arts funding for SF
Johan Larson
Does any of the money that the government and various private foundations
make available for support of the arts find its way into the hands of
SF writers?
Hypothesis: Very little, since SF is a popular art form, rather than
being a) proper "aht", or b) germane to a social group with victim
credentials.
If one were too make money available to promote the art and craft of good
SF writing, how should this be done?
Hypothesis: The biggest jump for an SF practitioner is that between
an accomplished amateur whose work consists primarily of short fiction,
and the professional working in the more lucrative artform, the novel.
Bridging this gap would be the most useful form of intervention, and
thus any funds available should be distributed to writers who
a) have distinguished themselves in the short-story magazines, and
b) are working on their first novels. Such funds would allow them
focus on their fledgling efforts, without holding a day-job
at the same time.
Johan Larson
Rebecca Ore
Karen Joy Fowler and Connie Willis, among a few others, have gotten NEA
grants.
--
Rebecca Ore
Johan Larson <jgla...@dudley.cs.wisc.edu> wrote in article
<5i3j20$2...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>...
Mister Skin
In article <5i3j20$2...@spool.cs.wisc.edu> Johan Larson,
jgla...@dudley.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>If one were too make money available to promote the art and craft of good
>SF writing, how should this be done?
It shouldn't be done. Government subsidized art is bad art, almost
without exception. The people who fund their artistic efforts with
government subsidies are invariably people whose work couldn't even
interest a dog even with a pork chop around its neck.
>Such funds would allow them
> focus on their fledgling efforts, without holding a day-job
> at the same time.
Another bad idea. People who are working on their first novel SHOULD have
day jobs -- they sometimes develop useful skills that way.
dum...@aol.com
>Does any of the money that the government and various private foundations
>make available for support of the arts find its way into the hands of
>SF writers?
>
> Hypothesis: Very little, since SF is a popular art form, rather than
> being a) proper "aht", or b) germane to a social group with victim
> credentials.
>
>If one were too make money available to promote the art and craft of good
>SF writing, how should this be done?
>
> Hypothesis: The biggest jump for an SF practitioner is that between
> an accomplished amateur whose work consists primarily of short fiction,
> and the professional working in the more lucrative artform, the novel.
> Bridging this gap would be the most useful form of intervention, and
> thus any funds available should be distributed to writers who
> a) have distinguished themselves in the short-story magazines, and
> b) are working on their first novels. Such funds would allow them
> focus on their fledgling efforts, without holding a day-job
> at the same time.
>
>Johan Larson
Makes too danged much sense, though, don't it? Perhaps if said fledgling novelist were to promise to use every possible profanity and every possible perversion while advocating the overthrow of the
government/return to institutionalized slavery/cannibalism in an SF-nal setting maybe the NEA could be induced to take notice?
Then again, what if nobody in the genre has ever actually applied for a grant?
Maybe it isn't all that difficult, after all?
Doug Wickstrom
E-mail replies to nimshubur(at)aol(dot)com
rrh...@aol.com
>Does any of the money that the government and various private >foundations
>make available for support of the arts find its way into the hands of
>SF writers?
Interzone, a very good British SF magazine, is supported to a smallish
extent by a British Arts Council grant.
Rich Horton
-----------------------------------
I have a web page at www.sff.net/people/richard.horton.
New Reviews: Blue Mars, The Sweetheart Season and Use of Weapons.
Ray Radlein
Mister Skin wrote:
>
> The people who fund their artistic efforts with government subsidies
> are invariably people whose work couldn't even interest a dog even with
> a pork chop around its neck.
Yeah, like that "Bach" dude. Or that "Mozart" fellow. What lamers.
- Ray R.
--
*********************************************************************
"What are we going to do tonight, Brain?"
"The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to RULE THE SEVAGRAM!"
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
*********************************************************************
Steve Patterson
In article <334628...@learnlink.emory.edu>, Ray Radlein <r...@learnlink.emory.edu> says:
>
>Mister Skin wrote:
>>
>> The people who fund their artistic efforts with government subsidies
>> are invariably people whose work couldn't even interest a dog even with
>> a pork chop around its neck.
>
>Yeah, like that "Bach" dude. Or that "Mozart" fellow. What lamers.
I suppose you could say that they had government subsidies, but I'd hardly
claim that they had federal funding... the kind of support they had was
more like having Pres. Clinton (personally) hand out money from his own
accounts to artists to commission works, not a government grant.
(I should talk to Mom about this; she did a study on the history of art
patronage back in, uh, call it "college." (Quebec is weird; sometimes its
education system works on levels with no particular corespondant in US/
Canadian systems.) I heard her talk about it a while back, and it was a
fascinating subject...)
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Note: My "from:" address has been altered to foil mailbots.
Please use the corrected address appearing below.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Steven J. Patterson spatt...@wwdc.com
"Men may move mountains, but ideas move men."
-- M.N. Vorkosigan, per L.M. Bujold
See my pitiful webpage! http://www.wwdc.com/~spatterson
Robert J. Sawyer
Mister Skin wrote:
>
> The people who fund their artistic efforts with government subsidies
> are invariably people whose work couldn't even interest a dog even with
> a pork chop around its neck.
THE ENGLISH PATIENT just won the Academy Award for Best Picture; it's
based on the best-selling novel of the same name by Canadian writer
Michael Ondaatje.
Ondaatje received Cdn$35,000 in funding from the Canada Council for the
Arts to assist him in writing this book.
