Blood and Shadows fans
HECKETHORN, HOWARD SHANE
I would make a few remarks regarding the series and Joe Lansdale.
1) Even though the price is high, Blood and Shadows is worth every penny. If
you didn't pick it up because of the price, go back and buy it. If you don't
like it, you need not pick up the other issues. But I believe almost everyone,
once having read #1, won't want to stop.
2) If you are interested in picking up Joe's novels, as someone mentioned, try
these: Nightrunners (also featuring the God of the Razor) and Cold in July.
Both are excellent (you might also try Batman: Captured by the Engines). I have
Mucho Mojo and Two-Bear Mambo waiting on my shelf...
3) If anyone is interested, Joe will be making an appearance at this year's
AggieCon at Texas A&M University. The dates are March 21-24, 1996. Joe has
been there every year which I've attended and he is always an excellent guest.
If you want more information on the con, email me and I'll get it to you.
Thanks for listening.
Shane
Sixmonkey
>It seems there is alot of discussion about Blood and Shadows here
The discussion seems to fly around the cover price and not the story
itself.
Not knowing the author (please forgive my ignorance) I don't plan on
buying this just 'cause it's recommended. I could use a little bit of
back up argument.
Anyone want to provide the group with a review or something ?
Thanks
Rob
Timothy Toner
Okay, review time (*Spoilers Ho!*)
The story reads a bit like Raymond Chandler filtered through H.P. Lovecraft,
with a touch of postmodernistic revisionism that seems to be Lansdale's
stock in trade. What all the above means is that it starts as a standard
detective narrative -- a good egg who'd be making a lot more if he wasn't so
sappy as to believe in truth and justice -- but takes a nasty twist into some
fairly occultic corners.
THe postmodern touches is where Lansdale triumphs. We all KNOW the detective
narrative. It's a nice horse, and we love to beat it. What makes the story
atypical (aside from the occult twist) is that the story takes place not
in Los Angeles but rather some Southwestern burg. Stuff like alien gods
aren't supposed to come to roost in such places, and here they do. There's
a serial killer, and all fingers point to the brother of the detective's
girl, who has become strangely obsessed with a cthonic entity called the
God of the Razor, who reappears throughout history. The girlfriend asks
the detective to find her now missing brother. He agrees, and becomes absorbed
into the shadow world the killer has created, where nothing is as it seems.
Every cliche seems turned on its head, and while we've seen this killer's
crimes in a thousand different froms (Texas Chainsaw Masacre, Silence of
the Lambs), there's something so wholesome about the setting that it makes
my flesh crawl.
Now what makes this story extremely appealing is the narrative tone taken
by Lansdale in his work. People swear, but they don't swear just to avoid
saying something. When people say, "Fuck," we can imagine it's part of
their natural speech pattern. His characters are flawed with the spirit of
their age. It's not the sanitized, wholesome fifties of the Cleavers. THe
hero at one point exhibits racism, and I didn't cringe because it was
so honest, and because he genuinely repented his actions. Even more important,
Lansdale, already a neorevisionist of the West (particularly Blacks and
their contribution) will in future issues take us back in time to when the
Razor walked the land. Frankly, I'm here to stay, regardless of the price.
--
Timothy Toner ------ School Librarian ------ thanatos @interaccess.com
Meme.
Cian O'Connor
overpriced.
: THe postmodern touches is where Lansdale triumphs. We all KNOW the detective
: narrative. It's a nice horse, and we love to beat it. What makes the story
: atypical (aside from the occult twist) is that the story takes place not
: in Los Angeles but rather some Southwestern burg. Stuff like alien gods
: aren't supposed to come to roost in such places, and here they do. There's
: a serial killer, and all fingers point to the brother of the detective's
: girl, who has become strangely obsessed with a cthonic entity called the
: God of the Razor, who reappears throughout history. The girlfriend asks
: the detective to find her now missing brother. He agrees, and becomes absorbed
: into the shadow world the killer has created, where nothing is as it seems.
: Every cliche seems turned on its head, and while we've seen this killer's
: crimes in a thousand different froms (Texas Chainsaw Masacre, Silence of
: the Lambs), there's something so wholesome about the setting that it makes
: my flesh crawl.
I have to differ. First of all I've seen loads of films and read a few
horror novels which use a similar setting. The idea of the horrific
taking place in the 'burgs is now so familar as to be cliche. I don't
know what cliches you are talking about being overturned, but the
entire narrative was riddled with cliche.
Maybe I'm just jaded but I didn't think it was in the slightest bit
horrific.
I wish people would actually read some post-modern theory before throwing
the word around to describe anything that isn't straight narrative. I've
read medieval texts that would qualify as post-modern if one took your
meaning of it.
: Now what makes this story extremely appealing is the narrative tone taken
: by Lansdale in his work. People swear, but they don't swear just to avoid
: saying something. When people say, "Fuck," we can imagine it's part of
: their natural speech pattern. His characters are flawed with the spirit of
: their age. It's not the sanitized, wholesome fifties of the Cleavers. THe
: hero at one point exhibits racism, and I didn't cringe because it was
: so honest, and because he genuinely repented his actions. Even more important,
: Lansdale, already a neorevisionist of the West (particularly Blacks and
: their contribution) will in future issues take us back in time to when the
: Razor walked the land. Frankly, I'm here to stay, regardless of the price.
Again its nothing new. The portrayal is as much fiction as the Cleavers
version (and as common). The racism (and repentence) was so clumsily
well meaning that I flinched.
I think you'll find that Joe Lansdale wasn't the first person to point
out that there were Blacks in the west. Sorry.
Tim Hewitt
der...@cs.athabascau.ca (Derrick Rowlandson) wrote:
>
>I'd be curious to hear what others thought of Lansdale's Dead in The
West.
>
>The first issue was great, but the second was just a Zombie fest, very
>run of the mill. Left me rather disappointed.
I don't have strong recollections of the comic version of _Dead in the
West_ (even though I read it). The conclusion is a sort of Zombie fest.
