DC doesn't "Shoot," doesn't score
Mogen Dave
from the unpublished "Shoot" story that he was asked to change, causing him to
leave the book:
http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=6
Hey, at least there weren't any homos.
Mogen Dave
http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=6
BobKinDC
difference between this story and a cheesy, exploitive movie-of-the-week to
someone who's not already a fan of Warren Ellis.
As a publisher, DC has to live in the real world. Giving this story the nod
early on was a mistake and stopping it at a late date was the appropriate
response. If Warren believes in the story so strongly, slight alterations and
self-publishing are still an option.
-------------------
--Bob Kennedy Alexandria, VA
Nat Gertler
>
> As a publisher, DC has to live in the real world. Giving this story the nod
> early on was a mistake and stopping it at a late date was the appropriate
> response. If Warren believes in the story so strongly, slight alterations and
> self-publishing are still an option.
Not likely, if he created it under a Work For Hire contract for
DC. To purposely create a copy of a work they own would be
copyright infringment.
Mogen Dave
>Sorry, Dave, but DC made the right call on this one. Try explaining the
>difference between this story and a cheesy, exploitive movie-of-the-week to
>someone who's not already a fan of Warren Ellis.
But I don't need to explain it, because DC has thoughtfully relieved its
readers of that responsibility. Thank goodness they cut the story, or little
kids might go around shooting each other at recess.
>As a publisher, DC has to live in the real world.
Perhaps you've heard of a comic book called Preacher.
> Giving this story the nod
>early on was a mistake and stopping it at a late date was the appropriate
>response.
They could have at least pulped the thing.
> If Warren believes in the story so strongly, slight alterations
>and
>self-publishing are still an option.
Apparently not.
jayembee
> Sorry, Dave, but DC made the right call on this one.
They might've made an "understandable" or "reasonable" call,
but without the chance to read the work itself, I don't think
you (or I or Dave or anyone else here) can judge whether or
not it's the "right" call.
> Try explaining the difference between this story and a
> cheesy, exploitive movie-of-the-week to someone who's not
> already a fan of Warren Ellis.
The difference is in the work, and what it has to say about
the subject. Most "cheesy, exploitive movies-of-the-week"
provide nothing beyond a sensationalist (and "altered for
dramatic effect") view of the events in question.
In this case, a good analogue is the "Earshot" episode of
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER. The WB yanked it from the schedule
because it dealt with an attempted mass murder at a high
school. Now, it was mostly a victim of circumstance and
coincidence, as the episode was written and filmed months
before Columbine (in fact, the Columbine incident occurred
only a day or two before the episode was scheduled to air!).
Still, one could argue that if the WB had aired the episode
as scheduled, it could have (and probably would have) been
perceived as an exploitation of the tragedy.
However, when the episode finally *did* air a few months
later, it proved to be elegiac, not exploitive. The WB's
decision to hold the episode back was an understandable
call, all things considered, but the *right* call in this
case would've been the WB airing the episode when it was
originally scheduled. Because that episode actually had
something more insightful to say about the subject than
just about every news commentary written about Columbine
and similar incidents.
Whether the same is true in regards to Ellis' HELLBLAZER
story remains to be seen. But that's precisely the point:
without the opportunity to see it, we can't know.
--- jayembee (Jerry.B...@eds.com)
"'Sing Do-Wah-Diddy? THAT'S the mystery of the ages?!"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
PMstopper1
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER. The WB yanked it from the schedule
because it dealt with an attempted mass murder at a high
school. >>
The Buffy people also did that with one of the original novels they did. One by
Nancy Holder was delayed for about a year because it also dealt with the idea
that a school shooting occured for no supernatural reason. "The Evil That Men
Do" is I think the title. It's sitting in my room where I can't look at it
right now.<G>
But I had asked Chris Golden at SDCC a year ago the status and he said they
were gonna wait a year or so. Thankfully its now been released.
JMariotte
by Nancy Holder was delayed for about a year because it also dealt with the
idea that a school shooting occured for no supernatural reason. "The Evil That
Men Do" is I think the title. >>
Just as an aside (I missed the beginning of the thread so don't even know what
it is DC is supposed to have done to Warren), Nancy is glad that the book was
delayed. She wrote it before the Columbine tragedy, but it would have come out
right on the heels of that event, and she feels it would have been
disrespectful to have released it then.
Jeff
Kyle Moyer
Nat Gertler wrote in message <399E535D...@gertler.com>...
>BobKinDC wrote:
>> As a publisher, DC has to live in the real world. Giving this story the
nod
>> early on was a mistake and stopping it at a late date was the appropriate
alterations and
>> self-publishing are still an option.
>DC. To purposely create a copy of a work they own would be
>copyright infringment.
Not with some slight alterations. Apparently, Strange Kiss was a slight
alteration of his nixed Satana series for Marvel.
PMstopper1
delayed. She wrote it before the Columbine tragedy, but it would have come out
right on the heels of that event, and she feels it would have been
disrespectful to have released it then.
>>
Well I can understand that. I just thought at the time too many people were
clamping down on material due to possible Columbine related material. Thought
it got too silly.
Then again, so's Paul Levitz.
Nat Gertler
> >copyright infringment.
>
> Not with some slight alterations. Apparently, Strange Kiss was a slight
> alteration of his nixed Satana series for Marvel.
It takes more than "slight alterations" to clear something from
being copyright infringment.
Todd VerBeek
>>> As a publisher, DC has to live in the real world. Giving this story the nod
>>> early on was a mistake and stopping it at a late date was the appropriate
>>> response. If Warren believes in the story so strongly, slight alterations and
>>> self-publishing are still an option.
>Nat Gertler wrote in message <399E535D...@gertler.com>...
>>Not likely, if he created it under a Work For Hire contract for
>>DC. To purposely create a copy of a work they own would be
>>copyright infringment.
Our friend Kyle Moyer said:
>Not with some slight alterations. Apparently, Strange Kiss was a slight
>alteration of his nixed Satana series for Marvel.
If the publisher accepted and paid for the material as Work For Hire, they
own it. Making "slight alterations" would constitute creating a "derivative
work" which would infringe on their copyright. Of course it's possible that
the publisher would choose to look the other way, or the contract gave the
WFH creator an escape clause to reuse the ideas, etc.
Cheers, Todd
--
I'm an optimist: the glass is empty, but maybe =someday= it'll be half full.
Nat Gertler
>
> If the publisher accepted and paid for the material as Work For Hire, they
> own it. Making "slight alterations" would constitute creating a "derivative
> work" which would infringe on their copyright. Of course it's possible that
> the publisher would choose to look the other way, or the contract gave the
> WFH creator an escape clause to reuse the ideas, etc.
Such things do happen casually, and it can also be part of the
nature of a "kill fee". However, the Hellblazer story was a complete
and apparently largely stand-on-its-own work, a thing that it
would be quite possible for DC to make some use of further down
the road. I suspect DC would want to keep their options open.
Mogen Dave
called in:
Josh Brandt
Damn.
That's about the single most moving story I've read in a good long time.
That ought to be published. Really.
Josh
--
I don't wanna ride the piggy.
J. Brandt / m...@solipsism.net / mu...@sidehack.gweep.net
Oblivion
>And now the whole 22-page story is online, at least until DC's lawyers are
>called in:
>
>http://www.iol.ie/~jmcmahon/shoot/
Shit, it takes forever to download....
BobKinDC
It's worth the effort. Thought-provoking story, beautiful art (Wish Jiminez
drew like this all the time). And I'm surer than ever that DC did the right
thing by spiking it.
If you can find one survivor of these shootings who would endorse this
particular story, I'll eat my words. I read it as a gratuitous slap in the
face at Yank provincials, and a serious misreading of the circumstances. These
incidents are peculiar to America-- not because we have a lock on hopelessness
and desperation (these are worldwide phenomena, I'm told), but because we have
such open access to firearms. If Warren Ellis can still stand by this story
two years from now, I'll be very surprised.
----------------------
--Bob Kennedy Alexandria, VA
Mogen Dave
>>Shit, it takes forever to download....
>
>It's worth the effort. Thought-provoking story, beautiful art (Wish Jiminez
>drew like this all the time). And I'm surer than ever that DC did the right
>thing by spiking it.
>
>If you can find one survivor of these shootings who would endorse this
>particular story, I'll eat my words.
I didn't realize the approval of school shooting survivors was a prerequisite.
So DC is now supposed to clear every story they publish with anybody who might
be offended by it?
> I read it as a gratuitous slap in the
>face at Yank provincials, and a serious misreading of the circumstances.
Actually, I agree. I'll go even further and say it was completely ridiculous.
But I still think it should have been published.
Omarichu
>But I still think it should have been published.
>
>
No one cares what you think.
---
"But let's face it: sisters are like dogs. They're nice to pet once in a while
and eat dog food but then you just want to get rid of them and put them out in
the backyard. I mean, that's basically how I feel about sisters in general."
BobKinDC
>I didn't realize the approval of school shooting survivors was a
>prerequisite.
>So DC is now supposed to clear every story they publish with anybody who
>might
>be offended by it?
>
No, Dave, just the people they're pointing the finger of blame at. I doubt
even one of the people who got shot in this string of incidents reacted like
the guy at the end of "Shoot."
------------------------
--Bob Kennedy Alexandria, VA
Mogen Dave
>>Actually, I agree. I'll go even further and say it was completely
>ridiculous.
>>But I still think it should have been published.
>>
>>
>
>No one cares what you think.
Clean up your room, sweetie, and then we'll go for ice cream.
Mogen Dave
>Mogen Dave wrote:
>
>
>>I didn't realize the approval of school shooting survivors was a
>>prerequisite.
>>So DC is now supposed to clear every story they publish with anybody who
>>might
>>be offended by it?
>>
>
>No, Dave, just the people they're pointing the finger of blame at.
Oh, just those people. Okay, that makes it a lot more plausible...
> I doubt
>even one of the people who got shot in this string of incidents reacted like
>the guy at the end of "Shoot."
I doubt it too. That's the exact part of the story that I think is ridiculous.
But so what? It has nothing to do with whether or not the story should have
been published.
damon, interrupted
BobKinDC wrote:
>
> Mogen Dave wrote:
>
> >I didn't realize the approval of school shooting survivors was a
> >prerequisite.
> >So DC is now supposed to clear every story they publish with anybody who
> >might
> >be offended by it?
> >
>
> No, Dave, just the people they're pointing the finger of blame at. I doubt
> even one of the people who got shot in this string of incidents reacted like
> the guy at the end of "Shoot."
klebold.
--
Definition of irony: Pat Choate, a Buchanan supporter who decries the
corruption of the two main parties, supporting idiotic laws in states
that disallow a candidate to switch parties when running for office
because of a Reform Party schism.
http://www.salon.com/business/feature/2000/08/01/napsterpress/index.html
Pat ONeill
>I doubt it too. That's the exact part of the story that I think is
>ridiculous.
>But so what? It has nothing to do with whether or not the story should have
>been published.
Yes, it does. The story purports to have "the explanation" of the rash of
school shootings...but the "facts" it presents have no relation to the reality
of those shootings.
Because in those shootings (all of them) the kids who were shot did not just
stand around watching, did not wait to be shot (or ask to be shot); they ran,
they screamed, they hid, they did everything rational people are supposed to do
when faced with a madman with a fire arm.