-----------------------------------------------
R O B E R T J . S A W Y E R
Next Novel: FRAMESHIFT (Tor, June 1997)
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/sawyer
-----------------------------------------------
Rebecca Ore
Again, as with education, how art's funded is perhaps of less importance
that what it means in the culture/society the artist lives in. Elizabethan
theatre seems to have been a mix of patronage and box office (I'm not sure
the patrons were anything other than legal protectors of the theatres and
wouldn't be too surpised if some scholar found that the theatre cos. paid
their patrons for the protection.
If a society in general wants to support the arts with tax dollars, the
Canadians seem to have done a decent job of it. U.S. NEA grants were/are
one time things. When I visited Canada, I heard that Canadian arts grants
were a more or less constant ride, year after year.
I don't think how the arts are supported really makes as much of a
difference as the society that produces them. I don't think there's
anything inherent in any economic order that's supportive or not of the
arts.
--
Rebecca Ore
Robert J. Sawyer <7670...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in article
<5i6dat$ob5$1...@mhade.production.compuserve.com>...
Johan Larson
In article <5i4lg7$u...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
Mister Skin < mrs...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <5i3j20$2...@spool.cs.wisc.edu> Johan Larson,
>jgla...@dudley.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>>SF writing, how should this be done?
>
>government subsidies are invariably people whose work couldn't even
>interest a dog even with a pork chop around its neck.
I used to believe that, but since violent anti-government sentiment is
net.dogma, now I am no longer sure. It does not seem to be true that
government science is necessarily bad science. Neither is government
soldiering necessarily inferior soldiering, nor government police-work
necessarily bad police-work. Government funding of these activities does
not seem to be controversial. Why does goverment art necessarily have to
be bad art?
Also, as I mentioned in the original message, I could see this support coming
from someone other than the govenment. Private individuals or foundations
could well undertake this work. Being a patron of the arts is an entirely
respectable activity. Is it specifically the mention of the government that
raises your hackles, or do you object to the general notion of giving
away money, regardless of the cause?
>
>>Such funds would allow them
>> focus on their fledgling efforts, without holding a day-job
>> at the same time.
>
>Another bad idea. People who are working on their first novel SHOULD have
>day jobs -- they sometimes develop useful skills that way.
So are you saying that someone who for whatever reason would like to
see more excellent science fiction written, and who could afford to spend
real money to make this happen (multiple tens of thousands per year, say)
should abandon the prospect, stuff the money into a mutual fund, and get back
to his reading, since any money given away would necessarily be wasted?
Or if this is not the case, how then should he go about it, since you
consider providing money to bridge the amateur-professional gap a bad idea.
Johan Larson
(No, I don't have funds available to sponsor aspiring science fiction
writers.)
|#98| Treebeard
"O > 0QWKFrom:"Rebecca Ore" <rebecca...@msn.com>
> Karen Joy Fowler and Connie Willis, among a few others, have gotten NEA
> grants.
> --
> Rebecca Ore
Since title doesn't say public arts funding doesn't the McArthur "Genius"
grant received by Octavia E. Butler qualify ???
* JABBER v1.1 * Remember to never split an infinitive.
liz
In article <01bc415e$35f04000$c8982399@rebecca-s>, Rebecca Ore
<rebecca...@msn.com> writes
> Karen Joy Fowler and Connie Willis, among a few others, have gotten NEA
>grants.
Octavia Butler got a MacArthur 'genius' award, which is a _very_ large
chunk of money (quarter million? half a million? But spread out over
several years). I think the MacArthur Foundation is a private charity,
though.
Liz
--
l...@gila.demon.co.uk
PMccutc103
Robert J. Sawyer <7670...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>>
>> The people who fund their artistic efforts with government subsidies
>> are invariably people whose work couldn't even interest a dog even with
>> a pork chop around its neck.
>
>THE ENGLISH PATIENT just won the Academy Award for Best Picture; it's
The fact that it won an award proves very little, except that the people
who vote for the academy awards liked it. It's overllong and pretentious,
just the sort of film that the Academy voters love to love. Well, after
giving _Braveheart_ the Oscar, they were in for an off year.
>based on the best-selling novel of the same name by Canadian writer
>Michael Ondaatje.
And I thought that Pamela Lee was Canada's finest cultural export.
>
>Ondaatje received Cdn$35,000 in funding from the Canada Council for the
>Arts to assist him in writing this book.
Mr. Skin may have overstated his case a bit. No doubt some of the artists
who get government money do fine work. One can still oppose such
subsidies for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact
that it's a subsidy for well-educated upper-middle class people who like
to consume the arts and who could well afford to pay for it themselves.
And I'd also point out that the city where I live -- Chicago -- has one of
the finest collections of French Impressionists in the world partly
because those painters could not get the recognition of their government's
official arts establishment.
________________________
Pete McCutchen
Beth and Richard Treitel
To my surprise and delight, jgla...@dudley.cs.wisc.edu (Johan Larson)
wrote:
>Does any of the money that the government and various private foundations
>make available for support of the arts find its way into the hands of
>SF writers?
>
> Hypothesis: Very little, since SF is a popular art form, rather than
> being a) proper "aht", or b) germane to a social group with victim
> credentials.
Well, Octavia Butler got her MacArthur grant, causing a nasty little
flamewar on rasfw about whether it was because of her writing or her
colour. Let's not start that again.