I'd recommend tracking down a copy of the novel and reading that. In
general, I've pretty much given up on comics adaptations of novels
because they're almost without exception a pale shadow of the source
material.
>That experience makes me leery of buying any Joe Lansdale comic, tho his
>Jonah Hex was great stuff.
Lansdale is a top-notch writer and I'd recommend giving anything with his
by-line a try. He doesn't always succeed in all areas, but he's always
interesting. I get comics from Westfield, so I'm still waiting to see the
first issue of _Blood and Shadows_.
Derrick Rowlandson
I'd be curious to hear what others thought of Lansdale's Dead in The West.
The first issue was great, but the second was just a Zombie fest, very
run of the mill. Left me rather disappointed.
That experience makes me leery of buying any Joe Lansdale comic, tho his
Jonah Hex was great stuff.
Derrick
Timothy Toner
Cian O'Connor <cp...@thor.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Unless you're a fan, don't buy this book, its very average and ludicrously
>overpriced.
Your opinion. I did not agree with the price wholly, but felt it worth
my time.
>
>: THe postmodern touches is where Lansdale triumphs. We all KNOW the detective
>: narrative. It's a nice horse, and we love to beat it. What makes the story
>: atypical (aside from the occult twist) is that the story takes place not
>: in Los Angeles but rather some Southwestern burg. Stuff like alien gods
>: aren't supposed to come to roost in such places, and here they do. There's
>: a serial killer, and all fingers point to the brother of the detective's
>: girl, who has become strangely obsessed with a cthonic entity called the
>: God of the Razor, who reappears throughout history. The girlfriend asks
>: the detective to find her now missing brother. He agrees, and becomes absorbed
>: into the shadow world the killer has created, where nothing is as it seems.
>: Every cliche seems turned on its head, and while we've seen this killer's
>: crimes in a thousand different froms (Texas Chainsaw Masacre, Silence of
>: the Lambs), there's something so wholesome about the setting that it makes
>: my flesh crawl.
>
>I have to differ. First of all I've seen loads of films and read a few
>horror novels which use a similar setting. The idea of the horrific
>taking place in the 'burgs is now so familar as to be cliche. I don't
>know what cliches you are talking about being overturned, but the
>entire narrative was riddled with cliche.
>Maybe I'm just jaded but I didn't think it was in the slightest bit
>horrific.
Yeah, you are jaded. 8^p. I wasn't taking about the 'burbs, but in the
small towns of middle America. Lansdale certainly isn't the first --
indeed Hawthorne and Poe, and to a greater extent, Lovecraft, played up
on the "quiet town with the dark secret" theme. However, America's a
pretty big place. That works well in the East because there's deep
history there. When something profoundly evil emerges, it more than
likely was planted by the White man's first passing (Hawthorne, Poe, and
Lovecraft would agree, btw.) The West was too new, too full of hope and
promise. And now perhaps these kinds of stories can be told.
>
>I wish people would actually read some post-modern theory before throwing
>the word around to describe anything that isn't straight narrative. I've
>read medieval texts that would qualify as post-modern if one took your
>meaning of it.
Post modern theory? Hm. Do Derrida, Beudriard, Eco, and Kristeva count?
Don't jump to conclusions. If you would prefer, I will revise my
statement to agree with Herbert Kohl's:
"Post-modern culture is eclectic: it picks and chooses from the creative
expressiosn of the world's peoples, though it is still based mainly upon
European and American culture. It is sensitive to the biases of
Eurocentricism and considers them ironically and without excessive
posturing and boasting that was common during periods of European
colonial expansion. It is possible to look at postmodernism as an
attempt by some European and American critics and artists, followed by
the Media, to question the primaacy of European canons and reposition
Europe and the US in a more modest and egalitarian world context. It
mocks linearity, rationality, and the idea that technology produces
progress."
Here Lansdale is combining two wonderfully American genres, the 1950s
hardboiled detective with the 1930's cowboy drama. He's bothering to get
his facts straight, so that gives his points in the "questioning the
primacy of the canon" department. His playing with the standard cliches
indicates the all important "ironic" tone. So if it looks like a duck,
quacks like a duck, it must be postmodern.
>
>: Now what makes this story extremely appealing is the narrative tone taken
>: by Lansdale in his work. People swear, but they don't swear just to avoid
>: saying something. When people say, "Fuck," we can imagine it's part of
>: their natural speech pattern. His characters are flawed with the spirit of
>: their age. It's not the sanitized, wholesome fifties of the Cleavers. THe
>: hero at one point exhibits racism, and I didn't cringe because it was
>: so honest, and because he genuinely repented his actions. Even more important,
>: Lansdale, already a neorevisionist of the West (particularly Blacks and
>: their contribution) will in future issues take us back in time to when the
>: Razor walked the land. Frankly, I'm here to stay, regardless of the price.
>
>Again its nothing new. The portrayal is as much fiction as the Cleavers
>version (and as common). The racism (and repentence) was so clumsily
>well meaning that I flinched.
I don't understand what you mean by, "Common." There have been a few
television shows that dealt with the forgotten racism of the '50s, such
as "I'll Fly Away," but how does that compare to the sheer weight of all
the shows of the 1950's that portrayed America as white, middle-classed
utopia? Lansdale will never win any subtlety awards, but neither did
Wagner when he followed a similar thread in Sandman Mystery Theatre.
>I think you'll find that Joe Lansdale wasn't the first person to point
>out that there were Blacks in the west. Sorry.
Actually, the first serious handling of the role of Blacks in the West
was John Ford's Sergeant Rutledge, an altogether excellent film. I found
myself comparing many of the themes explored in The Searchers and what it
said about racism in the 50's to Blood and Shadows, and what it says
about racism today. In the 50's, racism existed, and you couldn't talk
about it. Now racism still exists, and you can feel a sense of shame for
your unthinking willingness to let it continue. Lansdale wasn't the
first to give Blacks their due, but I believe he is one of the first in
this Medium and genre, and his attempts have always been superbly
entertaining without being overly heavy-handed.