Best, Pat
Stuart Moore
<patdo...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
I don't speak for DC anymore (and Warren can clarify this further if he
wants), but I'll point out that "Shoot" (which I agree is a terrific
story) was conceived and at least partly written before the Columbine
shootings. It wasn't a response to them...just a story that hit the
zeitgeist a little too comfortably close to home for DC at the time.
Best,
Stuart
Mogen Dave
>>From: moge...@aol.com (Mogen Dave)
>
>>I doubt it too. That's the exact part of the story that I think is
>>ridiculous.
>>But so what? It has nothing to do with whether or not the story should have
>>been published.
>
>Yes, it does. The story purports to have "the explanation" of the rash of
>school shootings...but the "facts" it presents have no relation to the
>reality
>of those shootings.
>
>Because in those shootings (all of them) the kids who were shot did not just
>stand around watching, did not wait to be shot (or ask to be shot); they ran,
>they screamed, they hid, they did everything rational people are supposed to
>do
>when faced with a madman with a fire arm.
I can't tell if you actually think I disagree with any of that, or if you're
just playing your usual game of Move The Goalposts.
As I've said at least twice now, I think the conclusion the story reaches is
ridiculous, for the very reasons you cite. I also think it's a terrific,
dramatic, well-drawn story that deserved to be published. DC panicked.
B. David Harrison
> I don't speak for DC anymore (and Warren can clarify this further if
> he wants), but I'll point out that "Shoot" (which I agree is a
> terrific story) was conceived and at least partly written before the
> Columbine shootings. It wasn't a response to them...just a story that
> hit the zeitgeist a little too comfortably close to home for DC at the
> time.
I thought it was a great story (and was surprisingly taken with the way
in which I read it online- of course if I had to do that at home through
my dialup connection I'd still be trying to read it). However, I do think
Warren's missed the boat on this one- and frankly I understand why DC
didn't run it.
Not only is it wrong, but I think it's insulting. The whole problem I
had with America's reaction to Columbine is that they were trying to find
answers when I don't think any really existed. I thought that's where
Warren was going- and he makes up something just as silly- except rather
than blaming TV or video games- he blames the victims- which is both
stupid and offensive.
B. David Harrison Anti-Knuckleheadosity:Last Updated 07/27/2000
Live from Seattle A-Knuck's now monthly: www.drizzle.com/~bdavid
This issue of Anti-Knuckleheadosity:
Napster
"How else am I to get you to treat me like a man of weight and
substance unless I act as morally perturbed and angst-ridden as
everyone else in this room?" -The Beast
"This ain't no time when the usual is suitable" -Mos Def
Richard Pace
> >From: moge...@aol.com (Mogen Dave)
>
> >I doubt it too. That's the exact part of the story that I think is
> >ridiculous.
> >But so what? It has nothing to do with whether or not the story should have
> >been published.
>
> Yes, it does. The story purports to have "the explanation" of the rash of
> school shootings...but the "facts" it presents have no relation to the reality
> of those shootings.
>
> Because in those shootings (all of them) the kids who were shot did not just
> stand around watching, did not wait to be shot (or ask to be shot); they ran,
> they screamed, they hid, they did everything rational people are supposed to do
> when faced with a madman with a fire arm.
There's a Harlan Ellison story, The Whimper of Whipped Dogs IIRC, that muses on the
reasons why a bunch of NY apartment dwelling witnesses just watched while a woman
was brutally murdered on the street below their windows -- I doubt anyone takes his
fantastic cause too seriously as a possible reason. Nor should anyone take Ellis'
pre-Columbine take on school shootings as an accurate rationale for this sort of
violence.
Richard
--
The Gallery
- http://webhome.idirect.com/~rpace/
Julio Gea-Banacloche
moge...@aol.com (Mogen Dave) wrote:
> As I've said at least twice now, I think the conclusion the story reaches
> is
> ridiculous, for the very reasons you cite. I also think it's a terrific,
> dramatic, well-drawn story that deserved to be published. DC panicked.
As someone who seldom misses a chance to read a Warren Ellis comic for
free, I have to disagree. This was far, far from his best work. There
was no story: the whole thing was a build-up for an utterly
disappointing payoff. The "characters" were straight out of central
casting, with nothing interesting or memorable about them. Just about
everything in the long exposition was a cliche (how many times have you
seen, in popular fiction, the scene of the lone investigator spending
night after night poring over tapes, analyzing data, becoming obsessed,
unable to sleep? How many times have we seen the well-meaning friend
coming to try and offer them a ride home?). The whole thing was written
and drawn by the numbers. About the only original piece of writing that
I can point to is a particularly disgusting way to describe bad cofee.
Nothing made sense. This woman is supposed to come up with an
explanation for these things on her own, without talking to anybody? In
the land of committees? Right. At every single shooting there was
somebody with a videocamera who did nothing to prevent it, even though
he obviously had time enough to compose the scene nicely and leisurely
zoom in on the details? Right. And of course John's much anticipated
explanation at the end, which may make sense in some imaginary America
in an alternate universe, but which in any place resembling the real
world was so totally ludicrous--no matter how much he tried to lead up
to it with the heavy Jim Jones foreshadowing--that it just made the
entire thing pointless for all practical purposes.
No, there's no way this story should have been published. There are
already enough bad comics cluttering up the racks out there.
Julio
BobKinDC
>There's a Harlan Ellison story, The Whimper of Whipped Dogs IIRC, that muses
>on the
>reasons why a bunch of NY apartment dwelling witnesses just watched while a
>woman
>was brutally murdered on the street below their windows -- I doubt anyone
>takes his
>fantastic cause too seriously as a possible reason. Nor should anyone take
>Ellis'
>pre-Columbine take on school shootings as an accurate rationale for this sort
>of
>violence.
There's a slight matter of timing at work here. My copy of _Deathbird Stories_
doesn't have dates for the stories, but my guess is that "Whimper of Whipped
Dogs" was written in the early 70s, over a decade after Kitty Genovese. If
he'd published it in 1962, his career would've nosedived a lot earlier.
Columbine's still recent enough and nerves still raw enough that DC's balk is a
damned sensible reaction.
A better comparison would be _The Manchurian Candidate_, which was released
before the JFK assassination, but pulled from distribution immediately
afterwards as a sensible reaction to the public's feelings. Writers don't need
to consider such things, but publishers (and studios) do.
--------------
--Bob Kennedy Alexandria, VA
Pat ONeill
>There's a slight matter of timing at work here. My copy of _Deathbird
>Stories_
>doesn't have dates for the stories, but my guess is that "Whimper of Whipped
>Dogs" was written in the early 70s, over a decade after Kitty Genovese. If
>he'd published it in 1962, his career would've nosedived a lot earlier.
>Columbine's still recent enough and nerves still raw enough that DC's balk is
>a
>damned sensible reaction.
>
>A better comparison would be _The Manchurian Candidate_, which was released
>before the JFK assassination, but pulled from distribution immediately
>afterwards as a sensible reaction to the public's feelings. Writers don't
>need
>to consider such things, but publishers (and studios) do.
Not only that, but Ellison's story accurately reflects the nature of the
Genovese case, in that neighbors really DID ignore her screams and cries for
help. Therefore, his explanation in the story, although fantastic, at least
fits the facts.
Ennis's story fits none of the facts of the real stories he is fictionalizing.
None of them. There is no case of a school shooting in which a victim (or group
of victims) stood quietly and allowed themselves to be shot.
And that applies whether the story was written before or after Columbine.
Best, Pat
Adrian Brown
(Mogen Dave) writes:
>> I doubt
>>even one of the people who got shot in this string of incidents reacted like
>>the guy at the end of "Shoot."
>
>I doubt it too. That's the exact part of the story that I think is
>ridiculous.
>But so what? It has nothing to do with whether or not the story should have
>been published.
Just a thought - not having had time to download the whole story yet - but is
there any way the reaction at the end of the story could be considered an
alternative way to react ?
You know, how not everyone reacts the same way after a traumatic event?
And chosen here to represent a different message from the shooting ?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
charity comic requests contributions
http://members.aol.com/adeheathen/c2000page.htm
Richard Pace
>
> Not only that, but Ellison's story accurately reflects the nature of the
> Genovese case, in that neighbors really DID ignore her screams and cries for
> help. Therefore, his explanation in the story, although fantastic, at least
> fits the facts.
Fiction never _has_ to fit the "facts" -- especially since the shootings created
here are fictional themselves. The facts, even misunderstood ones, are usually the
starting point for fiction. Horror fiction should take whatever license it requires
to actually inspire horror.
The idea that today's youth could be so alien as to prefer being murdered in such a
way IS horrific.
>
>
> Ennis's story fits none of the facts of the real stories he is fictionalizing.
Good one.
>
> None of them. There is no case of a school shooting in which a victim (or group
> of victims) stood quietly and allowed themselves to be shot.
So?
> And that applies whether the story was written before or after Columbine.
Considering the story has much more to do with the horrifying alienation of today's
youth than the actual shootings I don't see this as much of a point.
What I'd like to know is if this is the mucked-up version or the version that
started all the fuss in the first place.
Richard Pace
> There's a slight matter of timing at work here. My copy of _Deathbird Stories_
> doesn't have dates for the stories, but my guess is that "Whimper of Whipped
> Dogs" was written in the early 70s, over a decade after Kitty Genovese.
1973, IIRC.
> If
> he'd published it in 1962, his career would've nosedived a lot earlier.
Hardly provable, could have just had the opposite effect - especially since the
murder took place in 1964.
>
> Columbine's still recent enough and nerves still raw enough that DC's balk is a
> damned sensible reaction.
So anything that could provoke discussion about a recent horrible event should be
silenced?
> A better comparison would be _The Manchurian Candidate_, which was released
> before the JFK assassination, but pulled from distribution immediately
> afterwards as a sensible reaction to the public's feelings. Writers don't need
> to consider such things, but publishers (and studios) do.
I wasn't there to gauge whether that was a sensible thing to do. I do know it's
what they did, which was motivated by the belief that the unwashed masses are
imbeciles and couldn't handle the synchronicity.
KurtBusiek
stood quietly and allowed themselves to be shot.>>
Not that it matters, but I think you're wrong.
I keep hearing about one of the victims in one of these things being asked --
at gunpoint -- if she believed in God. Knowing she'd be shot if she said yes,
she stood quietly and said yes.
I saw a Christian group in an airport, all wearing T-shirts with her last words
on them. What made the shirts morbid and tasteless, to my sensibility, at
least, as that on the back, in graphics that evoked "Who Wants To Be A
Millionaire," they'd added "And That's My Final Answer." Taking pride in her
faith seems to me to be one thing; getting a pop-culture yuk out of it seems
quite another.
kurt
The SUPERSTAR Ashcan, by Busiek & Immonen, is now available online, at the
ApeNation Trading Post! Plus: Check out SHOCKROCKETS and other Gorilla comics
FREE at the site!
http://www.apenation.com/
Elayne Riggs
> Ennis's story fits none of the facts of the real stories he is fictionalizing.
> None of them. There is no case of a school shooting in which a victim (or group
> of victims) stood quietly and allowed themselves to be shot.
I believe you mean "Ellis." Nobody stands quietly in a Garth Ennis
story. :)
> And that applies whether the story was written before or after Columbine.
Nor, I should think, whether this kind of thing would actually happen in
real life. Which is fine, dramatic license dictates that stories don't
have to mirror real life (although the ones which don't are often harder
for people to get into due to lack of identification with the characters).
Ellis isn't insisting or implying that his story does, is he?