>If one were too make money available to promote the art and craft of good
>SF writing, how should this be done?
By finding out who the good authors are and buying copies of their work
for one's bookshelf and one's friends. This is part of what rasfw
itself is for. Much as I enjoy and care about SF, I don't think it's so
essential to the future of the human race that there should be "funding"
for SF which ordinary people don't care to buy.
Actually, what I would like is for good out-of-print books (and good
short stories) to be re-published, probably electronically, in such a
way that people can buy them one at a time, rather than waiting for a
reprint (with royalties going to the author or their estate as usual).
This would stack the deck a little more in favour of works that have
some sort of enduring appeal, and is technologically not *that* far off.
I can think of books for which I'd gladly put up with the inconvenience
of reading them on screen if the alternative were to cross an ocean to
buy them (as both Jo and I recently did, though not for the same book
(but it was the same ocean)).
- Richard
------
A sufficiently incompetent ScF author is indistinguishable from magic.
see also:
What is (and isn't) ScF? ==> http://www.wco.com/~treitel/sf.html
Martin Soederstroem
I have ro mention the greatest example of government subsidies ever: the
movies _Bad_Taste_ and _Braindead_! Yep, they got New Zeeland gov
subsidies. For those who haven't seen them, they are of the gengre known
as "splatter".
Oh, and I approve wholeheartedly of the New Zeeland subsidy policy.
--
Martin
Remove NO.SPAM from address in order to reply.
Steve Brinich
PMccutc103 wrote:
>> THE ENGLISH PATIENT just won the Academy Award for Best Picture
>
> The fact that it won an award proves very little, except that the
> people who vote for the academy awards liked it. It's overllong and
> pretentious, just the sort of film that the Academy voters love to
> love.
This is another example that supports my modest proposal: the Academy
should establish a as many appropriate awards ("Most Pretentious",
"Most Politically Correct", etc) as it takes to get it out of their
system -- then give out "Best Picture", etc, on merit.
--
Steve Brinich ste...@access.digex.net If the government wants us
PGP:89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E to respect the law
http://www.access.digex.net/~steve-b it should set a better example
David Goldfarb
Mister Skin < mrs...@mindspring.com> wrote:
)Well, I don't participate in flamewars, but I read one of Octavia Butler
)sime-gen novels back before I knew she was black, and if she deserves a
)genius grant, it's not for her writing skills.
You don't participate in flamewars; how are you on memory skills?
To be specific, remembering who *actually* wrote the "Sime-Gen" series? :-)
(Hint: it was Jacqueline Lichtenberg and Jean Lorrah.)
David Goldfarb <*>|"I came to Casablanca for the waters."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | "Waters? What waters? We're in the desert."
aste...@slip.net |"I was misinformed."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |
rrh...@aol.com
>Robert Sawyer writes:
>>based on the best-selling novel of the same name by Canadian writer
>>Michael Ondaatje.
Not only is it "best-selling" (indeed, I don't know if it was "best-selling"
before the movie came out, I suspect not, but I may be wrong), but it won
the Booker Prize: no guarantee of special merit, to be sure, but usually not
far off. (Though the selection process for the Booker and the selection
process for "arts grants" are sufficiently similar that errors in one could
easily be replicated in the other.)
But, really, _The English Patient_ is a marvelous book. Much better than
the movie, for any number of reasons (which I've enumerated on SFF.Net, if
anyone cares.) Which doesn't prove that "arts grants" are good (I tend to
oppose them, actually, mostly because they are awarded by committee,
not by individuals), but which , for me, is one of many counterexamples to
the position originally expressed: "Government funded art is =always=
bad".
Mister Skin
In article <5i5rgc$n...@van1s03.cyberion.com> Steve Patterson,
no_spam_s...@wwdc.com writes:
>In article <334628...@learnlink.emory.edu>, Ray Radlein ><r...@learnlink.emory.edu> says:
>>
>>>
>>> The people who fund their artistic efforts with government subsidies
>>> are invariably people whose work couldn't even interest a dog even with
>>> a pork chop around its neck.
>>
>
>I suppose you could say that they had government subsidies, but I'd hardly
>claim that they had federal funding... the kind of support they had was
>more like having Pres. Clinton (personally) hand out money from his own
>accounts to artists to commission works, not a government grant.
Uh, yeah, my memory on this is a little fuzzy, but IIRC the old-time arts
patronage system depended more on artists being supported by individual
members of the aristocracy due to their personal tastes, rather than
committees. A much more dignified and responsible system than the present
one. Don't think we're talking apples and oranges, comparing NEA to Mad
King Ludwig ... or maybe we are ...
Mister Skin
In article <5i6jke$9...@spool.cs.wisc.edu> Johan Larson,
jgla...@dudley.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>>>If one were too make money available to promote the art and craft of good
>>>SF writing, how should this be done?
>>
>>government subsidies are invariably people whose work couldn't even
>>interest a dog even with a pork chop around its neck.
>
>net.dogma, now I am no longer sure. It does not seem to be true that
>government science is necessarily bad science. Neither is government
>soldiering necessarily inferior soldiering, nor government police-work
>necessarily bad police-work. Government funding of these activities does
>not seem to be controversial. Why does goverment art necessarily have to
>be bad art?
Actually, I don't possess any violent anti-government sentiment -- I
think government has some useful and necessary roles in society, such as
providing for the common defense and public safety, and protecting people
and the environment from the excesses of free-market capitalism. But
supporting the arts is not one of those functions.