Rick Klaw
HECKETHORN, HOWARD SHANE <hsh...@vms2.tamu.edu> wrote:
>
>1) Even though the price is high, Blood and Shadows is worth every penny. If
>you didn't pick it up because of the price, go back and buy it. If you don't
>like it, you need not pick up the other issues. But I believe almost everyone,
>once having read #1, won't want to stop.
>
I hate to contradict you here (esp how much I love Joe and his writing),
but $5.95 is *WAY TOO HIGH*. I think B&S is wonderful and is a great
piece of work but I'm not sure if I would have bought it. (Joe gave me
one.) Nothing is worth that much for 48 pages...
>2) If you are interested in picking up Joe's novels, as someone mentioned, try
>these: Nightrunners (also featuring the God of the Razor) and Cold in July.
>Both are excellent (you might also try Batman: Captured by the Engines). I have
>Mucho Mojo and Two-Bear Mambo waiting on my shelf...
>
Actually anything written by Lansdale is worth it. Just remember that
his comics are good but his prose writing is fantastic. Joe is one of
the best writers in the country. Period.
>3) If anyone is interested, Joe will be making an appearance at this year's
>AggieCon at Texas A&M University. The dates are March 21-24, 1996. Joe has
>been there every year which I've attended and he is always an excellent guest.
>If you want more information on the con, email me and I'll get it to you.
>
Hey! I'll be there, too. As a matter of fact Joe, Nancy Collins, and I
will be signing at the Hastings in College Station on Friday, March 22
from 4-6PM. E-mail Betty Drummond at ajd...@acs.tamu.edu for more details.
rick klaw
managing editor, MOJO Press
Rick Klaw
You've got to remember that the DEAD IN THE WEST comic is an adaptation
of the vastly superior novel. The novel is very funny and is intended
as an homage to Robert E. Howard and WEIRD TALES. I would reccomend you
try some of Lansdale's novels and not judge him on the adaptations.
Robin Ogilvie (UG4)
> It seems there is alot of discussion about Blood and Shadows here, so I figured
> I would make a few remarks regarding the series and Joe Lansdale.
> 1) Even though the price is high, Blood and Shadows is worth every penny. If
> you didn't pick it up because of the price, go back and buy it. If you don't
> like it, you need not pick up the other issues. But I believe almost everyone,
> once having read #1, won't want to stop.
> 2) If you are interested in picking up Joe's novels, as someone mentioned, try
> these: Nightrunners (also featuring the God of the Razor) and Cold in July.
> Both are excellent (you might also try Batman: Captured by the Engines). I have
> Mucho Mojo and Two-Bear Mambo waiting on my shelf...
> 3) If anyone is interested, Joe will be making an appearance at this year's
> AggieCon at Texas A&M University. The dates are March 21-24, 1996. Joe has
> been there every year which I've attended and he is always an excellent guest.
> If you want more information on the con, email me and I'll get it to you.
> Thanks for listening.
> Shane
Hi
I know this is a little off - topic, but Lansdale's other two books I've
read are The Drive In and The Drive In II, both trash-horror classics!
He's written some of the best B-movie/gore stuff ever. The dark humor
and unputdownableness make these books must reads!
God bless
Gabs
Shane Furlong
: In article <4g8hq4$d...@rover.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
: der...@cs.athabascau.ca (Derrick Rowlandson) wrote:
: >
: >That experience makes me leery of buying any Joe Lansdale comic, tho his
: >Jonah Hex was great stuff.
: Lansdale is a top-notch writer and I'd recommend giving anything with his
: by-line a try. He doesn't always succeed in all areas, but he's always
: interesting. I get comics from Westfield, so I'm still waiting to see the
: first issue of _Blood and Shadows_.
Gee Blood & Shadows was good. Scary, gory,twisted, and funny all at once. I
loved it. I've already complained here about the cost but boy it was good.
Shane
Cian O'Connor
: >I have to differ. First of all I've seen loads of films and read a few
I'm sorry but the quote and your argument seem to be a little out of step.
First of all the canon is a group of works of literature that, rightly or
wrongly, most critics believe to be the greatest things to have been
written. What this has to do with Joe Lansdale getting his facts right
(which is arguable anyway) I am not quite sure. Playing with the standard
cliches does not (as you seem to imagine) indicate an "ironic" tone, one
may do so ironically (which I see no evidence of in Blood and Shadows),
or one may choose merely to revitalise a tired cliched genre (as was done
by Mervyn Peake to the gothic form). Evidence of quacking would seem to
be singularily lacking.
A post-modern text may play with establish members of the cannon (like
Neil Gaiman's play about a Midsummer Night's Dream) and this as far as
I've ever been able to ascertain is all that distinguishes it from any
other form of literary pigeon holing. Note THE CANNON. If Shakespeare
was not a member of the cannon then Gaiman's story would not be
post-modern. As for evidence of literature or art which is less
euro-centric, well the only people producing such work would seem to
members of minority groups of whom you would expect that anyway.
European art has always been open to other cultures to a greater or
lesser extent depending on communicaation between them and our
dominance. When we were being invaded by the Arabs we absorbed a lot
of their ideas/art. When we invaded half the world the opposite
happened. All that has happened is that we are in slight decline and
Far East countries are on the ascendant. Big Fucking deal. But anyway
none of this would seem to apply to the American West as that's as
Euro-centric as anything else.
: >
: >: Now what makes this story extremely appealing is the narrative tone taken
: >: by Lansdale in his work. People swear, but they don't swear just to avoid
: >: saying something. When people say, "Fuck," we can imagine it's part of
: >: their natural speech pattern. His characters are flawed with the spirit of
: >: their age. It's not the sanitized, wholesome fifties of the Cleavers. THe
: >: hero at one point exhibits racism, and I didn't cringe because it was
: >: so honest, and because he genuinely repented his actions. Even more important,
: >: Lansdale, already a neorevisionist of the West (particularly Blacks and
: >: their contribution) will in future issues take us back in time to when the
: >: Razor walked the land. Frankly, I'm here to stay, regardless of the price.