- Elayne
Nat Gertler
>
> >>There is no case of a school shooting in which a victim (or group of victims)
> stood quietly and allowed themselves to be shot.>>
>
>
> I keep hearing about one of the victims in one of these things being asked --
> at gunpoint -- if she believed in God. Knowing she'd be shot if she said yes,
> she stood quietly and said yes.
And what you've heard is false, and continues to be put forth by
those for whom having a martyr is an advantage. Go here for
more information about the truth regarding Cassie Bernall
and the claims made about her:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/09/30/bernall/index.html
Did the killers have that exchange with someone? Yes, someone
else. Someone who had already been shot. And who they didn't
shoot again after she answered.
(This doesn't mean that Pat is right, mind you. I have severe doubts
that Pat knows the circumstances of every school shooting.)
Julio Gea-Banacloche
<fire...@panix.com> wrote:
> Nor, I should think, whether this kind of thing would actually happen in
> real life. Which is fine, dramatic license dictates that stories don't
> have to mirror real life (although the ones which don't are often harder
> for people to get into due to lack of identification with the
> characters).
> Ellis isn't insisting or implying that his story does, is he?
He's certainly thrown in enough "real life" references: the Jim Jones
thing, the NRA, the Bible, violence in video games, you name it. Most
of the story is about people, in what ostensibly passes for the real
world, facing a problem which superficially at least resembles a very
real problem, and looking for an answer in real-world terms. This is
followed by several pages of John Constantine rejecting some
"simplistic" answers and building up to what looks like it should be a
real-world answer as well.
So the least the writer could do would be to provide one. Instead, the
reader feels intrigued: "Hmmm... I wonder what this guy's take on this
(real-life problem) is going to be?" "OK, we can already rule this
out... and this... and this... OK, cute thing about children being
raised by television, that sounds sort of like the real world to me
too... OK... here comes the answer... this better be good... one more
page left... OK, and here it is, the answer is...
"Bug-eyed aliens from Pluto!!!!"
Waaay to go.
Julio
Todd VerBeek
>>But so what? It has nothing to do with whether or not the story should have
>>been published.
Our friend Pat ONeill said:
>Yes, it does. The story purports to have "the explanation" of the rash of
>school shootings...but the "facts" it presents have no relation to the reality
>of those shootings.
The problem is that people would assume (and evidently now =are= assuming)
that this story is supposed to explain Columbine and similar teen shootings.
It's not. It's a story in which =other= teen shootings take place, shootings
for which there is a =different= (and unsettling) explanation.
If the story were about alien abductions, and there were an explanation at
the end that says that the people who report being abducted did so because
they had been abducted amd abused by their future selves travelling back in
time, that wouldn't mean the author was claiming that other, real-world
reports of alien abduction were temporal self-abductions. It would just be
taken as an in-story explanation for an in-story phenomenon. But because
it's about something we take more seriously and doesn't rely on science
fiction or fantasy to explain what happens, the story and reality are being
conflated.
Personally, now having read the story, if I were Someone In Charge at DC, I
would've sat on the story and held it for later. It would have too easily
been seen as an insult to the victims and their families. Then, when people
were less sensitive about the topic, and with a disclaimer pointing out that
it's a work of fiction and not "the explanation" of any particular teen
shootings, I would've published it.
Cheers, Todd
--
I'm an optimist: the glass is empty, but maybe =someday= it'll be half full.
Todd VerBeek
>>>even one of the people who got shot in this string of incidents reacted like
>>>the guy at the end of "Shoot."
>(Mogen Dave) writes:
>>I doubt it too. That's the exact part of the story that I think is
>>ridiculous.
>>But so what? It has nothing to do with whether or not the story should have
>>been published.
Our friend Adrian Brown said:
>Just a thought - not having had time to download the whole story yet - but is
>there any way the reaction at the end of the story could be considered an
>alternative way to react ?
>You know, how not everyone reacts the same way after a traumatic event?
>And chosen here to represent a different message from the shooting ?
I think you need to read the end of the story to understand what the earlier
poster meant by "how the guy reacted" (quote rearranged for syntax).
Specifically, he's not referring to an "after the event" reaction, but a
reaction =during= the event.
Mogen Dave
>>>There is no case of a school shooting in which a victim (or group of
>victims)
>stood quietly and allowed themselves to be shot.>>
>
>Not that it matters, but I think you're wrong.
>
>I keep hearing about one of the victims in one of these things being asked --
>at gunpoint -- if she believed in God. Knowing she'd be shot if she said
>yes,
>she stood quietly and said yes.
Cassie Bernall was her name. And as was the case with so many other aspects of
the Littleton shooting (Trench Coat Mafia, anyone?), this is almost certainly a
myth. Last year, Salon.com did an expose of all the various half-truths and
outright errors about Littleton that have now come to be accepted as common
knowledge. It's quite a list:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/09/23/columbine/index.html
Mogen Dave
Mogen Dave
>(This doesn't mean that Pat is right, mind you. I have severe doubts
>that Pat knows the circumstances of every school shooting.)
And even if he did, it would have no bearing on whether or not that story
should have been published.
Wade941880
. Never under estimate some of the crazy "protect the children!!!" groups
that never do their research.
ANyway, i read the whole story too, and yes...it was pretty good.
I have a feeling DC will release sometime in the near future.
What killed this book was the timing. Some columbine-sensitive people/groups
could have a heard of the book, mis-interpreted the story and bitched until
their throats were sore.
..then the next thing you know the media makes a big thing out of the story(and
most likely...also mis-interprets it..) and you have a big controversy on your
hands.
I don't think DC wanted to gamble with that possible negative reaction.
Bottom line is---you play with someone else's toys....sometimes you get
screwed.
Warren realizes this can happen sometimes when you work free-lance(re: his
recent CIA column).
...that's why Ellis didn't really make a big deal out of it, held no grudges
and simply stepped down.
BobKinDC
>If the story were about alien abductions, and there were an explanation at
>the end that says that the people who report being abducted did so because
>they had been abducted amd abused by their future selves travelling back in
>time, that wouldn't mean the author was claiming that other, real-world
>reports of alien abduction were temporal self-abductions. It would just be
>taken as an in-story explanation for an in-story phenomenon. But because
>it's about something we take more seriously and doesn't rely on science
>fiction or fantasy to explain what happens, the story and reality are being
>conflated.
About twelve years ago, there was a big benefit book for AIDS awareness and
research, featuring lots of major comics people (Trina Robbins, Bill
Sinkiewiecz, Will Eisner, Frank Miller, Howard Cruse... Many others). The
stories were of uneven quality, but for the most part were united in trying to
make a serious point about public attitudes about AIDS. I think the book was
called STRIP AIDS USA.
There was one story that was tragically out of step with the rest of the book,
a genre horror potboiler about a guy who takes an experimental cure, which
turns him into a werewolf. The whole book was hurt by this story's inclusion.
Vertigo and Warren Ellis would be similarly hurt by "Shoot"'s publication.
---------------------------
--Bob Kennedy Alexandria, VA
Michael S. Schiffer
>>>There is no case of a school shooting in which a victim (or group of victims)
>stood quietly and allowed themselves to be shot.>>
>Not that it matters, but I think you're wrong.
>I keep hearing about one of the victims in one of these things being asked --
>at gunpoint -- if she believed in God. Knowing she'd be shot if she said yes,
>she stood quietly and said yes.
Maybe, but there are also reports that the "yes" was said by someone
who had already been shot. She subsequently managed to crawl away
while one of the gunmen reloaded, and (despite 34 wounds from a
shotgun) survived. See:
<http://www.freep.com/news/nw/qfaith29.htm>
If that version is correct, then it's very different from someone
standing quietly and waiting to be shot. It is, of course, possible
that both versions happened, or either, or neither, eyewitness
accounts being what they are. (In any case, the sort of quiet
martyrdom attributed to Cassie Bernall has certainly taken place in
other contexts, whether or not it occurred at Columbine or any school
shooting. So has the sort of despair depicted by Ellis, though
whether it's common enough to provide some sort of broad insight into
school shootings is a very different question.)
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS If reading in an archive, please do
ms...@mediaone.net not click on words highlighted as links
msch...@condor.depaul.edu by Deja or other archives. They violate
the author's copyright and his wishes.
Elayne Riggs
>> Nor, I should think, whether this kind of thing would actually happen in
>> real life. Which is fine, dramatic license dictates that stories don't
>> have to mirror real life (although the ones which don't are often harder
>> for people to get into due to lack of identification with the
>> characters). Ellis isn't insisting or implying that his story does, is he?
> He's certainly thrown in enough "real life" references: the Jim Jones
> thing, the NRA, the Bible, violence in video games, you name it.
As a starting point to then imagine a fictional scenario, or as a means of
proving some real-world point?
> Most
> of the story is about people, in what ostensibly passes for the real
> world, facing a problem which superficially at least resembles a very
> real problem, and looking for an answer in real-world terms.
Well, it certainly looks as though he's implying a real-world solution
rather than just (so to speak) shooting the shit fictionally.
> OK... here comes the answer... this better be good... one more
> page left... OK, and here it is, the answer is...
> "Bug-eyed aliens from Pluto!!!!"
> Waaay to go.
Heh. Sounds like the ending of Watchmen. :)
- Elayne
Julio Gea-Banacloche
<fire...@panix.com> wrote:
> Julio Gea-Banacloche <jgea...@comp.uark.edu> happened to mention:
> > OK... here comes the answer... this better be good... one more
> > page left... OK, and here it is, the answer is...
>
> > "Bug-eyed aliens from Pluto!!!!"
>
> > Waaay to go.
>
> Heh. Sounds like the ending of Watchmen. :)
Well, I meant that metaphorically, of course. (I'm not sure if you've
actually read the story yet; if not, please don't take the above
literally!)
But I have problems with the ending of Watchmen, too. :-)
Julio
Pat ONeill
>I keep hearing about one of the victims in one of these things being asked --
>at gunpoint -- if she believed in God. Knowing she'd be shot if she said
>yes,
>she stood quietly and said yes.
The individual in question, when the shooting began, took refuge under a table
in the library. Only when the shooter had the gun to her head (when there was
no way to avoid getting shot) did she make what she considered a principled
stand; IOW, she wasn't going to deny her faith to avoid being killed
(especially since there was no guarantee he wouldn't kill her no matter what
answer she gave).
In the Constantine story, the kids are simply standing around waiting to be
shot.
Best, Pat
Pat ONeill
>dramatic license dictates that stories don't
>have to mirror real life (although the ones which don't are often harder
>for people to get into due to lack of identification with the characters).
>Ellis isn't insisting or implying that his story does, is he?
Oh, I think he definitely is. The subtext of the story is very definitely that
"alienation" is the reason for these kids being victims...not even the cause of
the shooters using guns against fellow students, but of the victims acquiescing
to their role.
And it's a crock.
Best, Pat
hbrandt
> I keep hearing about one of the victims in one of these things being asked --
> at gunpoint -- if she believed in God. Knowing she'd be shot if she said yes,
> she stood quietly and said yes.
The more facts that come out about that story, the less likely this
incident appears to be true. Living in Littleton, I'm a bit burned out
with the endless stories about the events of that day so I don't have
the facts at my disposal, but I definitely recall hearing conflicting
reports from living witnesses about what Cassie said/didn't say. It's
really just about the Christians creating a martyr/saint for their own
agenda. Again.
/hal
Elayne Riggs
> In article <8nusit$et5$1...@news.panix.com>, Elayne Riggs
> <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Julio Gea-Banacloche <jgea...@comp.uark.edu> happened to mention:
>> > OK... here comes the answer... this better be good... one more
>> > page left... OK, and here it is, the answer is...