Art is ultimately communication between the artist and his or her
audience. When government funds art, it imposes itself between the artist
and the audience, in effect becoming the artist's audience.
Government also has a lot more agendas than audiences, generally. That's
what all the foofaraw about the NEA has been -- government officials with
social agendas are objecting to what the artists create, quite rightly:
they, after all, are buying the artists' products. (It is SO WEIRD to be
defending Jesse Helms' right to be upset with a work of art, but my point
is that if Helms wants art, he should buy it for himself, not use
taxpayers' money. Bet he wouldn't shell out much for a crucifix in a
bottle of pee, though he might be happy to shell out for a hammer and
sickle in same.)
>Also, as I mentioned in the original message, I could see this support coming
>from someone other than the govenment. Private individuals or foundations
>could well undertake this work. Being a patron of the arts is an entirely
>respectable activity. Is it specifically the mention of the government that
>raises your hackles, or do you object to the general notion of giving
>away money, regardless of the cause?
Sure, let private foundations fund stuff to their hearts' content. Their
money, and so long as the resulting bad art (geared to the foundations'
tastes rather than individuals') doesn't overwhelm all else, it suits me.
Are you aware of what has happened in Europe and other areas where most
movies and television programs are mostly funded by government agencies?
They're getting CREAMED at the box office and in the ratings by American
film and TV productions. Why? Because the government-funded crap is so
boring.
God save science fiction if more than a tiny fraction of science fiction
writers ever go on the dole.
That answer your question?
Rebecca Ore
Rebecca Ore
Mister Skin < mrs...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<5i9k1p$t...@camel2.mindspring.com>...
>
> Uh, yeah, my memory on this is a little fuzzy, but IIRC the old-time arts
> patronage system depended more on artists being supported by individual
> members of the aristocracy due to their personal tastes, rather than
> committees. A much more dignified and responsible system than the present
> one. Don't think we're talking apples and oranges, comparing NEA to Mad
> King Ludwig ... or maybe we are ...
>
RO:
Samuel Johnson didn't think patronage was at all dignified. And do you
know anything about NEA awards? I've talked to people who've served on
grants committees. It's more horsetrading between individuals who want
people they like to get the grants than it is committee concensus. If the
committee is widely read and honest, you can get a range of people,
including good writers, getting these awards.
The year the poet Ron Padgett was on the NEA committe, he called up the
files of people he'd known had applied whether they'd passed the original
screening or not. And that was when I knew I hadn't made it as a poet, the
year all the poets Ron liked got awards and I didn't.
Basically, a few awards go to people the committee members have never
heard of after they give the awards to people who various committee members
know: old writers they admire, their students, people whose work they've
been following for a while.
I suspect that the average patron wanted to make sure his friends woudn't
sneer at his taste and so waited until he saw whether or not the writer
(can you say Francois Villon) was making much of a mark. Unfortunately,
like Villon, some people with considerable talent disappeared before the
aristos did anything much.
Villon is a primo candidate to have been time snatched.
Mister Skin
In article <3351dbb1...@news.wco.com> Beth and Richard Treitel,
tre...@wco.com writes:
:Well, Octavia Butler got her MacArthur grant, causing a nasty little
:flamewar on rasfw about whether it was because of her writing or her
:colour. Let's not start that again.
Well, I don't participate in flamewars, but I read one of Octavia Butler
sime-gen novels back before I knew she was black, and if she deserves a
Jo Walton
The sime-gen novels were not written by Octavia Butler but by Jaqueline
Lichtenberg (I think that's right?) I haven't read them. Making this sort
of mistake is very easy - I had Judith Tarr and Susan Schwartz conflated
for ever such a long time and I'm very glad to have them disentangled now.
Butler really is _very _ good. I'd think you'd enjoy her Xenogenesis
trilogy.
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.kenjo.demon.co.uk/ contains Blood of Kings Poems:
14 of mine, 6 of Graydon's, 1 of Browning's
...and a cheerful song about the end of the world
Jo Walton
In article <3351dbb1...@news.wco.com>
tre...@wco.com "Beth and Richard Treitel" writes:
> I can think of books for which I'd gladly put up with the inconvenience
> of reading them on screen if the alternative were to cross an ocean to
> buy them (as both Jo and I recently did, though not for the same book
> (but it was the same ocean)).
I ought to admit that I was going anyway.
What did you do it for? (Consumed with curiosity. :)
The list of "Novels someone has crossed the Atlantic for" is probably
fairly short and exclusive. Any others?
Elisabeth Carey
> In article <3351dbb1...@news.wco.com> Beth and Richard Treitel,
> tre...@wco.com writes:
> :Well, Octavia Butler got her MacArthur grant, causing a nasty little
> :flamewar on rasfw about whether it was because of her writing or her
> :colour. Let's not start that again.
>
> Well, I don't participate in flamewars, but I read one of Octavia Butler
> sime-gen novels back before I knew she was black, and if she deserves a
> genius grant, it's not for her writing skills.
>
We seem not to be living on the same alternate world. In the one where I
live, the Sime-Gen books were written, initially, by Jacqueline Lichtenberg
and later, by Lichtenberg and Jean Lorrah.
For actual work by Octavia Butler, check out the _Xenogenesis_ trilogy
[Dawn, Adulthood Rites, Imago], or _Parable of the Sower_.