: >
: >Again its nothing new. The portrayal is as much fiction as the Cleavers
: >version (and as common). The racism (and repentence) was so clumsily
: >well meaning that I flinched.
: I don't understand what you mean by, "Common." There have been a few
: television shows that dealt with the forgotten racism of the '50s, such
: as "I'll Fly Away," but how does that compare to the sheer weight of all
: the shows of the 1950's that portrayed America as white, middle-classed
: utopia? Lansdale will never win any subtlety awards, but neither did
: Wagner when he followed a similar thread in Sandman Mystery Theatre.
I was talking about books, films and even the odd comic book. Its nothing
new. I've read about, I've seen it (and I'm not including "I'll Fly Away"
which was crap). Sure it was presented differently in the 50s, so what?
Lansdale is writing in the 90s. Its easy to write about injustices and
hypocrasy of yesteryear. Oh and I have never ever been impressed by
Sandman Mystery Theatre either, I think that's pretty bad too.
: >I think you'll find that Joe Lansdale wasn't the first person to point
: >out that there were Blacks in the west. Sorry.
: Actually, the first serious handling of the role of Blacks in the West
: was John Ford's Sergeant Rutledge, an altogether excellent film. I found
: myself comparing many of the themes explored in The Searchers and what it
: said about racism in the 50's to Blood and Shadows, and what it says
: about racism today. In the 50's, racism existed, and you couldn't talk
: about it. Now racism still exists, and you can feel a sense of shame for
: your unthinking willingness to let it continue. Lansdale wasn't the
: first to give Blacks their due, but I believe he is one of the first in
: this Medium and genre, and his attempts have always been superbly
: entertaining without being overly heavy-handed.
What did Blood and Shadows say about racism today? It was set in the
fifties. There is no courage or particular merit in re-exposing something
that has happened and isn't denied. If he was writing about it today (and
the more subtle form it often takes) then I would be more impressed, as it
is... Oh and I have experienced racism, both subtle and heavy handed (not
as badly as blacks in much of America admittedly, but nasty enough) and I
have never appreciated clumsy attempts at portraying it. It cheapens my
experience and achieves nothing.
Anyway if anyone read all of this, don't buy Blood and Shadows, buy the
Horrorist instead (if you can still get it).
Cian
Timothy Toner
>First of all the canon is a group of works of literature that, rightly or
>wrongly, most critics believe to be the greatest things to have been
>written. What this has to do with Joe Lansdale getting his facts right
>(which is arguable anyway) I am not quite sure. Playing with the standard
>cliches does not (as you seem to imagine) indicate an "ironic" tone, one
>may do so ironically (which I see no evidence of in Blood and Shadows),
>or one may choose merely to revitalise a tired cliched genre (as was done
>by Mervyn Peake to the gothic form). Evidence of quacking would seem to
>be singularily lacking.
A difference of opinion. If Lansdale sets up a straw man of predictable
plot elements and characters, and manages to punch holes thorougly through
them, then he and the readers are sharing an experience lost to the
characters. Ergo, an ironic tone.
>
>A post-modern text may play with establish members of the cannon (like
>Neil Gaiman's play about a Midsummer Night's Dream) and this as far as
>I've ever been able to ascertain is all that distinguishes it from any
>other form of literary pigeon holing. Note THE CANNON. If Shakespeare
>was not a member of the cannon then Gaiman's story would not be
>post-modern. As for evidence of literature or art which is less
>euro-centric, well the only people producing such work would seem to
>members of minority groups of whom you would expect that anyway.
>European art has always been open to other cultures to a greater or
>lesser extent depending on communicaation between them and our
>dominance. When we were being invaded by the Arabs we absorbed a lot
>of their ideas/art. When we invaded half the world the opposite
>happened. All that has happened is that we are in slight decline and
>Far East countries are on the ascendant. Big Fucking deal. But anyway
>none of this would seem to apply to the American West as that's as
>Euro-centric as anything else.
a) it's canon. Don't ask what my literary credentials are, and then
misspell a central part of your argument.
b) Delving into the history of deconstruction and postmodern theory,
it's pretty apparent that it was created to expand the canon to
include more than the same ol' white bread authors, to to take these
authors in blasphemous directions. Now even that's become droll.
Modern authors have set up shop in various genres, attacking the
canon of those genres, and reinventing them, even if the genres are
utter crap. I don't think you can get much more American canon than
the Western and the Hard Boiled detective narrative.
>: I don't understand what you mean by, "Common." There have been a few
>: television shows that dealt with the forgotten racism of the '50s, such
>: as "I'll Fly Away," but how does that compare to the sheer weight of all
>: the shows of the 1950's that portrayed America as white, middle-classed
>: utopia? Lansdale will never win any subtlety awards, but neither did
>: Wagner when he followed a similar thread in Sandman Mystery Theatre.
>
>I was talking about books, films and even the odd comic book. Its nothing
>new. I've read about, I've seen it (and I'm not including "I'll Fly Away"
>which was crap). Sure it was presented differently in the 50s, so what?
>Lansdale is writing in the 90s. Its easy to write about injustices and
>hypocrasy of yesteryear. Oh and I have never ever been impressed by
>Sandman Mystery Theatre either, I think that's pretty bad too.
You seem to have missed the point that I made below. It's not uncommon
for writers to seek out parallels in the past to make the present seem
more comprehensible. Witness The Crucible and McCarthyism, several of
the History plays and the state of the ELizabethan monarchy, and Hugo's
Les Miserables, and the dissatisfaction with the post-imperialistic French
Republic. THe truth is, horror elements aside, Blood And Shadows simply
would not have been made in the 1950s. Supposedly we have distance, so
we can talk about racism. But Lansdale's not talking about 1950s racism,
he's talking about 1990's racism, with the fear of the African American
male's empowerment (c'mon, dating a white woman? Lansdale practically
telegraphed that one).