>>
>> > "Bug-eyed aliens from Pluto!!!!"
>>
>> > Waaay to go.
>>
>> Heh. Sounds like the ending of Watchmen. :)
> Well, I meant that metaphorically, of course. (I'm not sure if you've
> actually read the story yet; if not, please don't take the above
> literally!)
No desire to read the story, just commenting on the comments about it.
- Elayne
Nat Gertler
>
> The individual in question, when the shooting began, took refuge under a table
> in the library. Only when the shooter had the gun to her head (when there was
> no way to avoid getting shot) did she make what she considered a principled
> stand; IOW, she wasn't going to deny her faith to avoid being killed
> (especially since there was no guarantee he wouldn't kill her no matter what
> answer she gave).
Ummm, no, the individual who is likely pictured on the shirts didn't
take
any such stand at all. So says the person who was right next to
her, and that's what the investigators' report on the incident
also indicates.
Richard Pace
> >From: kurtb...@aol.comics (KurtBusiek)
>
> >I keep hearing about one of the victims in one of these things being asked --
> >at gunpoint -- if she believed in God. Knowing she'd be shot if she said
> >yes,
> >she stood quietly and said yes.
>
> The individual in question, when the shooting began, took refuge under a table
> in the library. Only when the shooter had the gun to her head (when there was
> no way to avoid getting shot) did she make what she considered a principled
> stand; IOW, she wasn't going to deny her faith to avoid being killed
> (especially since there was no guarantee he wouldn't kill her no matter what
> answer she gave).
Uh, you have missed the messages where it's been mentioned that the whole "She
Said Yes" story was another Columbine myth.
>
>
> In the Constantine story, the kids are simply standing around waiting to be
> shot.
So?
damon, interrupted
KurtBusiek wrote:
>
> >>There is no case of a school shooting in which a victim (or group of victims)
> stood quietly and allowed themselves to be shot.>>
>
> Not that it matters, but I think you're wrong.
>
> I keep hearing about one of the victims in one of these things being asked --
> at gunpoint -- if she believed in God. Knowing she'd be shot if she said yes,
> she stood quietly and said yes.
just to point out that the person who was killed is
most likely not the person who said yes.
i can't recall what happened to the girl people no think
said yes, but i know she wasn't killed.
> I saw a Christian group in an airport, all wearing T-shirts with her last words
> on them. What made the shirts morbid and tasteless, to my sensibility, at
> least, as that on the back, in graphics that evoked "Who Wants To Be A
> Millionaire," they'd added "And That's My Final Answer." Taking pride in her
> faith seems to me to be one thing; getting a pop-culture yuk out of it seems
> quite another.
yes, the murdered girls' parents wrote a book about it,
beofe the controversy over whether she
said it ever came to light
[the surviving students in the room
say it wasn't her who said those words].
> kurt
> The SUPERSTAR Ashcan, by Busiek & Immonen, is now available online, at the
> ApeNation Trading Post! Plus: Check out SHOCKROCKETS and other Gorilla comics
> FREE at the site!
> http://www.apenation.com/
--
Definition of irony: Pat Choate, a Buchanan supporter who decries the
corruption of the two main parties, supporting idiotic laws in states
that disallow a candidate to switch parties when running for office
because of a Reform Party schism.
http://www.salon.com/business/feature/2000/08/01/napsterpress/index.html
damon, interrupted
Julio Gea-Banacloche wrote:
>
> In article <8nug3p$b68$1...@news.panix.com>, Elayne Riggs
> <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Nor, I should think, whether this kind of thing would actually happen in
> > real life. Which is fine, dramatic license dictates that stories don't
> > have to mirror real life (although the ones which don't are often harder
> > for people to get into due to lack of identification with the
> > characters).
> > Ellis isn't insisting or implying that his story does, is he?
>
> He's certainly thrown in enough "real life" references: the Jim Jones
> thing, the NRA, the Bible, violence in video games, you name it. Most
> of the story is about people, in what ostensibly passes for the real
> world, facing a problem which superficially at least resembles a very
> real problem, and looking for an answer in real-world terms. This is
> followed by several pages of John Constantine rejecting some
> "simplistic" answers and building up to what looks like it should be a
> real-world answer as well.
> So the least the writer could do would be to provide one. Instead, the
> reader feels intrigued: "Hmmm... I wonder what this guy's take on this
> (real-life problem) is going to be?" "OK, we can already rule this
> out... and this... and this... OK, cute thing about children being
> raised by television, that sounds sort of like the real world to me
> too... OK... here comes the answer... this better be good... one more
> page left... OK, and here it is, the answer is...
>
> "Bug-eyed aliens from Pluto!!!!"
you're still upset over watchmen.
sigh.
wrt to shoot, i got the last page an explanation-
it worke,d even tho
it was cursorily ridiculous, for one simple reason,
the school shooters ARE those kids.
now, the transition from shooter to shootee is a bit
of a stretch, but it actually works well allegorically.
damon, interrupted
Mogen Dave wrote:
>
> Ah, Nat beat me to it...
me too.
and i should have known better.
damon, interrupted
Pat ONeill wrote:
>
> >From: kurtb...@aol.comics (KurtBusiek)
>
> >I keep hearing about one of the victims in one of these things being asked --
> >at gunpoint -- if she believed in God. Knowing she'd be shot if she said
> >yes,
> >she stood quietly and said yes.
>
> The individual in question, when the shooting began, took refuge under a table
> in the library. Only when the shooter had the gun to her head (when there was
> no way to avoid getting shot) did she make what she considered a principled
> stand; IOW, she wasn't going to deny her faith to avoid being killed
> (especially since there was no guarantee he wouldn't kill her no matter what
> answer she gave).
ahh, pat, always behind the learning curve ont hings.
go read the salon article.
Antony J. Shepherd
news:20000822141004...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
> >>There is no case of a school shooting in which a victim (or group of
victims)
> stood quietly and allowed themselves to be shot.>>
>
> Not that it matters, but I think you're wrong.
>
asked --
> at gunpoint -- if she believed in God. Knowing she'd be shot if she said
yes,
> she stood quietly and said yes.
>
words
> on them. What made the shirts morbid and tasteless, to my sensibility, at
> least, as that on the back, in graphics that evoked "Who Wants To Be A
> Millionaire," they'd added "And That's My Final Answer." Taking pride in
her
> faith seems to me to be one thing; getting a pop-culture yuk out of it
seems
> quite another.
Shooting's too good for them.....
--
Antony "Dop" Shepherd | "I say the cheese is
d...@btinternet.com | always twice the fencepost!"
www.btinternet.com/~dop |
Jonathan D. Roth
JD
Kyle Moyer wrote in message ...
>
>Not with some slight alterations. Apparently, Strange Kiss was a slight
>alteration of his nixed Satana series for Marvel.
>
>
David Welsh
bobk...@aol.com (BobKinDC) wrote:
> Richard Pace wrote:
>
> There's a slight matter of timing at work here. My copy of
_Deathbird Stories_
> doesn't have dates for the stories, but my guess is that "Whimper of
Whipped
> Dogs" was written in the early 70s, over a decade after Kitty
Genovese. If
> he'd published it in 1962, his career would've nosedived a lot
earlier.
> Columbine's still recent enough and nerves still raw enough that DC's
balk is a
> damned sensible reaction.
>
> A better comparison would be _The Manchurian Candidate_, which was
released
> before the JFK assassination, but pulled from distribution immediately
> afterwards as a sensible reaction to the public's feelings. Writers
don't need
> to consider such things, but publishers (and studios) do.
_The Whimper of Whipped Dogs_ is copyright 1973, just short of a decade
after the murder of Kitty Genovese on March 13, 1964.
I don't see why an earlier publication would have hurt Ellison's
career. Compare the success of J.G. Ballard even after he published
_The Assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy Considered as a Downhill
Motor Race_ in 1966, just three years after JFK was murdered November
22, 1963. Did most readers at the time know it was an homage to Alfred
Jarry's _The Crucifixion Considered as an Uphill Bicycle Race_ ?
Controversy often generates sales.
IMO, the thing that most hurts public perception of Harlan Ellison is
his delay of more than 25 years (so far) in publishing _The Last
Dangerous Visions_.
David Welsh
---
"There is no profession so lucrative as that which practises on the
superstition of the multitude."
Edward Bulwer-Lytton
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David Welsh
of victims)
> stood quietly and allowed themselves to be shot.>>
>
> Not that it matters, but I think you're wrong.
>
> I keep hearing about one of the victims in one of these things being
asked --
> at gunpoint -- if she believed in God. Knowing she'd be shot if she
said yes,
> she stood quietly and said yes.
>
The name of the young lady was Cassie Bernall. She did not _allow_
herself to be shot; she had no choice in the matter. I'm certain she
would have been murdered no matter what her answer.
This is from the book _She Said Yes: The Unlikely Martyrdom of Cassie
Bernall_ by her mother, Misty Bernall:
"As soon as I entered the library I saw Cassie. I knew it was her
immediately. She was lying under a table close to another girl. Cassie
had been shot in the head at very close range. In fact, the bullet
wound indicated that the muzzle was touching her skin. She may have put
a hand up to protect herself, because the tip of one finger was blown
away, but she couldn't have had time to do more. That blast took her
instantly."
Cassie Bernall had only recently turned to Christ. Prior to that, she
was a troubled youth who herself had entertained murderous fantasies.
Material found after her death showed her earlier fascination with
witchcraft, suicide, alcohol, and half-formed plans to murder her
parents and an unpopular teacher. At the time of her death, her
religious faith had put all such things in the past. It is unfortunate
that two of her classmates lived out such fantasies; they were actually
evil. When she said "Yes", one said "Why?" but gave her no time to
answer.
David Welsh
Nat Gertler <n...@gertler.com> wrote:
> And what you've heard is false, and continues to be put forth by
> those for whom having a martyr is an advantage. Go here for
> more information about the truth regarding Cassie Bernall
> and the claims made about her:
>
Trouble with this is that there are eyewitnesses with conflicting
stories among the survivors, so anyone with an agenda to pursue can
claim the benefit of the doubt. The Bernall statement was reported by
several students just afterward. Richard Castaldo (shot but survived,
now paralyzed) initially said it happened, but now says it did not.
Emily Wyant says it did not happen in that way, and that she was the
only direct witness. Joshua Lapp says it did happen and that the
killers had similar exchanges with others. Rachel Scott (killed) and
Valeen Schnurr (shot but survived) are two such, which has been
confirmed by others.
The question, as in all such situations, is whom to believe? The
Bernall story as commonly reported is consistent with the earliest
eyewitness accounts, which tend to be the most accurate.
David Welsh
Pat ONeill
"untrue":
I know the Cassie Bernall story may have holes a mile wide in it. But that
doesn't matter in the context of Kurt's question--because even the probably
"untrue" version of Bernall's story does not have her quietly calling upon her
killer to go ahead and shoot her.
Best, Pat
Rich Johnston
patdo...@aol.comnospam says...
>
>I know the Cassie Bernall story may have holes a mile wide in it. But that
>doesn't matter in the context of Kurt's question--because even the probably
>"untrue" version of Bernall's story does not have her quietly calling upon her
>killer to go ahead and shoot her.
It's funny how a piece of fiction written before the Columbine incident failed
to predict a misreported version of a child's reaction to a gun.