Lis Carey
Rick Cook
Mister Skin wrote:
>Don't think we're talking apples and oranges, comparing NEA to Mad
>King Ludwig ... or maybe we are ...
>
castles.
--RC
Beth and Richard Treitel
To my surprise and delight, J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk (Jo Walton) wrote:
>In article <3351dbb1...@news.wco.com>
> tre...@wco.com "Beth and Richard Treitel" writes:
>
>> I can think of books for which I'd gladly put up with the inconvenience
>> of reading them on screen if the alternative were to cross an ocean to
>> buy them (as both Jo and I recently did, though not for the same book
>> (but it was the same ocean)).
>
>I ought to admit that I was going anyway.
So was I -- I'm not *that* free a spender.
>What did you do it for? (Consumed with curiosity. :)
Mark Geston's first novel, _Lords of the Starship_. I have copies of
all his others, regard him as a wonderful writer, and wanted to get hold
of this one; I had had no luck finding it in the USA and had been quoted
something like US$180 for a hardback copy that someone or other had for
sale. Searching second-hand bookshops in London, I found it at Fantasy
Centre on Holloway Road for two quid. Didn't cover the cost of the
ticket, by a factor of about three, but made me happy.
It turns out not to be his best work, but does provide some useful
background for _Out of the Mouth of the Dragon_.
Graham Wills
Mister Skin wrote:
> Art is ultimately communication between the artist and his or her
> audience. When government funds art, it imposes itself between the artist
> and the audience, in effect becoming the artist's audience.
Interesting. You believe that artists modify the direction of their work
based on what they think the government will pay for? I'd be interested
in
seeing your evidence for this. Anecdotally, I have talked to several
artists
who pretty much seem to agree that they do what they do, sometimes they
modify
it to make it more sellable to the public (and resent this) and they
apply for grants hoping that their work will appeal.
I have never heard an artists say they modified their work to gain
government patronage. I'd be interested in your evidence that they do.
My experience is in both the US, Irish and English systems.
> Sure, let private foundations fund stuff to their hearts' content. Their
> money, and so long as the resulting bad art (geared to the foundations'
> tastes rather than individuals') doesn't overwhelm all else, it suits me.
Your thesis seems confused here. It seems that you are saying the only
art that can be good is that designed for sale to the public?
Specifically individuals. You are suggesting (apparently) that the more
people who chip in to buy art, the worse it will be? I can see some
logic in this, but would like you to clarify your position. A corollary
to this is that the best SF art would only be enjoyed by the writer.
> Are you aware of what has happened in Europe and other areas where most
> movies and television programs are mostly funded by government agencies?
> They're getting CREAMED at the box office and in the ratings by American
> film and TV productions. Why? Because the government-funded crap is so
> boring.
Again, you need evidence that that is true. Then you need evidence that
box office success measures artistic merit. As counter-eamples to the
latter I would like to propose the recent Oscars. As counter-examples to
the first I'd like to propose the entire french film industry, the irish
film industry and specifically, a question. Which film out-box-officed
the other by a factor of 10 in Russia: Independence Day or a film about
prisoners of war in the Boosnian conflict?
> God save science fiction if more than a tiny fraction of science fiction
> writers ever go on the dole.
I would suspect that a higher proportion of Sf writers have been on the
dole than, for example, lawyers. Considering your belief that artists
should not appeal to corporations or governments I'd have thought you'd
consider being on the dole a measure of how *good* an artist was?
-Graham
--
Graham Wills Data Visualization, Bell Labs
gwi...@research.bell-labs.com +1 (630) 979 7338
http://www.bell-labs.com/~gwills Silk for Calde!
Mister Skin
In article <5ia38o$a...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> David Goldfarb,
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu writes:
>)Well, I don't participate in flamewars, but I read one of Octavia Butler
>)sime-gen novels back before I knew she was black, and if she deserves a
>)genius grant, it's not for her writing skills.
>
> You don't participate in flamewars; how are you on memory skills?
>To be specific, remembering who *actually* wrote the "Sime-Gen" series? :-)
>(Hint: it was Jacqueline Lichtenberg and Jean Lorrah.)
First she gets a MacArthur Genius Grant even though she's not a genius,
now you tell me she's not even OCTAVIA BUTLER??!! That she is actually
Jacqueline Lichtenberg AND Jean Lorrah (a genetic experiment gone awry,
no doubt)???!!! Is there NO END to this woman's perfidy?
Seriously, you're right. Wrong author. But it was a natural mistake, easy
to get the names confused ... Octavia is a lot like ... Jacqueline and
Butler is a lot like ... Lichtenberg ... yeah, very similar ...
I think I really have read something by Octavia Butler and didn't think
highly of it ... but I can understand if you don't believe me ...
Gary Farber
In <5i9m2c$v...@camel2.mindspring.com> Mister Skin <mrs...@mindspring.com> wrote:
: In article <3351dbb1...@news.wco.com> Beth and Richard Treitel,
: tre...@wco.com writes:
: :Well, Octavia Butler got her MacArthur grant, causing a nasty little
: :flamewar on rasfw about whether it was because of her writing or her
: :colour. Let's not start that again.
: Well, I don't participate in flamewars, but I read one of Octavia Butler
: sime-gen novels back before I knew she was black, and if she deserves a
: genius grant, it's not for her writing skills.