>What did Blood and Shadows say about racism today? It was set in the
>fifties. There is no courage or particular merit in re-exposing something
>that has happened and isn't denied. If he was writing about it today (and
>the more subtle form it often takes) then I would be more impressed, as it
>is... Oh and I have experienced racism, both subtle and heavy handed (not
>as badly as blacks in much of America admittedly, but nasty enough) and I
>have never appreciated clumsy attempts at portraying it. It cheapens my
>experience and achieves nothing.
See above for how B&S handles racism today. The deconstructionists are
wrong. No writer creates in a vaccuum. LAnsdale is a child of the age,
and that's how the story comes out. It may be set in 1950, but it's a
decidedly 90s sort of take.
>
>Anyway if anyone read all of this, don't buy Blood and Shadows, buy the
>Horrorist instead (if you can still get it).
Well, I was with you all this time, willing to say that we must agree to
disagree. However, then you go and recommend that lump of utter
horseshit masquerading as a John COnstantine story. Utter waste of
Llyod's talent (and me just coming off a complete run of The Wasteland...
ouch), and an incredibly forgettable story. If I wasn't so pissed off
by how much I wasted, I would have forgotten it by now.
>
>Cian
Cian O'Connor
: In article <4gin50$9...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
: Cian O'Connor <cp...@thor.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
: >I'm sorry but the quote and your argument seem to be a little out of step.
: >First of all the canon is a group of works of literature that, rightly or
: >wrongly, most critics believe to be the greatest things to have been
: >written. What this has to do with Joe Lansdale getting his facts right
: >(which is arguable anyway) I am not quite sure. Playing with the standard
: >cliches does not (as you seem to imagine) indicate an "ironic" tone, one
: >may do so ironically (which I see no evidence of in Blood and Shadows),
: >or one may choose merely to revitalise a tired cliched genre (as was done
: >by Mervyn Peake to the gothic form). Evidence of quacking would seem to
: >be singularily lacking.
: A difference of opinion. If Lansdale sets up a straw man of predictable
: plot elements and characters, and manages to punch holes thorougly through
: them, then he and the readers are sharing an experience lost to the
: characters. Ergo, an ironic tone.
It can be an ironic tone, but it doesn't have to be. The experience shared
by him and the readers could be knowledge of impending doom which in that
case wouldn't be ironic. I think a certain duplicity of tone is required
which did seem to be lacking. BTW if you wish to see a masterpiece of
this form of ironic writing then read The Merchant's tale by Chaucer.
I didn't spot any ironies in Lansdale's use of this technique, but this
may be because the plot device of setting up a traditional detective story
and then playing with the reader's expectation is somewhat hacknied now.
: >
: >A post-modern text may play with establish members of the cannon (like
: >Neil Gaiman's play about a Midsummer Night's Dream) and this as far as
: >I've ever been able to ascertain is all that distinguishes it from any
: >other form of literary pigeon holing. Note THE CANNON. If Shakespeare
: >was not a member of the cannon then Gaiman's story would not be
: >post-modern. As for evidence of literature or art which is less
: >euro-centric, well the only people producing such work would seem to
: >members of minority groups of whom you would expect that anyway.
: >European art has always been open to other cultures to a greater or
: >lesser extent depending on communicaation between them and our
: >dominance. When we were being invaded by the Arabs we absorbed a lot
: >of their ideas/art. When we invaded half the world the opposite
: >happened. All that has happened is that we are in slight decline and
: >Far East countries are on the ascendant. Big Fucking deal. But anyway
: >none of this would seem to apply to the American West as that's as
: >Euro-centric as anything else.
: a) it's canon. Don't ask what my literary credentials are, and then
: misspell a central part of your argument.
How embarressing. Either a) my fingers type faster than my brain can
think (a common problem on USENET), or b) it was my dyslexia rearing
its disfigured head.
: b) Delving into the history of deconstruction and postmodern theory,
: it's pretty apparent that it was created to expand the canon to
: include more than the same ol' white bread authors, to to take these
: authors in blasphemous directions. Now even that's become droll.
: Modern authors have set up shop in various genres, attacking the
: canon of those genres, and reinventing them, even if the genres are
: utter crap. I don't think you can get much more American canon than
: the Western and the Hard Boiled detective narrative.
I think you're alone on this one. Mind you postmodern theory's pretty
dead in the ground these days in Europe which can only mean one thing.
Those wacky French intellectuals have a new monstrous idea for Europe
to play with for a few months, grow bored of and then pass it over to
the Americans who will take it way too seriously.
The thing about the canon (see) is that it is (or was) a sacred cow. You
weren't supposed to attack it, it was something to which we should aspire.
The thing about the Western and the Hard Boiled detective narrative is
that nobody much could give a fuck in academia, and as for common joe -
if he doesn't like it he won't buy it. Simple as that. There's nothing
new about reinventing tired genres and if people want to tag that as
post-modern then they're being somewhat silly (something I can currently
empathise with).
: >: I don't understand what you mean by, "Common." There have been a few
: >: television shows that dealt with the forgotten racism of the '50s, such
: >: as "I'll Fly Away," but how does that compare to the sheer weight of all
: >: the shows of the 1950's that portrayed America as white, middle-classed
: >: utopia? Lansdale will never win any subtlety awards, but neither did
: >: Wagner when he followed a similar thread in Sandman Mystery Theatre.
: >
: >I was talking about books, films and even the odd comic book. Its nothing
: >new. I've read about, I've seen it (and I'm not including "I'll Fly Away"
: >which was crap). Sure it was presented differently in the 50s, so what?
: >Lansdale is writing in the 90s. Its easy to write about injustices and
: >hypocrasy of yesteryear. Oh and I have never ever been impressed by
: >Sandman Mystery Theatre either, I think that's pretty bad too.
