill Miller wrote:
> I'd nominate Escher as the "mathematician's artist." Not that there has to be
> just one, I guess. Also Dali's ("Corpus Hypercubus") comes to mind...
We've cover the Escher thing already, so I won't repeat it.
And I'd think Dali would come to it from the opposite of mathematics....
Tom Mailloux
Jay Random wrote:
> Um.... What has Bill Gates done that _anyone_ would describe as art?
If you don't think making billions out of DOS isn't art you need to
rethink the concept. ;-)
> Pablo Picasso was a wealthier artist than Vincent van Gogh, for whatever
> that's worth; but John D. Rockefeller was not a wealthier artist than
> Picasso. Capisce?
Actually, no. I don't. If you have a point there, make it.
Ward Donald Griffiths III
Chris and Elisabeth Zakes wrote:
>
> >> work, but I am not a fan of abstract, in general. Mondrian is one of the
> >> few that I can stand.
> >
> >Trust me, Teresa, you won't change your mind about Pollock. He is as bad
> >up close and personal as on the printed page.
> >
> >representational art into pure abstract you will be astonished by how
> >logical it all becomes. Also Mondrian is the mathematician's artist.
>
Mondrian is the mathematician's artist when in the throes of creation.
Escher is the mathematician's artist when in the throes of recreation.
--
Ward Griffiths
They say that politics makes strange bedfellows.
Of course, the main reason they cuddle up is to screw somebody else.
Michael Flynn, _Rogue Star_
Ward Donald Griffiths III
LaffnBear wrote:
>
> >Then again, I may have
> >picked up my fetish for competent women from growing up with RAH's
> >fiction starting about age eight in 1963. (I still love both RAH's
> >fiction _and_ competent women --
>
> Hah! I thought maybe it was only me. Nice to know that I'm not the only one
> with a competent women fetish. And I'm pretty sure that I picked it up from
> Heinlien too.
> Large amount of my reading nowdays is taken up by series involving strong
> female characters, and I always felt that my early Heinlein days proably
> started it . Characters like:
> Honor Harrington
I'll have to read some Weber one of these days.
> Anita Blake
Halfway through _Burnt Offerings_ as I type.
> Cordelia Naismith from the Miles Vorkosigan series
A definitely great character.
> Martha Washington
Who?
> Hell, even Red Shetland ( don't worry if you've never herd of her.)
Well, at least tell me the author.
>
> For visual media, you can't beat Riply from Aliens, or Xena.
> Kicken butt and takin' names!
Ripley improved after the first movie, but I'll never get over my first
impression of "YOU STUPID TWIT" in "Alien".
> The only down-side that I've noticed is I have a real problem dealing with
> women who were brought up to go with the "Helpless Female" attitude. I don't
> blame them, so much as I do their up-bringers ( Is that even a word?) but it
I don't blame them, then again I've never been interested in a relationship
with one that would last longer than dinner and a movie and expending a
Trojan. The women I marry the and the others I love are not helpless.
> still irks me when I see otherwise smart women going with this game. Makes me
> want to make Heinlein required reading for school. At gunpoint if necessary.
> < Joke. I don't really want to do that. >
Especially if the kids learned Heinlein properly, they might shoot back.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Oh my God! Verhoeven killed 'Starship Troopers!'
> Y O U B A S TA R D!
That's something I should have thought of -- I've really got to re-integrate
the parts of my brain that enjoy science fiction with those that like stuff
on Comedy Central.
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <3579BC18...@ghgcorp.com>,
Bill Miller <wbmi...@ghgcorp.com> wrote:
>
> I'd nominate Escher as the "mathematician's artist." Not that there has to be
>just one, I guess. Also Dali's ("Corpus Hypercubus") comes to mind...
>
Ernst. It's mostly art built around the three-pronged portzebie (sp?),
the infinitely ascending staircase, and other impossible objects. There's
been a lot by artists other than Escher.
--
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
May '98 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Bert Clanton
In article <6leu77$7...@universe.digex.net>, nan...@universe.digex.net
(Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
Potrzebie.
Best wishes,
Bert
--
"O Lord, protect me from those to whom you speak directly"--Unknown
"Our Goddess is not like the gods of men.
She doesn't compel you to worship her.
She only invites you to the dance.
Should you choose not to come,
Your only punishment is your absence."
Diana Rivers
Chris and Elisabeth Zakes
pixel *meow* <s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Chris and Elisabeth Zakes wrote:
>
>>Tom Mailloux <tgm&n...@k2nesoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>>pixel *meow* wrote:
>>>
>>>> I
>>>> will say that I may change my mind about Pollock if I ever see any of his
>>>> work, but I am not a fan of abstract, in general. Mondrian is one of the
>>>> few that I can stand.