Octavia Butler sime-gen novels. Now *that's* an idea I would never have
thought of, off-hand.
Perhaps she could try her hand at Perry Rhodan, after that.
--
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright 1997 Brooklyn, NY, USA
Mister Skin
In article <01bc42fa$c9819060$aaaa2399@rebecca-s> Rebecca Ore,
rebecca...@msn.com writes:
>Samuel Johnson didn't think patronage was at all dignified. And do you
>know anything about NEA awards?
What I Know About NEA Awards:
Federal government grants for the arts. Fund a lot of different things,
many of them noncontroversial stuff like community theaters, folk art
festivals, etc. Some few grants go to artists whose stuff is widely
perceived as tasteless, stupid, obscene, etc., enough to allow
conservative ideologues to get the rabble roused about them. (It's not
such grants I object to, it's government funding the arts, period.) NEA
grants are administered by some sort of committee, which means horse
trading, Lowest Common Denominator, etc.
You may well approve of the recipients of NEA grants, doesnt mean they're
a good idea.
Edmund C. Hack
In article <5i4lg7$u...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
Mister Skin < mrs...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <5i3j20$2...@spool.cs.wisc.edu> Johan Larson,
>jgla...@dudley.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>>If one were too make money available to promote the art and craft of good
>>SF writing, how should this be done?
By publishers buying the works they feel will be salable and then selling
them to the public. I.E. - the current system in the USA and other free
economies.
>
>It shouldn't be done. Government subsidized art is bad art, almost
>without exception. The people who fund their artistic efforts with
>government subsidies are invariably people whose work couldn't even
>interest a dog even with a pork chop around its neck.
Um. The list of "government subsidized" art includes much of the output
of Bach, the Sistine Chapel (at the time, the Vatican was a
secular and spiritual government), WPA murals, monuments in Washington
DC, etc.
You have bought the line that the NEA in the USA spends the bulk of their
funding on individual artists like the controversial feminist performance
artist that is raved about all the time and the guy that did "Piss
Christ". In fact, the bulk of the money goes to institutions (such as
museums) and performing arts companies, who then stage shows by and
exhibits of artists they think are important. Certainly, for every Mozart,
there was a Salieri or ten funded, but overall the European ruling class
did a pretty good job in promoting talent.
However, I think that funding of individuals to produce art is probably a
bad idea under our form of government. The reason - government money for
the arts is too tainted by concepts of "fairness" and by group decisions.
It is pretty clear that thoughtful individuals with a well defined
sensibility and point-of-view make better arts decisions, but finding such
individuals is chancy.
--
ech...@crl.com / Edmund Hack, Houston, TX
"In the spaceship, the silver spaceship, the lion takes control." - TMBG
Liz
In article <5i9lkd$u...@camel2.mindspring.com>, Mister Skin
<mrs...@mindspring.com> writes
>Are you aware of what has happened in Europe and other areas where most
>movies and television programs are mostly funded by government agencies?
>They're getting CREAMED at the box office and in the ratings by American
>film and TV productions. Why? Because the government-funded crap is so
>boring.
>
decent tv, even if very little of it is sf. That's funded by mandatory
licence fees. Is this what you mean?
A large proportion of British theatre (particularly that which produces
the 'classics' and serious modern work); again, it's subsidised. Have
you actually seen any of it? What do you think of it? Do you think it
would be better if it _weren't_ subsidised?
Liz
--
Liz
Liz
In article <5i9m2c$v...@camel2.mindspring.com>, Mister Skin
<mrs...@mindspring.com> writes
>In article <3351dbb1...@news.wco.com> Beth and Richard Treitel,
>tre...@wco.com writes:
>:Well, Octavia Butler got her MacArthur grant, causing a nasty little
>:flamewar on rasfw about whether it was because of her writing or her
>:colour. Let's not start that again.
>
>Well, I don't participate in flamewars, but I read one of Octavia Butler
>sime-gen
Beg pardon?
>novels back before I knew she was black, and if she deserves a
>genius grant, it's not for her writing skills.
Well, I'd disagree - and I think if you're going to make claims like
that (ie, ones which purport to be objective statements of fact, and not
ones which are merely your opinion) I want to know: a) what leads you to
that conclusion and b) who you are and what you've done that means I
should respect what you've said as anything _more_ than a statement of
personal opinion.
(Disclaimer: I think Octavia is a truly great writer, and anyhow I'm
biased because she was one of my tutors at Clarion; on the other hand, I
know the difference between my _opinions_ and statements of absolute
fact.)
Liz
--
Liz
Nancy Lebovitz
Perhaps writers should get jobs as bureacrats....it's less controversial
than art grants and more dignified than welfare--and it worked for Kafka.
--
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
October '96 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <334628...@learnlink.emory.edu>,
Ray Radlein <r...@learnlink.emory.edu> wrote:
>Mister Skin wrote:
>>
>> The people who fund their artistic efforts with government subsidies
>> are invariably people whose work couldn't even interest a dog even with
>> a pork chop around its neck.
>
>
Leigh R Hidell
: Anyone more recent?
Virtually anyone mainstream who has published any amount
of significant work has received a grant at one time
or another. Even Erica Jong received a grant at the
time of FEAR OF FLYING, altho it may have been for her
poetry. If SF writers are not receiving grants, I think
it's because of out-&-out prejudice against genre.