: You seem to have missed the point that I made below. It's not uncommon
: for writers to seek out parallels in the past to make the present seem
: more comprehensible. Witness The Crucible and McCarthyism, several of
: the History plays and the state of the ELizabethan monarchy, and Hugo's
: Les Miserables, and the dissatisfaction with the post-imperialistic French
: Republic. THe truth is, horror elements aside, Blood And Shadows simply
: would not have been made in the 1950s. Supposedly we have distance, so
: we can talk about racism. But Lansdale's not talking about 1950s racism,
: he's talking about 1990's racism, with the fear of the African American
: male's empowerment (c'mon, dating a white woman? Lansdale practically
: telegraphed that one).
Blood and Shadows should never have been made. Okay so it wouldn't have
been made in the fifties. So what? Yes you can use the past to comment
on the present (even historians do that). Just because someone does
something doesn't mean that they do it well. And we can talk about racism.
A lot of people write about it (mostly black women interestingly, or at
least the one's who do it well. White male attempts at it are always
somewhat clumsy and well meaning). People do talk and write about fear of
African American male's empowerment to a degree, but how did Lansdale do
this? So he was dating a white woman and he got killed. So did a lot of
other people. The fact that he was black and died was irrelivent. He just
got in the way and so he died.
By the way discussions of racism will never get that far until people dare
talk about the real unmentionable: class. Black/white divides in America
are far more along class divisions than people will admit. Fear of the
black male's empowerment is a trivial (or dare on say it) non issue, often
used by underachieving black males as an excuse. There is racism yes, but
its a lot more subtle than that.
: >What did Blood and Shadows say about racism today? It was set in the
: >fifties. There is no courage or particular merit in re-exposing something
: >that has happened and isn't denied. If he was writing about it today (and
: >the more subtle form it often takes) then I would be more impressed, as it
: >is... Oh and I have experienced racism, both subtle and heavy handed (not
: >as badly as blacks in much of America admittedly, but nasty enough) and I
: >have never appreciated clumsy attempts at portraying it. It cheapens my
: >experience and achieves nothing.
: >Anyway if anyone read all of this, don't buy Blood and Shadows, buy the
: >Horrorist instead (if you can still get it).
: Well, I was with you all this time, willing to say that we must agree to
: disagree. However, then you go and recommend that lump of utter
: horseshit masquerading as a John COnstantine story. Utter waste of
: Llyod's talent (and me just coming off a complete run of The Wasteland...
: ouch), and an incredibly forgettable story. If I wasn't so pissed off
: by how much I wasted, I would have forgotten it by now.
Something tells me you were an Ennis fan. Well perhaps the Horrorist was
a little too subtle for you, bless.
Cian
First And Last And Always
So, the second issue was as bad as the first, then? Thank God I've
managed to subjugate the anal-retentive in me to the extent that I no
longer feel the need to carry on buying rubbish just to (a) "see how
it ends" or (b) maintain a "complete" collection. Probably the
result of one too many dire series of fantasy novels - it was
probably one or other of Eddings' godawful series that finished me
off :-)
Mike
--
Mike Collins
Timothy Toner
Cian O'Connor <cp...@thor.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>By the way discussions of racism will never get that far until people dare
>talk about the real unmentionable: class.
"There you go, bringing class into it again." I've heard the same shallow
arguments from white gents, no matter how much (or little) was waiting for
them when they got home. The only difference is that it usually take a
MMC+ fellow a bit longer to show his true stripes.
>
>Something tells me you were an Ennis fan. Well perhaps the Horrorist was
>a little too subtle for you, bless.
Yeah. Sure. That _must_ be it. I loved Delano to tears, and thought
Ennis crashed and burned by the end of his run.
Cian O'Connor
: In article <4gsp0p$4...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,: >By the way discussions of racism will never get that far until people dare
: >talk about the real unmentionable: class.
: "There you go, bringing class into it again." I've heard the same shallow
: arguments from white gents, no matter how much (or little) was waiting for
: them when they got home. The only difference is that it usually take a
: MMC+ fellow a bit longer to show his true stripes.
Did I say racism didn't exist? Did I say that? In America nobody will even
admit that class exists because it is such an *equal* society. Now if you
divide blacks into their respective classes and compare them to the
respective white equivalent the differences aren't that great. This is
especially true in corporate America. Now the Black middle class may be
smaller and they might not do as well as whites, but this isn't just due
to racism. It is more the old school tie syndrome - hire what and who you
know. The same as in England where if you have a public school accent you
are far more likely to get a job as a lawyer, banker or whatever. Several
studies have shown that a white with the wrong background would do just
as badly.
Now racism exists, I wouldn't deny that (I used to get beaten up for being
Irish) - but its simplistic to say that's all there is to it. Of course
blacks in run down lawless inner cities are going to do badly, just as
over here in England poor whites from decaying states live in a perpetual
state of jobless misery. They're not hired due to skin colour but because
of reputation, poor education and a variety of other obvious reasons.
Saying that they are oppressed by white man's society is not going to help
anyone - looking for ways of overcoming the very real social problems
might. Of course its always going to be easier for the government if
people keep blaming it on race because that's cheaper to deal with. Social
restructuring costs a lot of money in the long run and wins few votes.
: >
: >Something tells me you were an Ennis fan. Well perhaps the Horrorist was
: >a little too subtle for you, bless.
: Yeah. Sure. That _must_ be it. I loved Delano to tears, and thought
: Ennis crashed and burned by the end of his run.
If something really horrific has ever happened to you it can make you so
numb that you feel absolutely nothing. It severely modifies your
personality. That's why Constantine wasn't Constantine. His emotions had
been shocked to silence. Of course if nothing like that has every happened
to you then you probably won't believe me, but it seemed convincing(ish)
to me and certainly better than most of Vertigo's output.
And seeing a large chunk of your defence of Blood and Shadows rests upon
its *political* edge, what was wrong with the political subtext of the
Horrorist, or was that to close to the bone for an American as well.