>>>
>>>Trust me, Teresa, you won't change your mind about Pollock. He is as bad
>>>up close and personal as on the printed page.
>>>
>>>I adore Piet Mondrian, btw. If you follow his developement from
>>>representational art into pure abstract you will be astonished by how
>>>logical it all becomes. Also Mondrian is the mathematician's artist.
>>
>>
>>Gee, I thought that would be M.C. Escher. <G>
>
>Smarty. 100 lines on the blackboard. Grin.
Does it matter which direction they go?
Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP
>pixel *meow* <s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Chris and Elisabeth Zakes wrote:
>>
>>>Tom Mailloux <tgm&n...@k2nesoft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>pixel *meow* wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I
>>>>> will say that I may change my mind about Pollock if I ever see any of his
>>>>> work, but I am not a fan of abstract, in general. Mondrian is one of the
>>>>> few that I can stand.
>>>>
>>>>Trust me, Teresa, you won't change your mind about Pollock. He is as bad
>>>>up close and personal as on the printed page.
>>>>
>>>>I adore Piet Mondrian, btw. If you follow his developement from
>>>>representational art into pure abstract you will be astonished by how
>>>>logical it all becomes. Also Mondrian is the mathematician's artist.
>>>
>>>
>>>Gee, I thought that would be M.C. Escher. <G>
>>
>>Smarty. 100 lines on the blackboard. Grin.
>
>Does it matter which direction they go?
>
> -Chris Zakes
They must be all at right angles to each other, but never meet....
ck
--
Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP
Member, PGBFH
KC5EVN
Email address dump file for spam
reply to ckrin at Iamerica dot net
F*S=k (Freedom times Security equals a constant: the more
security you have, the less freedom!)(Stolen from
Alt.Fan.Heinlein)
pixel *meow*
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Chris and Elisabeth Zakes wrote:
>pixel *meow* <s2tl...@titan.vcu.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 6 Jun 1998, Chris and Elisabeth Zakes wrote:
>>
>>>Tom Mailloux <tgm&n...@k2nesoft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>pixel *meow* wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I
>>>>> will say that I may change my mind about Pollock if I ever see any of his
>>>>> work, but I am not a fan of abstract, in general. Mondrian is one of the
>>>>> few that I can stand.
>>>>
>>>>Trust me, Teresa, you won't change your mind about Pollock. He is as bad
>>>>up close and personal as on the printed page.
>>>>
>>>>I adore Piet Mondrian, btw. If you follow his developement from
>>>>representational art into pure abstract you will be astonished by how
>>>>logical it all becomes. Also Mondrian is the mathematician's artist.
>>>
>>>
>>>Gee, I thought that would be M.C. Escher. <G>
>>
>>Smarty. 100 lines on the blackboard. Grin.
>
>Does it matter which direction they go?
Another smarty!!! They can go whatever direction you would like. As long
as they stay on the board! :)
pixel *meow*
On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Nuclear Waste wrote:
>
>Tom Mailloux wrote in message <357834...@k2nesoft.com>...
>
>>I adore Piet Mondrian, btw. If you follow his developement from
>>representational art into pure abstract you will be astonished by how
>>logical it all becomes. Also Mondrian is the mathematician's artist.
>><grin>
>
>
>Hell, folks, take a few semesters of art history from your local JC, it is
>a real eye opener, and the logical progression throughout is a wonder to
>behold. (You still won't like Pollok, but you will understand why he does
>it.)
That's the truth!
>I originally took the class because I was forced to pick one like it
>for my degree, and the description looked like an easy A to me. Actually
>worked harder in it than any other class, period! (I had no background, and
>was completely lost.)
I took the class because I had to take six credits from either the ethics
group, or the (participatory or non-participatory) arts group. I didn't
assume an easy A, but I found that I was interested, genuinely, in the
content of the course. I had no background either, but it was very easy
for me to pick up on what discussed in class. Starting with the most
ancient art there has been found, and opening my eyes to difference of
opinion that can never be settled (what were those cave paintings about,
anyway? We will never know, and our best guess is based on our
perspective, not theirs.), I found it to be a wonderful experience.
>Then voluntarily took the second for fun, and found
>out I could draw...never did become an art major, love math too much, but I
>can at least use a pencil and make a decent sketch.
I too took the second semester for fun, as well as adding the necessary
credits to fill the requirement. Lots of fun, until the last week and a
half or so, and no I can't draw worth a damn. But at least that was not
a prerequisite!!! :)
Tom Mailloux
pixel *meow* wrote:
<massive snip>
> >Does it matter which direction they go?
>
> Another smarty!!! They can go whatever direction you would like. As long
> as they stay on the board! :)
*shouting* LINE OVERBOARD!