Didn't Stephen King write an essay about this
awhile back? I'm not saying that King's work was
ever grant worthy, but it's nice of him to point out
that maybe everybody shouldn't have to starve in a trailer
while they're waiting to break in. --Leigh
R. Tang
In article <5ibs71$e...@crl.crl.com>, Edmund C. Hack <ech...@crl.com> wrote:
>>It shouldn't be done. Government subsidized art is bad art, almost
>>government subsidies are invariably people whose work couldn't even
>>interest a dog even with a pork chop around its neck.
>
>of Bach, the Sistine Chapel (at the time, the Vatican was a
>secular and spiritual government), WPA murals, monuments in Washington
>DC, etc.
We include some recent things like ANGELS IN AMERICA, which was
produced with NEA help.
>However, I think that funding of individuals to produce art is probably a
>bad idea under our form of government. The reason - government money for
>the arts is too tainted by concepts of "fairness" and by group decisions.
>It is pretty clear that thoughtful individuals with a well defined
>sensibility and point-of-view make better arts decisions, but finding such
>individuals is chancy.
IMAO, we should try to retain as many methods of generating arts
as possible; each method has its weaknesses and a multiplicity of methods
covers for individual methods' weaknesses.
Then again, I could be wrong.
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue:
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gwangung/TC.html
Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
R. Tang
In article <5i9lkd$u...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
Mister Skin < mrs...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Art is ultimately communication between the artist and his or her
>audience. When government funds art, it imposes itself between the artist
>and the audience, in effect becoming the artist's audience.
In my experience with the NEA, the decision making power lay more
with other artists than with government bureaucrats.
That might make a complaint of elitism more relevant, but I had
less trouble with government bureaucrats per se and more with so-called
guardians of government responsibility.
Frossie
"Liz" == Liz <L...@gila.demon.co.uk> writes:
Liz> In article <5i9lkd$u...@camel2.mindspring.com>, Mister Skin
Liz> <mrs...@mindspring.com> writes
>> Are you aware of what has happened in Europe and other areas where
>> most movies and television programs are mostly funded by government
>> agencies? They're getting CREAMED at the box office and in the
>> ratings by American film and TV productions. Why? Because the
>> government-funded crap is so boring.
>>
Liz> hmmm.... The BBC is generally considered to produce at least
Liz> _some_ decent tv, even if very little of it is sf. That's funded
Liz> by mandatory licence fees. Is this what you mean?
Liz makes an excellent point. Public subsidy can and is often used
to fund work that would not find commercial sponsors due to an an
avant-garde, shocking, obscure or otherwise unacceptable to the public
content.
I find it particularly amusing that box-office success is being used
to prove the point that government subsidy is a bad thing, when in fact
it often demonstrates exactly the opposite: that grants often fund by
far the best films-as-art, whereas big commercial studios only produce
mind candy that panders to the lowest common denominator.
Frossie, thinking the world is big enough for everyone, even government
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fro...@jach.hawaii.edu UK Infrared Telescope Software Group
http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/~frossie/ Joint Astronomy Centre, Hilo, Hawaii
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ray Radlein
> >> are invariably people whose work couldn't even interest a dog even
> >> with a pork chop around its neck.
> >
> >
> Anyone more recent?
Prokofiev, I would guess. Which may or may not be considered a special
case.
Laurie Anderson, to be *much* more recent, and dead-on topic to the
original quote.
- Ray R.
--
*********************************************************************
"What are we going to do tonight, Brain?"
"The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to RULE THE SEVAGRAM!"
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
*********************************************************************
Larry Caldwell
In article <5i9lkd$u...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
Mister Skin < mrs...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Art is ultimately communication between the artist and his or her
> audience. When government funds art, it imposes itself between the artist
> and the audience, in effect becoming the artist's audience.
There are all sorts of arts. Half the cities on the west coast fund
local arts festivals. This is a case of government providing the
venue, not direct support to the artist. The business community
loves these festivals because of all the cash flow they generate, and
the artists also benefit. I don't see any harm in that.
Another place that government funding is a good idea is in areas where
you have to have continuity if you are going to have excellence. The
Moisiyev is a good example. Also, most cities fund their symphony,
and possibly a ballet company. They also provide the concert hall.
It's cheap at the price, since private patronage and ticket sales provide
most of the funding.
I'm not in favor of funding the written word. The prose market is huge,
and lots of poets get stinking rich. Hah. I bet you don't consider
lyric poetry to be "real" poetry, but lots of lyric poets are millionaires.
Funding visual arts is iffy. I have a real weak spot for monumental
sculpture, and not much gets done without government funds.
-- Larry
Bill MacArthur
>>Are you aware of what has happened in Europe and other areas where most
>>movies and television programs are mostly funded by government agencies?
>>They're getting CREAMED at the box office and in the ratings by American
>>film and TV productions. Why? Because the government-funded crap is so
>>boring.
>>
>decent tv, even if very little of it is sf. That's funded by mandatory
>licence fees. Is this what you mean?
>
>the 'classics' and serious modern work); again, it's subsidised. Have
>you actually seen any of it? What do you think of it? Do you think it
>would be better if it _weren't_ subsidised?
>
cases even as good. What Americans excel at is marketing. One of the
problems here in Canada is trying to break into the American distribution
chain. Most decent Canadian directors have to produce Hollywood movies
to get recognition. The only exception who comes to mind in the SF vein
is David Cronenberg.