Cian
Ravenskana/Jon Scott Hall
Previously on the vertigo group, various people wrote thusly:
> : >I wish people would actually read some post-modern theory before throwing
> : >the word around to describe anything that isn't straight narrative. I've
> : >read medieval texts that would qualify as post-modern if one took your
> : >meaning of it.
>
> : Post modern theory? Hm. Do Derrida, Beudriard, Eco, and Kristeva count?
> : Don't jump to conclusions. If you would prefer, I will revise my
> : statement to agree with Herbert Kohl's:
>
Arguing definitions as the major strength/flaw on these theories.
If we want to decide on a definition, we can move this to alt.postmodern,
where it would be more on-topic, but a few words while I'm here...
> : "Post-modern culture is eclectic: it picks and chooses from the creative
> : expressiosn of the world's peoples, though it is still based mainly upon
> : European and American culture. It is sensitive to the biases of
> : Eurocentricism and considers them ironically and without excessive
> : posturing and boasting that was common during periods of European
> : colonial expansion. It is possible to look at postmodernism as an
> : attempt by some European and American critics and artists, followed by
> : the Media, to question the primaacy of European canons and reposition
> : Europe and the US in a more modest and egalitarian world context. It
> : mocks linearity, rationality, and the idea that technology produces
> : progress."
>
Remember, this is only one definition of what is postmodern. I agree with
the "questioning of primacy", but don't see it limited to the idea of the
canon. Postmodernism may question many things. Not all postmodernists
take a stand on "mocking ... the idea that technology produces progress."
> : Here Lansdale is combining two wonderfully American genres, the 1950s
> : hardboiled detective with the 1930's cowboy drama. He's bothering to get
> : his facts straight, so that gives his points in the "questioning the
> : primacy of the canon" department. His playing with the standard cliches
> : indicates the all important "ironic" tone. So if it looks like a duck,
> : quacks like a duck, it must be postmodern.
>
Um, not necessarily. _The Good Soldier_, by Ford Madox Ford is ironic,
and twists genres, but it is usually described as a modernist, rather
than postmodernist work. I hesitate to call Blood and Shadows postmodern.
> I'm sorry but the quote and your argument seem to be a little out of step.
> First of all the canon is a group of works of literature that, rightly or
> wrongly, most critics believe to be the greatest things to have been
> written.
Translation: The canon is consiteted mostly of works by Dead Eurocentric
White Males that are conisidered to be good by other Eurocentric White
Males. However, currently there is a multicultural movement at work,
though I (and my thesis I'm working on now, arrgh :)) see this as a break
with postmodernism. Some critics deny the idea of a postmodern, claiming
that it's an extension of modernism. That's what I think is occuring
betwen some current multicultural fictions and postmodernist; they are
similar, but have noticable differences.
> What this has to do with Joe Lansdale getting his facts right
> (which is arguable anyway) I am not quite sure. Playing with the standard
> cliches does not (as you seem to imagine) indicate an "ironic" tone, one
> may do so ironically (which I see no evidence of in Blood and Shadows),
> or one may choose merely to revitalise a tired cliched genre (as was done
> by Mervyn Peake to the gothic form). Evidence of quacking would seem to
> be singularily lacking.
Exactly. Note my comment about Ford above.
>
> A post-modern text may play with establish members of the cannon (like
> Neil Gaiman's play about a Midsummer Night's Dream)
or it may not :) It can work around themes rather than a specific
canonized work. (e.g. _If On A Winter's Night A Traveller_ by
Italo Calvino.)
> and this as far as
> I've ever been able to ascertain is all that distinguishes it from any
> other form of literary pigeon holing.
Playing with establish literary conventions in an obvious way is actually
a metafictional trope, postmodernist may use metafiction as a technique,
but not all metafictionalist are postmodernist. (e.g. Tristram Shandy,
Don Quioxte) This is the problem of the blinded men with the elephant,
each with a different part, and different perceptions.
>Note THE CANNON. If Shakespeare
> was not a member of the cannon then Gaiman's story would not be
> post-modern.
For your definition, perhaps. But that's not really an accepted definition
by anyone else I know. A Game of You had more effect for me in that way,
though Jonathan Carroll did it better. <g>
<snip a bunch of other stuff>
For further reference, see _Postmodernist Fiction_ by Brian McHale, which
deals with, unlike most theorists, fiction. Derrida I would classify as
poststructuralist, however, I seperate theory from fiction as two
seperate entities.
--ravenskana
damon crumpler
>Timothy Toner (than...@psycfrnd.interaccess.com) wrote:
>
>Did I say racism didn't exist? Did I say that? In America nobody will even
>admit that class exists because it is such an *equal* society.
-I_ will admit class exists, and that there is a class war-- se my sig file.
>If something really horrific has ever happened to you it can make you so
>numb that you feel absolutely nothing. It severely modifies your
>personality. That's why Constantine wasn't Constantine. His emotions had
>been shocked to silence. Of course if nothing like that has every happened
>to you then you probably won't believe me, but it seemed convincing(ish)
>to me and certainly better than most of Vertigo's output.
>Cian
i thought delano's execution of this was fair. but, really, the thing
was simply way overpriced-- i didn't think i got enough value for my money--
interestingly enough, i thought sim did a much better job with this idea in
melmoth, and gaiman adddressed it a bit in signal to noise.
--
If entitlements are ruining our country, then why are most of the major
problems we face (the environment, lack of faith in the economy and the
government, health care, the budget deficit, loss of personal responsibility)
due to big business?
damon crumpler
>: -I_ will admit class exists, and that there is a class war-- se my sig file.
>
>Erm that's not class. Something equally bad but not class. And for the
>record the reason is because big business owns the newspapers (something
>the adorable Conservatives are falling over their cute little arses to
>emulate).
i will allow for your misunderstanding because you're british, but my sig
file was essentially referring to the concept that poor people are
responsible for what's wrong in this country, according to rich poeple.
isn't that class warfare?
>:[about the horrorist...]