But that's comics for you. Obsessed with telling a good story instead.
Rich Johnston twis...@hotmail.com
All The Rage and Rich's Rumblings at http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com
Ramblings 2000 at http://come.to/ramblings & http://www.twistandshoutcomics.com
Selling lots of comics at http://www.geocities.com/evenwood/sale.html
Adrian Brown
patdo...@aol.comnospam (Pat ONeill) writes:
>The subtext of the story is very definitely that
>"alienation" is the reason for these kids being victims...not even the cause
>of the shooters using guns against fellow students, but of the victims
>acquiescing to their role.
>
>And it's a crock.
No-one ever considers the victims' motivations do they ?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
charity comic requests contributions
http://members.aol.com/adeheathen/c2000page.htm
Adrian Brown
writes:
>Adrian Brown said:
>>Just a thought - not having had time to download the whole story yet - but
>is
>>there any way the reaction at the end of the story could be considered an
>>alternative way to react ?
>>You know, how not everyone reacts the same way after a traumatic event?
>>And chosen here to represent a different message from the shooting ?
>
>I think you need to read the end of the story to understand what the earlier
>poster meant by "how the guy reacted" (quote rearranged for syntax).
>Specifically, he's not referring to an "after the event" reaction, but a
>reaction =during= the event.
I have done now.
You're right although I partly stand by my original statement.
What if the people at those shootings had stood back and said "shoot" ?
It is not (despite the over generalised claims from people with no first hand
experience on this thread) unlikely that a person in this situation would react
that way. The implication of the story is NOT "Here is Warren Ellis's
explanation of why Columbine happened" but what other factors might be
involved.
Factors in people's reactions to, not in the causes of such incidents.
Adrian Brown
patdo...@aol.comnospam (Pat ONeill) writes:
>Yes, it does. The story purports to have "the explanation" of the rash of
>school shootings...but the "facts" it presents have no relation to the
>reality of those shootings.
It's a story. A work of fiction.
It portrays a possible reaction to those events, which is disturbing and at the
same time "unlikely". But that is the strength of the horror genre when holding
up a mirror to society. Allowing the reader to examine emotional possibilities.
Anyone who has been clinically depressed might have a different perspective
about the realism of the boy's response to the gun.
This story, out of the context of the time it was due to be published, is
nothing more (or less) than a thought-provoking look at what went on. It was
right to withdraw the book from publication at that time. It is a shame that
compromise on the timing could not be reached, but that's Warren's prerogative.
Richard Pace
> In article <39A2CF99...@gertler.com>,
> Nat Gertler <n...@gertler.com> wrote:
>
> > And what you've heard is false, and continues to be put forth by
> > those for whom having a martyr is an advantage. Go here for
> > more information about the truth regarding Cassie Bernall
> > and the claims made about her:
> >
>
> Trouble with this is that there are eyewitnesses with conflicting
> stories among the survivors, so anyone with an agenda to pursue can
> claim the benefit of the doubt.
From what I understand there is only one eyewitness with several
"earwitnesses". I'd take the work of the girl who was right there when
Cassie was shot and is now dealing with the wrath of her local community
by revealing what she knew.
> The Bernall statement was reported by
> several students just afterward. Richard Castaldo (shot but survived,
> now paralyzed) initially said it happened, but now says it did not.
I believe that's the guy who said he thought it was Cassie, but later
admitted he wasn't sure.
>
> Emily Wyant says it did not happen in that way, and that she was the
> only direct witness. Joshua Lapp says it did happen and that the
> killers had similar exchanges with others. Rachel Scott (killed) and
> Valeen Schnurr (shot but survived) are two such, which has been
> confirmed by others.
>
> The question, as in all such situations, is whom to believe? The
> Bernall story as commonly reported is consistent with the earliest
> eyewitness accounts, which tend to be the most accurate.
That would make Wyant a liar -- I'm uncomfortable with the notion of
dismissing the story of the girl hiding next to Cassie when she was shot
especially when the investigators had already reached the conclusion that
the She Said Yes situation didn't happen with Cassie.
Problem with that is many of the early accounts of what actually happened
in various aspects of the Columbine event are wrong. I was initially
touched that a girl would have the bravery to answer with her conscience
while facing immediate and senseless death, but now I find myself feeling
revolted by the PR and publishing industry more interested in using the
burgeoning myth surrounding Cassie's death.
Nat Gertler
>
> The question, as in all such situations, is whom to believe? The
> Bernall story as commonly reported is consistent with the earliest
> eyewitness accounts, which tend to be the most accurate.
No, it's not consistent with the early eyewitness accounts,
which put Barnall as being where Schnurr was, instead of where
she really was.
Kevin J. Maroney
>I don't see why an earlier publication would have hurt Ellison's
>career. Compare the success of J.G. Ballard even after he published
>_The Assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy Considered as a Downhill
>Motor Race_ in 1966, just three years after JFK was murdered November
>22, 1963. Did most readers at the time know it was an homage to Alfred
>Jarry's _The Crucifixion Considered as an Uphill Bicycle Race_ ?
>
>Controversy often generates sales.
In the case of "The Assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy...", the
"controversy" didn't generate sales, at least in the US. The American
edition of the book containing that story, _The Atrocity Exhibition_,
was pulped by the publisher before it was distributed. Fewer than 100
copies survived.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Unplugged Games | kmar...@ungames.com
"Love doesn't have a point. Love *is* the point."--Alan Moore
Julio Gea-Banacloche
<dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
> Julio Gea-Banacloche wrote:
> > "Bug-eyed aliens from Pluto!!!!"
>
> you're still upset over watchmen.
That's what everybody keeps telling me, but I swear I had Calvin and
Hobbes in mind when I wrote that...
> sigh.
It's OK, really...
> wrt to shoot, i got the last page an explanation-
> it worke,d even tho
> it was cursorily ridiculous, for one simple reason,
> the school shooters ARE those kids.
Some may be, and some may not be...
> now, the transition from shooter to shootee is a bit
> of a stretch,
"a bit"???
> but it actually works well allegorically.
It CAN work well allegorically: "if you stare into the abyss, the abyss
stares back at you"; "too much fighting aginst monsters, and you become
a monster yourself"; the end of the TV series "The Prisoner"; and all
that stuff.
But it does not work well here.
(Actually, to tell the truth, I didn't really think that the ending of
"The Prisoner" worked that well with had gone before, either, but I
still think it would have been a great ending for a *different* series,
if nothing else...)
Julio
Julio Gea-Banacloche
<fire...@panix.com> wrote:
> No desire to read the story, just commenting on the comments about it.
Ah. Well, you're not missing much.
Of course, by now the comments have degenerated into another "everyone
vs. Pat O'Neill" free-for-all, although I'm sure that will change once
the Christian Right takes notice of some of the latest posts...
Julio
(who's not even excluding the possibility of this thread degerating into
another Creation vs. Evolution debate yet, and who thinks that maybe
Godwin's (Goodwin?) law should be amended to include "Creation vs.
Evolution" right next to "Hitler and the Nazis", at least going by what
this newsgroup has been like lately)
Talon The Merciless
>And what you've heard is false, and continues to be put forth by
>those for whom having a martyr is an advantage.
1) You don't know that it's false. There are several witnesses' accounts, and
you've chosen to believe the lone voice who possibly changed her story after the
fact.
2) Neither having, nor being, a martyr is an advantage.
>Go here for
>more information about the truth regarding Cassie Bernall
>and the claims made about her:
>
>http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/09/30/bernall/index.html
The real question to ask is why did the media completely disregard this event
during all the live telecasts and interviews? People told this story and the
media left it on the cutting room floor. It would've been nice to see the
sincerity of the eyewitnesses' accounts for ourselves, rather than reading one
lone dissenting viewpoint over a year later.
>Did the killers have that exchange with someone? Yes, someone
>else. Someone who had already been shot. And who they didn't
>shoot again after she answered.
Always knew about her.
Oh, and you can bet there was Prayer in school on that day.
Talon T M
Absolute Ruler of RACM
Avram Grumer
Gea-Banacloche <jgea...@comp.uark.edu> wrote:
> In article <39A357C5...@mdo.net>, "damon, interrupted"
> <dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
>
> > Julio Gea-Banacloche wrote:
>
> > > "Bug-eyed aliens from Pluto!!!!"
> >
> > you're still upset over watchmen.
>
> That's what everybody keeps telling me, but I swear I had
> Calvin and Hobbes in mind when I wrote that...
Now I'm imagining young Adrain Veidt always dragging around a stuffed
mutant lynx.
"But Mo-o-o-o-om!!! Bubastis and I have to save the world by creating a
giant teleporting psychic interdimensional alien!!"
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
"Some people need to learn that the Internet changes everything.
And some people need to learn that it doesn't." -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden
David Welsh
Richard Pace <rp...@idirect.com> wrote:
> From what I understand there is only one eyewitness with several
> "earwitnesses". I'd take the work of the girl who was right there
when
> Cassie was shot and is now dealing with the wrath of her local
community
> by revealing what she knew.
>
Fair enough.
David Welsh
---
Nat Gertler
>
> In article <39A2CF99...@gertler.com>, Nat says...
>
> >And what you've heard is false, and continues to be put forth by
> >those for whom having a martyr is an advantage.
>
> 1) You don't know that it's false.
I know there's no reliable reason to believe otherwise. I know
the person who was actually there said otherwise. I know
that there are witnesses who saw the eyewitness agonizing over the
falseness of the claims long before that falseness was generally
exposed. I know there is a witness who saw this person inform
the parents/profiteers that it was false. I know the claim
that she said something at all was based primarily on the report
of one earwitness... who identified the source of the statement
as the placement of someone else who is known to have said it.
I can't prove there were no invisible Klingons in the room,
either, but there isn't real reason to believe there was.
> The real question to ask is why did the media completely disregard this event
> during all the live telecasts and interviews? People told this story and the
> media left it on the cutting room floor.
Funny, people sure seem to have heard of it. Couldn't have been because
they saw it in the media, eh?
> Oh, and you can bet there was Prayer in school on that day.
And you can see what good it did.... lotsa folks dead. Gee,
what power.
David Welsh
kmar...@ungames.com wrote:
> David Welsh <mo...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >I don't see why an earlier publication would have hurt Ellison's
> >career. Compare the success of J.G. Ballard even after he published
> >_The Assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy Considered as a
Downhill
> >Motor Race_ in 1966, just three years after JFK was murdered November
> >22, 1963. Did most readers at the time know it was an homage to
Alfred
> >Jarry's _The Crucifixion Considered as an Uphill Bicycle Race_ ?
> >
> >Controversy often generates sales.
>
> In the case of "The Assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy...", the
> "controversy" didn't generate sales, at least in the US. The American
> edition of the book containing that story, _The Atrocity Exhibition_,
> was pulped by the publisher before it was distributed. Fewer than 100
> copies survived.
>
Wow. I never knew that. Thanks.
I always thought the first American edition of the 1970 anthology _The
Atrocity Exhibition_ was the one from Grove Press in 1972, retitled
_Love and Napalm: Export USA_. Since you mentioned it, I have
researched some and find there was a Doubleday book for the U.S. market
earlier.
The JFK story was also collected in _The Day of Forever_ in 1967, but
that was a London publication, not U.S.
Talon The Merciless
>
>Of course, by now the comments have degenerated into another "everyone
>vs. Pat O'Neill" free-for-all, although I'm sure that will change once
>the Christian Right takes notice of some of the latest posts...