>I disassociate myself from anything I may have said about this comic. At
>the time I was overworked, overstressed, bored, probably on drugs and
>just coming out of a particularly messy relationship with a tin opener
>(so much more satisfying that a hose I find). It was alright but to be
>honest most comics are crap, most books are crap, most music's crap, but
>none of it is as crap as the nauseating excrement produced by Tori Amos
>(Viking writes her songs - for fucks sake).
well, i think this neatly sums up what's wrong with you.
and also what you said next:
>: interestingly enough, i thought sim did a much better job with this idea in
>: melmoth, and gaiman adddressed it a bit in signal to noise.
>
>Never read Melmoth, got bored of the earlier Sim books. Far too worthy,
>leaden and unintelligent.
i'm assuming worthy menas something different over there. this means
that you most likely gave up cerebus during church and state or jaka's story.
hmm. i guess your definition of intelligent is different from mine. well,
i prefer mine. certainly many people other than yourself think cerebus
is boring, so i'll accept that more readily. however, you'r really the only
person i know who's called it unintelligent, and as such, ou're an outlier,
and so can easily be simply discarded.
i Do wish, however, you'd just Think about... oops..
And yes before you say it again I do think
>about the things raised in it and that is why I am rereading Michael
>Foucault's Discipline and Punishment (and lots of other interesting
>people. Gosh I am cool).
well, given my vast experience on this earth, i will agree with you that
it's cool to diss just about everything you can as somehow inadequate.
no wonder you like the preacher.
--
Why do those who so soundly champion free markets with few regulations wish to force
televisions to contain a V-chip?
Alasdair Watson
> i will allow for your misunderstanding because you're british, but my sig
*Excuse me*?! Not too bloody patronising! Maybe I've got the tone of that
completely wrong, but that looks like a gross over-generalisation to me, and
I think you owe some of the british people on this group an apology. I'm
not trying to net-cop, or be high-handed and holier than thou, but that
was *grossly* offensive.
--
Alasdair Watson.
"There are many interesting personalities here." - Allan Benson, on RACMX.
damon crumpler
>damon crumpler writes:
>
>> i will allow for your misunderstanding because you're british, but my sig
>
>*Excuse me*?! Not too bloody patronising! Maybe I've got the tone of that
>completely wrong, but that looks like a gross over-generalisation to me, and
>I think you owe some of the british people on this group an apology. I'm
>not trying to net-cop, or be high-handed and holier than thou, but that
>was *grossly* offensive.
i don't expect british people to have an intimate knowledge of our
political system than i have of theirs.
if someone does, fine, but i would give more leeway to a nonamerican
concering my country than i would to an american.
nothing to take offense at unless you're someone who like to take offense.
damon crumpler
>Christians trying to save my soul (for anyone's interested I've
>already made a deal with the nice man from the Prudential).
perhaps you've misread somewhere. concern isn't the word i'd use.
>damon crumpler (db...@po.cwru.edu) wrote:
>: cp...@thor.cam.ac.uk (Cian O'Connor) wrote:
>: >damon crumpler (db...@po.cwru.edu) wrote:
>: i will allow for your misunderstanding because you're british, but my sig
>: file was essentially referring to the concept that poor people are
>: responsible for what's wrong in this country, according to rich poeple.
>: isn't that class warfare?
>
>Ooh you patronising git.
well, thank you.
>Corporations aren't exactly rich people and to treat it as class warfare
>would be a gross simplification worth of the loony left. Its a little
>more subtle than that. Try again.
rich people head corporations. rich people rule our land. rich people set our
policies. bush was rich. hell, every member of our congress is rich. rich
people have been assulting the media here especially hard the past few years in
trying to tell us sheep that "it's all the POOR people's fault".
do you even know anything about our governement? [more patronising for you]
>
>: well, i think this neatly sums up what's wrong with you.
>
>And that neatly sums your humourless perspective perfectly.
hah.
>If you think
>most things are good, fine, you read them. I prefer to use discernment
>and read the tiny percentage that are good (as the might Mark E. Smith
>said 99% of anythings cak).
i don't. i like to enjoy life.
>: and also what you said next:
>
>: >: interestingly enough, i thought sim did a much better job with this idea in
>: >: melmoth, and gaiman adddressed it a bit in signal to noise.
>: >
>: >Never read Melmoth, got bored of the earlier Sim books. Far too worthy,
>: >leaden and unintelligent.
>Oh it was alright but that kind of thing has been done better before and
>I'm not going to roll round on my tummy and say its brilliant just
>because its a comic book.
i'd pay to see that. of course i'm being serious.
Enigma was intelligent because it wove its
>themes into the main narrative thread, Cerebus just plonks them here
>there everywhere. Important bit coming up folks. Important lecture etc
>etc bleeding etc.
actually, you're dead wrong about this. cerebus weaves it's themes
within the narrative thread as well as or better than enigma.
in fact, sim hardly Ever speechifies, and when he does, it's always
contradictory to other speeches other characters have made, and always
at a point in the narrative that calls for it.
>
>Have you had a complete humour bypass.
hah hah.
>: well, given my vast experience on this earth, i will agree with you that
>: it's cool to diss just about everything you can as somehow inadequate.
>: no wonder you like the preacher.
>
>Isn't it 'Preacher'? I like loads mate. Read loads, like lots of it
>dislike loads more. Love Nick Cave,
figures.
>loathe Depeche Mode.
one of the best bands around, mate.
Love Lydia
>Lunch loathe Hole. Fucking adore Tarnation and despise Tori "I'm so
>wacky me" Amos. Dig? Comprends-tu?
figures.
>Maybe I didn't like Cerebus because its deep themes were really a little
>superfical -
maybe. that would be misreading it then. one thing cerebus isn't
is superficial. maybe when you stopped that didn't appear to be the case,
but if you stopped reading a novel after one third of the book, don't
you think a lot would be lost?
you know the kind of thing to appeal to the (whisper it)
>not very well read 'intellectual'. Nah surely not its just my bile
>surfacing as usual isn't it.
yep. you're learning. see, i can tell it's your bile by your repeated use
of the word intellectual as a high horse.