There's no Christian Right here but me. ;)
In the Bernall story, you have multiple witnesses and only one tells a different
story...and one that Bernall's parents claimed that she *changed*. Either way,
with bullets flying and death and near-death experiences, who's to say how
accurate any testimony actually is? The main truth is that Cassie was gunned
down in school.
The fact that seems to wrankle many on this thread is that young people have
flocked to Christianity because of the Columbine incident, whether the story
happened the way it was reported or not.
Talon T M
Abolute Ruler of RACM
Talon The Merciless
>
>> 1) You don't know that it's false.
>
>I know there's no reliable reason to believe otherwise.
Sure there is...you weren't there.
The parents claim that this one lone dissenter originally agreed with everyone
else and changed her story later. And after TWA800 and Waco, I don't trust
*anything* an 'investigator' says.
I'm pretty neutral on this one, believing it could've happened either way. I
don't know how one person's view has swayed you so much...oh wait, I'll bet I
do.
>I know the person who was actually there said otherwise. I know
>that there are witnesses who saw the eyewitness agonizing over the
>falseness of the claims long before that falseness was generally
>exposed. I know there is a witness who saw this person inform
>the parents/profiteers that it was false. I know the claim
>that she said something at all was based primarily on the report
>of one earwitness... who identified the source of the statement
>as the placement of someone else who is known to have said it.
You know they said that. And you also know there are conflicting accounts. *I*
know that it has been purposefully muddled, for some unexplained reason.
>I can't prove there were no invisible Klingons in the room,
>either, but there isn't real reason to believe there was.
Terrible strawman. Multiple eyewitnesses vs. one dissenter. I'm not saying
that should make one believe one side over the other, but it's a definite
concern trying to believe either. At least for now.
>> The real question to ask is why did the media completely disregard this event
>> during all the live telecasts and interviews? People told this story and the
>> media left it on the cutting room floor.
>
>Funny, people sure seem to have heard of it.
I watched 24 hour television coverage for three days straight. Not one time was
this angle covered. The story first surfaced on the internet, and then talk
radio. Why would TV censor (uh oh!) this angle?
>Couldn't have been because
>they saw it in the media, eh?
Nope, sure wouldn't be.
>> Oh, and you can bet there was Prayer in school on that day.
>
>And you can see what good it did.... lotsa folks dead. Gee,
>what power.
And lotsa folks that should've been dead survived. Pipe bombs that failed to
explode, etc...many people *who were there* considered it a miracle.
tphile
David Welsh wrote:
> In article <20000822124117...@ng-fb1.aol.com>,
> bobk...@aol.com (BobKinDC) wrote:
> > Richard Pace wrote:
> >
> > There's a slight matter of timing at work here. My copy of
> _Deathbird Stories_
> > doesn't have dates for the stories, but my guess is that "Whimper of
> Whipped
> > Dogs" was written in the early 70s, over a decade after Kitty
> Genovese. If
> > he'd published it in 1962, his career would've nosedived a lot
> earlier.
> > Columbine's still recent enough and nerves still raw enough that DC's
> balk is a
> > damned sensible reaction.
> >
> > A better comparison would be _The Manchurian Candidate_, which was
> released
> > before the JFK assassination, but pulled from distribution immediately
> > afterwards as a sensible reaction to the public's feelings. Writers
> don't need
> > to consider such things, but publishers (and studios) do.
>
> _The Whimper of Whipped Dogs_ is copyright 1973, just short of a decade
> after the murder of Kitty Genovese on March 13, 1964.
>
> I don't see why an earlier publication would have hurt Ellison's
> career. Compare the success of J.G. Ballard even after he published
> _The Assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy Considered as a Downhill
> Motor Race_ in 1966, just three years after JFK was murdered November
> 22, 1963. Did most readers at the time know it was an homage to Alfred
> Jarry's _The Crucifixion Considered as an Uphill Bicycle Race_ ?
>
> Controversy often generates sales.
>
> IMO, the thing that most hurts public perception of Harlan Ellison is
> his delay of more than 25 years (so far) in publishing _The Last
> Dangerous Visions_.
and also for using Tuckerisms in a Man from U.N.C.L.E. episode it seems.
or maybe it was with not sleeping with an editor. Its hard to say.
He talks about it as guest columnist for But I Digress in Comic Buyers Guide
1398
September 1, 2000.
Check it out, its one of Harlans funniest stories yet.
I'd tell you the details but I don't want to spoil it ;-)
tphile
Richard Pace
> In article <jgeabana-4B4D9F...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Julio says...
> >
> >Of course, by now the comments have degenerated into another "everyone
> >vs. Pat O'Neill" free-for-all, although I'm sure that will change once
> >the Christian Right takes notice of some of the latest posts...
>
> There's no Christian Right here but me. ;)
You're better described as the Christian Wrong. :)
>
>
> In the Bernall story, you have multiple witnesses and only one tells a different
> story...
Not true. I think all but one of the witnesses have different stories -- they
thought it was Cassie, but they didn't see her. And Cassie wasn't where she would
have to have been for those witnesses to hear her, Schnurr was.
> and one that Bernall's parents claimed that she *changed*.
I have no problem with Bernall's parents deciding to believe the story even against
the contrary testimony and evidence -- they need something to get through this.
Hell, perhaps there's some deep down guilt from sending her to Christian boot camp
in their as well. Face it, the parents are rightfully grieving, if they wanted to
believe Cassie was really abducted by aliens in the midst of the massacre not many
people would be able to change their minds about that right now.
> Either way,
> with bullets flying and death and near-death experiences, who's to say how
> accurate any testimony actually is?
Well, the testimony is bearing out the evidence of the ballistics and crime scene.
> The main truth is that Cassie was gunned
> down in school.
And she was "praying" of a sort while the shooting was going on.
> The fact that seems to wrankle many on this thread is that young people have
> flocked to Christianity because of the Columbine incident, whether the story
> happened the way it was reported or not.
What rankles me is the spiritual and financial profiteering on the horrible
incident. What rankles me as well, is some of the groups responding as if there's
been an attack on Cassie for revealing the incident didn't occur. She had her
conversion and possibly would have said yes in the situation. I find it suspect
that certain groups feel she should only have been murdered affirming her faith
otherwise her death was meaningless.
Y'know, it's not "rankles" as much as "saddens".
Jason Fliegel
>In article <20000823063752...@ng-ci1.aol.com>,
>patdo...@aol.comnospam says...
>>
>>I know the Cassie Bernall story may have holes a mile wide in it. But
>>that doesn't matter in the context of Kurt's question--because even the
>>probably "untrue" version of Bernall's story does not have her quietly
>>calling upon her killer to go ahead and shoot her.
More to the point are the differences between the Cassie Bernall of the story
and the character in Ellis's story. Cassie (allegedly) said "shoot me" because
her faith was so strong that she refused to compromise it even at the cost of
her own life -- her devotion to God was worth more to her than her own life.
The character in Ellis's story said "shoot me" because he was depressed and
alienated -- nothing had any value to him, not even his own life.
>It's funny how a piece of fiction written before the Columbine incident
>failed to predict a misreported version of a child's reaction to a gun.
It's not that the story didn't accurately predict how schoolkids would react to
being threatened with a gun (and had reacted, by the way -- Columbine is the
most infamous school shooting, but there were several relatively high profile
ones that occurred before Columbine and likely before Ellis wrote his story).
It's that the story asked a provocative question then provided a trite and
unsupportable answer. It's as if Ellis asked "how can we end world hunger" and
then answered "we'll just give everypne a magical cornucopia of neverending
food." It's a completely fantastical answer to a completely real-world
question, and as such, it belittles the real-world question.
>But that's comics for you. Obsessed with telling a good story instead.
it wasn't a good story. It was a shaggy-dog story filled with cliches and
ending with a lousy pay-off.
Jason Fliegel
Que...@aol.com
damon, interrupted
Julio Gea-Banacloche wrote:
>
> In article <39A357C5...@mdo.net>, "damon, interrupted"
> <dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
>
> > Julio Gea-Banacloche wrote:
>
> > > "Bug-eyed aliens from Pluto!!!!"
> >
> > you're still upset over watchmen.
>
> That's what everybody keeps telling me, but I swear I had Calvin and
> Hobbes in mind when I wrote that...
sure sure.
> > sigh.
>
> It's OK, really...
>
> > wrt to shoot, i got the last page an explanation-
> > it worke,d even tho
> > it was cursorily ridiculous, for one simple reason,
> > the school shooters ARE those kids.
>
> Some may be, and some may not be...
many of the kids had a death wish.
some of whom survived.
> > now, the transition from shooter to shootee is a bit
> > of a stretch,
>
> "a bit"???
yes.
klebold and the other columbine shooting-
they WANTED to die, they
WERE the disaffected kid.
in fact theyWANTED ot be shot, in a shootout
with police.
in the end, they shot themselves, or each other,-
i'm not sure how it worked itself out.
now, what ellis, did, and givenmy respect for him as a writer,
i suspect he knew he was doing this,
was took what makes these kids shoot other kids,
and turn that into a reason why one kid gets shot.
constantine implied, might have even said, that it's the reason why
kids are getting shot----
i'm stopping here, because i can't word it in such a way
as to disatnce the shootee in the story from
the shooters inreal life.
which is my point, and the hooro of it, and
taken on THOSE grounds it's a good story.
as long as one doesn't assume that most of the kids shot
want to be shot, which is implied somewhat, and is the ridiculous part.
> > but it actually works well allegorically.
>
> It CAN work well allegorically: "if you stare into the abyss, the abyss
> stares back at you"; "too much fighting aginst monsters, and you become
> a monster yourself"; the end of the TV series "The Prisoner"; and all
> that stuff.
>
> But it does not work well here.
>
> (Actually, to tell the truth, I didn't really think that the ending of
> "The Prisoner" worked that well with had gone before, either, but I
> still think it would have been a great ending for a *different* series,
> if nothing else...)
>
> Julio
--
Definition of irony: Pat Choate, a Buchanan supporter who decries the
corruption of the two main parties, supporting idiotic laws in states
that disallow a candidate to switch parties when running for office
because of a Reform Party schism.
http://www.salon.com/business/feature/2000/08/01/napsterpress/index.html
damon, interrupted
Talon The Merciless wrote:
>
> In article <39A2CF99...@gertler.com>, Nat says...
>
> >And what you've heard is false, and continues to be put forth by
> >those for whom having a martyr is an advantage.
>
> 1) You don't know that it's false. There are several witnesses' accounts, and
> you've chosen to believe the lone voice who possibly changed her story after the
> fact.
someone else already pointed out that more than one person changed their
story.
>
> 2) Neither having, nor being, a martyr is an advantage.
yet you work so tirelessly at it!
> >Go here for
> >more information about the truth regarding Cassie Bernall
> >and the claims made about her:
> >
> >http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/09/30/bernall/index.html
>
> The real question to ask is why did the media completely disregard this event
> during all the live telecasts and interviews? People told this story and the
> media left it on the cutting room floor.
maybe in lalal land they did.
*i* heard about it from multiple sources....
oh, wait, youmean the story about it NOT being
her who said yes.
that's simple- the media didn't want people to see it had been wrong
in promotoing her as a myrtyr in the first place.
damon, interrupted
Talon The Merciless wrote:
>
> In article <39A4556F...@gertler.com>, Nat says...
> >.....
>
> >I know the person who was actually there said otherwise. I know
> >that there are witnesses who saw the eyewitness agonizing over the
> >falseness of the claims long before that falseness was generally
> >exposed. I know there is a witness who saw this person inform
> >the parents/profiteers that it was false. I know the claim
> >that she said something at all was based primarily on the report
> >of one earwitness... who identified the source of the statement
> >as the placement of someone else who is known to have said it.
>
> You know they said that. And you also know there are conflicting accounts. *I*
> know that it has been purposefully muddled, for some unexplained reason.
not content to be a mere trolling ass,
talon has now decided to enter into
the pj/kalelfan world of conspiracy.
which absolves all others of any attempt to argue with him.
from that point on, arguing with talon is
like trying to convince pat he's wrong, or trying
to stay out of elayne's killfile
while disagreeing with her.
> >I can't prove there were no invisible Klingons in the room,
> >either, but there isn't real reason to believe there was.
>
> Terrible strawman. Multiple eyewitnesses vs. one dissenter.
wrong.
there was only one eyewitness.
> >> The real question to ask is why did the media completely disregard this event
> >> during all the live telecasts and interviews? People told this story and the
> >> media left it on the cutting room floor.
> >
> >Funny, people sure seem to have heard of it.
>
> I watched 24 hour television coverage for three days straight. Not one time was
> this angle covered. The story first surfaced on the internet, and then talk
> radio. Why would TV censor (uh oh!) this angle?
in lala land.
all the rest of us heard of this story from the mainstream media.
Talon The Merciless
>
>> You know they said that. And you also know there are conflicting accounts.
>> *I* know that it has been purposefully muddled, for some unexplained reason.
>
>not content to be a mere trolling ass,
>talon has now decided to enter into
>the pj/kalelfan world of conspiracy.
Heh. Says the Co-Conspirator of Quantum Foam. ;)
>which absolves all others of any attempt to argue with him.
Why are you so terrified of others debating me? Are you afraid that they might
actually best me where you failed?
>from that point on, arguing with talon is
>like trying to convince pat he's wrong, or trying
>to stay out of elayne's killfile
And yet you continue. Must be your Religious Ritual. ;)
>> Terrible strawman. Multiple eyewitnesses vs. one dissenter.
>
>wrong.
>there was only one eyewitness.
Oh, it was you?
>in lala land.
>all the rest of us heard of this story from the mainstream media.
When, where, what station, what date?
Talon T M
Absolute Ruler of RACM
Chinese kill baby to enforce birth rule
http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/08/24/timfgnfar01001.html
Report: China Arrests Christians
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20000823/aponline132508_000.htm
Julio Gea-Banacloche
<dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
> many of the kids had a death wish.
>
> some of whom survived.
>
>
> > > now, the transition from shooter to shootee is a bit
> > > of a stretch,
> >
> > "a bit"???
>
>
> yes.
> klebold and the other columbine shooting-
> they WANTED to die, they
> WERE the disaffected kid.
> in fact theyWANTED ot be shot, in a shootout
> with police.
OK, let's look at it together, then. I'll grant you this...
> in the end, they shot themselves, or each other,-
> i'm not sure how it worked itself out.
> now, what ellis, did, and givenmy respect for him as a writer,
> i suspect he knew he was doing this,
> was took what makes these kids shoot other kids,
> and turn that into a reason why one kid gets shot.
...as I'll grant you that Ellis is not an idiot.
Let's then assume that what Ellis is trying to say is that kids shoot
other kids because they themselves want to die, because the world they
have grown up in has made them regard their own lives (and by extension
anyone else's) as worthless.
Let's then first of all agree that, if this is what he wants to say, he
says it badly. Proof: several fairly intelligent people have read the
story already, and no one seems to have "gotten this point"--it's taken
the two of us thinking about it to bring it out in a form that may at
least make some sense.
In other words, Ellis makes the point, if he makes it at all, in a
clumsy way, by projecting this "death wish" onto the victims (which is a
trick that, however clever, is more likely to inspire outrage than
invite critical analysis), and by further muddling this up by trying to
make some kind of universal truth out of it, what with Constantine
pointing out how the other kids were just watching, standing there, not
running, not frightened for their lives, etc.
As you and others have already admitted, what all of this adds up to is
just ridiculous, at face value anyway.
But let's at least look at the alleged point, as stated above: "kids
shoot other kids because they themselves want to die, because the world
they have grown up in has made them regard their own lives (and by
extension anyone else's) as worthless". Is this true?
IMO, it is at least partly true in real life: it was almost certainly
part of the truth of what happened at Columbine, and it may well be true
in other similar incidents in which the killers were teenagers.
But the killers in Ellis's story are not teenagers, they are *children*.
Way too young to have a real "death wish", simply too young to even
realize truly what killing is. Ellis is way off base when he projects
all this teen angst about growing up in a bleak world that offers no
hope onto ten-year olds, who are much simpler creatures, with limited
understanding of the world, and who act mostly by imitation.
In the real world, when a child shoots another child deliberately (and
it happens, tragically) it is because of a specific reason, not a
general dissatisfaction with life. Inasmuch as it reflects on the
society in which the child grew up, it does not say anything about "lack
of hope," at least not to me. It simply says, first, that guns are way
too easily available around here, and second, that in this society
killing is generally regarded as an acceptable way to solve a problem,
and the child has picked on that.
Now *that* is scary. But it is not at all what Ellis said.
Incidentally, I could believe children (but not teenagers) standing
around not knowing what to do if another child pulled out a gun. But
certainly not because of any "death wish", just because of their limited
understanding of the world that I mentioned earlier. Ellis might as
well claim that a deer caught in the headlights has a "death wish".
All of this brings up an interesting question. If at least some of
Ellis's alleged point would not have been wholly off the mark regarding
teenage killers, why did he purposely choose to make his killers
children instead?
I can only guess that he probably felt that the story would be more
horrific that way. But he totally blew it when he tried to give these
children a teenager's psychology.
Postscript:
One might also want to consider the *causes* for Ellis's alleged "death
wish". Here, Constantine pretty much does nothing but babble a lot. He
says something about children being raised by TV, but avoids actually
blaming the media directly. He then says something about run-down
schools in some godforsaken county in the middle of nowhere (I'm
paraphrasing from memory) in a way that suggests that lack of economic
opportunity may play an important role in all this. This does not fit
the facts of the Columbine shootings.
In fact, since Ellis wrote the story *before* the Columbine shootings,
he may have had in mind another incident, which took place in Jonesboro,
Arkansas, on March of 1998. The killers were two boys aged 13 and 11.
The 13 year old was clearly the ringleader, and the 11 year old was
following along. Details can be found here, for those interested:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9803/26/school.shooting/index.html
Now, the mention of Arkansas (where I happen to live) may conjure up
visions of abject poverty and all-encompassing despair, and it may
certainly be so in some places, but again, if Ellis had simply taken the
time to do his homework, he would have seen that the circumstances did
not at all fit his fancies. The kids came from two-income, middle class
families. Even anecdotally, their victims did not stand still to be
killed--they were running around because the killers had rung an alarm
in order to get them out of school and into an ambush. A teacher
actually tried to shield her students from the bullets by standing in
front of them, and as a result got killed. Compare this with the
passivity and fatalism of everybody in Ellis's story (without forgetting
the invisible cameraman).
There was also no apparent "death wish" on the part of the two killers
in this case, who were simply apprehended by the police as they ran
away.
The link I've given above also explains that the older boy had been
upset because a girl had dumped him--typical teenage angst, in other
words. It also mentions something interesting, which one *is* very
likely to encounter in these rural districts: "a long and active
tradition of game hunting" in both the killers' families. (God, Peter
David is going to love me for this.)
Please, anybody interested, go ahead and read it. It took three mouse
clicks to dig it up. That's how hard it is for a writer to do his
homework these days. Ellis obviously preferred to make up a problem and
a solution out of whole cloth.
Julio
Kevin J. Maroney
>Let's then assume that what Ellis is trying to say is that kids shoot
>other kids because they themselves want to die, because the world they
>have grown up in has made them regard their own lives (and by extension
>anyone else's) as worthless.
>
>Let's then first of all agree that, if this is what he wants to say, he
>says it badly. Proof: several fairly intelligent people have read the
>story already, and no one seems to have "gotten this point"--it's taken
>the two of us thinking about it to bring it out in a form that may at
>least make some sense.
Actually, that's exactly the point I derived from the story. I think
it's communicated quite clearly, and I don't know how anyone who read
the story with any attention could get another meaning from it. It's
not subtle.
damon, interrupted
pj[rick sharer] wrote:
>
> In article <39A4ADDA...@mdo.net>, damon, says...
> >
> >> You know they said that. And you also know there are conflicting accounts.
> >> *I* know that it has been purposefully muddled, for some unexplained reason.
> >
> >not content to be a mere trolling ass,
> >talon has now decided to enter into
> >the pj/kalelfan world of conspiracy.
>
> Heh. Says the Co-Conspirator of Quantum Foam. ;)
once again, the troll has no argument other
than to parrot one's words back.
> >which absolves all others of any attempt to argue with him.
>
> Why are you so terrified of others debating me? Are you afraid that they might
> actually best me where you failed?
why do you think i failed?
because i got tired of arguing with trolls like they
actually mean anything?
> >from that point on, arguing with talon is
> >like trying to convince pat he's wrong, or trying
> >to stay out of elayne's killfile
>
> And yet you continue.
i haven't been arguing with you for weeks.
in fact, you know that, so once again you're lying.
damon, interrupted
Julio Gea-Banacloche wrote:
>
> In article <39A4ABDA...@mdo.net>, "damon, interrupted"
> <dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
> ....
> > in the end, they shot themselves, or each other,-
> > i'm not sure how it worked itself out.
> > now, what ellis, did, and givenmy respect for him as a writer,
> > i suspect he knew he was doing this,
> > was took what makes these kids shoot other kids,
> > and turn that into a reason why one kid gets shot.
>
> ...as I'll grant you that Ellis is not an idiot.
>
> Let's then assume that what Ellis is trying to say is that kids shoot
> other kids because they themselves want to die, because the world they
> have grown up in has made them regard their own lives (and by extension
> anyone else's) as worthless.
>
> Let's then first of all agree that, if this is what he wants to say, he
> says it badly. Proof: several fairly intelligent people have read the
> story already, and no one seems to have "gotten this point"--it's taken
> the two of us thinking about it to bring it out in a form that may at
> least make some sense.
i won't agree to that-
many people misinterpreted fight club, or didn't
see the depth in matrix, or etc etc.
'says it badly' is merely an individual's reaction.
i'll grant youthis:
i thought the issue was 20 pages of non story,
followed by two very powerful and chilling
that superficially made a ridiculous statement.
i really don't object to your interpretation of the issue,
it just seems to me there's something else there,
and i'm explaining why i found the ending so powerful.
> In other words, Ellis makes the point, if he makes it at all, in a
> clumsy way, by projecting this "death wish" onto the victims (which is a
> trick that, however clever, is more likely to inspire outrage than
> invite critical analysis), and by further muddling this up by trying to
> make some kind of universal truth out of it, what with Constantine
> pointing out how the other kids were just watching, standing there, not
> running, not frightened for their lives, etc.
>
> As you and others have already admitted, what all of this adds up to is
> just ridiculous, at face value anyway.
>
> But let's at least look at the alleged point, as stated above: "kids
> shoot other kids because they themselves want to die, because the world
> they have grown up in has made them regard their own lives (and by
> extension anyone else's) as worthless". Is this true?
more than ture.
in america, murder suicides are quite common,
and teenage suicides are often common.
in fact, i'm surprised more columbines don't happen,
but i guess it's harder for teens to
get guns than adults.
> IMO, it is at least partly true in real life: it was almost certainly
> part of the truth of what happened at Columbine, and it may well be true
> in other similar incidents in which the killers were teenagers.
>
> But the killers in Ellis's story are not teenagers, they are *children*.
> Way too young to have a real "death wish", simply too young to even
> realize truly what killing is.
oh, i disagree with that.
i don't recall their ages, but i had a death wish at 14.
i''m just very poor at it.
Ellis is way off base when he projects
> all this teen angst about growing up in a bleak world that offers no
> hope onto ten-year olds, who are much simpler creatures, with limited
> understanding of the world, and who act mostly by imitation.
>
> In the real world, when a child shoots another child deliberately (and
> it happens, tragically) it is because of a specific reason, not a
> general dissatisfaction with life.
not the mass shootings.
Inasmuch as it reflects on the
> society in which the child grew up, it does not say anything about "lack
> of hope," at least not to me. It simply says, first, that guns are way
> too easily available around here, and second, that in this society
> killing is generally regarded as an acceptable way to solve a problem,
> and the child has picked on that.
>
> Now *that* is scary. But it is not at all what Ellis said.
not the mass shootings.
the surviving shooters have
mostly [from what i've read, granted i'm not an expert
on this] been alientated, and had no expectation that
this would solve problems so much as vent their rage.
> Incidentally, I could believe children (but not teenagers) standing
> around not knowing what to do if another child pulled out a gun. But
> certainly not because of any "death wish", just because of their limited
> understanding of the world that I mentioned earlier. Ellis might as
> well claim that a deer caught in the headlights has a "death wish".
>
> All of this brings up an interesting question. If at least some of
> Ellis's alleged point would not have been wholly off the mark regarding
> teenage killers, why did he purposely choose to make his killers
> children instead?
i don't want to reload those pages, and i'm remembering differently.
how old exactly where the kids?
....
> In fact, since Ellis wrote the story *before* the Columbine shootings,
> he may have had in mind another incident, which took place in Jonesboro,
> Arkansas, on March of 1998. The killers were two boys aged 13 and 11.
> The 13 year old was clearly the ringleader, and the 11 year old was
> following along. Details can be found here, for those interested:
> http://www.cnn.com/US/9803/26/school.shooting/index.html
>
> Now, the mention of Arkansas (where I happen to live) may conjure up
> visions of abject poverty and all-encompassing despair, and it may
> certainly be so in some places, but again, if Ellis had simply taken the
> time to do his homework, he would have seen that the circumstances did
> not at all fit his fancies. The kids came from two-income, middle class
> families. Even anecdotally, their victims did not stand still to be
> killed--they were running around because the killers had rung an alarm
> in order to get them out of school and into an ambush. A teacher
> actually tried to shield her students from the bullets by standing in
> front of them, and as a result got killed. Compare this with the
> passivity and fatalism of everybody in Ellis's story (without forgetting
> the invisible cameraman).
now, again, before we go any further:
i was under the impression the story centered aorund ONE
videotaped school shooting-
iow there were others, but the tape of the actual
shooting was just from the one incident.
again, this changes your argument, if i'm right, so i can't
address it until the issue is resolved.
> There was also no apparent "death wish" on the part of the two killers
> in this case, who were simply apprehended by the police as they ran
> away.
>
> The link I've given above also explains that the older boy had been
> upset because a girl had dumped him--typical teenage angst, in other
> words. It also mentions something interesting, which one *is* very
> likely to encounter in these rural districts: "a long and active
> tradition of game hunting" in both the killers' families. (God, Peter
> David is going to love me for this.)
>
> Please, anybody interested, go ahead and read it. It took three mouse
> clicks to dig it up. That's how hard it is for a writer to do his
> homework these days. Ellis obviously preferred to make up a problem and
> a solution out of whole cloth.
i think any story which offers a different perspective on
something, even if that perspective doesn't
apply to all cases, is worthwhile.
stories are meant to tell the universal by the personal,
but there will never BE a universal, and the personal can
only go so far.
you might think he pretended otherwise, but i'd call that rhetoric
instead of
ellis's actual beliefs.
ymmv.
Julio Gea-Banacloche
<dcru...@mdo.net> wrote:
> Julio Gea-Banacloche wrote:
> > But the killers in Ellis's story are not teenagers, they are *children*.
> > Way too young to have a real "death wish", simply too young to even
> > realize truly what killing is.
>
> oh, i disagree with that.
> i don't recall their ages, but i had a death wish at 14.
>
> i''m just very poor at it.
Luckily for us :-)
But anyway, I went back and reread the whole damn thing. It was pretty
much as I remembered. Only twice are any ages mentioned for the
killers: 10 and 11. And they are consistently referred to as children,
not teenagers.
You were a teenager at 14. :-)
All the killers in the school shootings prior to and including Columbine
had been teenagers, except for the 11-year-old boy in the Arkansas case
which I brought up the other day, who was following instructions from a
13-year old. That's the case which comes closest, in age, to the things
depicted in the story, so it should be the one to look into most
closely.
> now, again, before we go any further:
> i was under the impression the story centered aorund ONE
> videotaped school shooting-
> iow there were others, but the tape of the actual
> shooting was just from the one incident.
The shooter on the tape at the end of the story is different from the
one on the tape at the beginning, so there are at least two. There are
also a number of still pictures of what looks like other shootings in
the act of being committed.
> i think any story which offers a different perspective on
> something, even if that perspective doesn't
> apply to all cases, is worthwhile.
I'm actually not going to disagree with that. Sometimes it is
worthwhile to take the time and find out just how many ways somebody is
wrong: you may end up learning a lot in the process. In this limited
sense, even Creationism is worthwhile (see, I just *knew* I could find a
way to worm that into the thread!).
> stories are meant to tell the universal by the personal,
> but there will never BE a universal, and the personal can
> only go so far.
I like this phrase. I don't know if it applies here, but I like it
anyway.
Julio
Who still finds the idea of a father taking his child into the forest
and teaching him how to kill living creatures, who have done nothing at
all to them, just for the sheer fun of it, much more disturbing than
anything in that Hellblazer story.
Talon The Merciless
>
>> Heh. Says the Co-Conspirator of Quantum Foam. ;)
>
>once again, the troll has no argument other
>than to parrot one's words back.
I must be inspired by your efforts, like the above original comeback. ;)
>why do you think i failed?
The question is why do *you* think you failed?
>because i got tired of arguing with trolls like they
>actually mean anything?
Anything that rocks your boat is a troll.
>> And yet you continue.
>
>i haven't been arguing with you for weeks.
>in fact, you know that, so once again you're lying.
Quit arguing that you're not arguing!
Heh.
Talon T M
Absolute Ruler of RACM
Presidential Tracking Poll: Gore fade continues
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a39a675e96903.htm
Al Gore, Enabler Candidate kisses off rape charge
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a39a5e3d03992.htm
Convicted Pedophile Leads'Gays' in BoyScout Protest (II)- Insists BSA Should
Admit Homosexuals
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a39a5e3d03992.htm
Talon The Merciless
>
>Julio
>Who still finds the idea of a father taking his child into the forest
>and teaching him how to kill living creatures, who have done nothing at
>all to them, just for the sheer fun of it, much more disturbing than
>anything in that Hellblazer story.
That's because you've been conditioned to think that way.
Adrian Brown
>oh, i disagree with that.
>i don't recall their ages, but i had a death wish at 14.
>
>i''m just very poor at it.
wishing ?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
charity comic requests contributions
http://members.aol.com/adeheathen/c2000page.htm
Adrian Brown
Gea-Banacloche <jgea...@comp.uark.edu> writes a BIG thoughtful message:
>Let's then assume that what Ellis is trying to say is that kids shoot
>other kids because they themselves want to die, because the world they
>have grown up in has made them regard their own lives (and by extension
>anyone else's) as worthless.
>
Where exactly does the phrase "A Treatise on causes of schoolyard shootings by
Warren Ellis" appear ?
I am being doggedly facetious here, but seriously, would you say that (for
example) From Hell is trying to explain why a series of women were murdered in
victorian London ? Or perhaps he was writing a work of fiction based around
that fact.
>Let's then first of all agree that, if this is what he wants to say, he
>says it badly. Proof: several fairly intelligent people have read the
>story already, and no one seems to have "gotten this point"--it's taken
>the two of us thinking about it to bring it out in a form that may at
>least make some sense.
Nope. That is proof that not everyone reads in the same way.
I might have said that people read it badly, but I stopped being facetious
already.
>
>In other words, Ellis makes the point, if he makes it at all, in a
>clumsy way, by projecting this "death wish" onto the victims (which is a
>trick that, however clever, is more likely to inspire outrage than
>invite critical analysis),
Outrage is very easy to prvoke since, in the people who get outraged it just
lies around in a state of stasis until it is needed.
>and by further muddling this up by trying to
>make some kind of universal truth out of it, what with Constantine
>pointing out how the other kids were just watching, standing there, not
>running, not frightened for their lives, etc.
>
OVR: John Constantine is known for his universal truths isn't he ?
The way events were written, that's what happened. John merely pointed this out
to someone who spent so long studying the events in detail that they missed it.
Rather like people who spend too long looking at a work of art to enjoy it.
>As you and others have already admitted, what all of this adds up to is
>just ridiculous, at face value anyway.
>
I am really bemused that people cannot believe that someone might do this.
We are not being asked to believe that the real life victims did this, but that
the characters in the story did.
<edit>
>
>All of this brings up an interesting question. If at least some of
>Ellis's alleged point would not have been wholly off the mark regarding
>teenage killers, why did he purposely choose to make his killers
>children instead?
>
You keep saying alleged point as if you're trying to refute that was what he
was saying.
>I can only guess that he probably felt that the story would be more
>horrific that way. But he totally blew it when he tried to give these
>children a teenager's psychology.
>
Dunno, perhaps he's just talked to more desperate children than you have ?
> That's how hard it is for a writer to do his
>homework these days. Ellis obviously preferred to make up a problem and
>a solution out of whole cloth.
Well, writing a story about such things is not always about that sort of
homework.
So John Constantine is the voice of the writer, and his diatribe probably does
constitute some sort of perspective on the real world. And THAT you may
disagree with. But the story is not thereby "ridiculous".
damon, interrupted
Talon The Merciless wrote:
>
> In article <39A5FB63...@mdo.net>, damon, says...
> >
> >> Heh. Says the Co-Conspirator of Quantum Foam. ;)
> >
> >once again, the troll has no argument other
> >than to parrot one's words back.
>
> I must be inspired by your efforts, like the above original comeback. ;)
i'm not parroting your words back.
> >why do you think i failed?
>
> The question is why do *you* think you failed?
i didn't fail.
> >because i got tired of arguing with trolls like they
> >actually mean anything?
>
> Anything that rocks your boat is a troll.
tim isn't a troll. eucker isn't a troll.
you know this, therefore you're lying.
damon, interrupted
Adrian Brown wrote:
>
> In article <39A5FEC0...@mdo.net>, "damon, interrupted" <dcru...@mdo.net>
> writes:
>
> >oh, i disagree with that.
> >i don't recall their ages, but i had a death wish at 14.
> >
> >i''m just very poor at it.
>
> wishing ?
i tie the knot wrong, or i aim the gun wrong.
sometimes i even tie the knot aorund the wrong neck.
i'm just no good at this suicide thing.