Some of Canada's best writers, be they SF or not, have received grants to
help them with their writing. I believe (and I hope he'll correct me if
I'm wrong) Robert Sawyer has received Canada Council Grants and so has
Elizabeth Vonarburg. The trouble is that without some sort of support in
a small market place (like Canada's) the work just wouldn't get written
without support. OTOH who is to judge whether it is going to be any good
when the funding application comes in. Also, would the good authors get
published anyway. I don't know.
Bill MacArthur
I have mixed feelings about this issue and could play the devil's
advocate versus either argument.
ech...@crl.com (Edmund C. Hack) wrote:
>In article <5i4lg7$u...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
>Mister Skin < mrs...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>In article <5i3j20$2...@spool.cs.wisc.edu> Johan Larson,
>>jgla...@dudley.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>>>If one were too make money available to promote the art and craft of good
>>>SF writing, how should this be done?
>
IMO by setting up a Research Chair in Science Fiction at a respected
University. A degree in English literature (in fact it could be done in
other languages as well) with a major in SF would be possible.
>By publishers buying the works they feel will be salable and then selling
>them to the public. I.E. - the current system in the USA and other free
>economies.
>
I see two problems with leaving at this. First, it leads to a plethora
of Star Trek novels and the like. Second, the USA has a huge market.
Smaller market countries can't support publishing industries based on
their own cultural backgrounds alone. BTW there are a number of arts
endowment agencies in the US. Check out the non-ads on PBS.
>>
>>It shouldn't be done. Government subsidized art is bad art, almost
>>without exception. The people who fund their artistic efforts with
>>government subsidies are invariably people whose work couldn't even
>>interest a dog even with a pork chop around its neck.
>
>Um. The list of "government subsidized" art includes much of the output
>of Bach, the Sistine Chapel (at the time, the Vatican was a
>secular and spiritual government), WPA murals, monuments in Washington
>DC, etc.
>
Good point. The same here in Canada although we've sponsored a lot of
pseudo-intellectual schlock as well.
>
>You have bought the line that the NEA in the USA spends the bulk of their
>funding on individual artists like the controversial feminist performance
>artist that is raved about all the time and the guy that did "Piss
>Christ". In fact, the bulk of the money goes to institutions (such as
>museums) and performing arts companies, who then stage shows by and
>exhibits of artists they think are important. Certainly, for every Mozart,
>there was a Salieri or ten funded, but overall the European ruling class
>did a pretty good job in promoting talent.
>
I think that your pasting of Salieri is based on "Amadeus". I've read
that he was very influential as a teacher and apparently assisted
Schubert with his counterpoint.
>However, I think that funding of individuals to produce art is probably a
>bad idea under our form of government. The reason - government money for
>the arts is too tainted by concepts of "fairness" and by group decisions.
>It is pretty clear that thoughtful individuals with a well defined
>sensibility and point-of-view make better arts decisions, but finding such
>individuals is chancy.
>--
Excellent points. As I said, this is one that could be argued both ways.
Edward Bornstein
[ stuff about Octavia Butler not having written the sime-gen books snipped ]
This is a good an excuse as any to mention that there is now an
active fandom of the Sime~Gen books online. There are a number of Web
sites. Hard to find bits of the S~G canon are available, and a
lot of fan fiction (approved by Jacqueline Lichtenberg).
Start at:
There is also a mailing list, where Jacqueline Lichtenberg,
Jean Lorrah, and many others are participants.
To join, send TO: LIST...@siu.edu an email message with a
blank subject line and this single computer command line in
the body of the text:
SUB SIMEGEN-L "YOURFIRSTNAME" "YOURLASTNAME"
When you write your command, take away the quotation marks
and just put your first name, a space and your last name.
If this fails email Leigh Kimmel - kim...@siu.edu
the list administrator.
P. S. Besides not being Octavia Butler, neither Jacqueline
Lichtenberg or Jean Lorrah appeared black to me. But then,
I'm the guy who used to think that P. C. Hodgell might be
a Siamese cat of indeterminate gender ... :-)
--
Captain Button - but...@io.com
In the future, everyone will be Kibo for 15 milliseconds.
Mister Skin
In article <uxsp10j...@jach.hawaii.edu> Frossie,
fro...@jach.hawaii.edu writes:
>>> Are you aware of what has happened in Europe and other areas where
>>> most movies and television programs are mostly funded by government
>>> agencies? They're getting CREAMED at the box office and in the
>>> ratings by American film and TV productions. Why? Because the
>>> government-funded crap is so boring.
>>>
>Liz> _some_ decent tv, even if very little of it is sf. That's funded
>Liz> by mandatory licence fees. Is this what you mean?
Other than Monty Python, The Avengers and Blackadder, BBC has been a huge
wasteland (Dr. Who not excepted) for decades. That's what I mean.
>Liz makes an excellent point. Public subsidy can and is often used
>to fund work that would not find commercial sponsors due to an an
>avant-garde, shocking, obscure or otherwise unacceptable to the public
>content.
Don't forget boring.
>I find it particularly amusing that box-office success is being used
>to prove the point that government subsidy is a bad thing, when in fact
>it often demonstrates exactly the opposite: that grants often fund by
>far the best films-as-art, whereas big commercial studios only produce
>mind candy that panders to the lowest common denominator.
Maybe they produce films that pander to people who have better things to
do with their waking hours than sit around wondering why the Norwegian
broads are acting so looney.
>Frossie, thinking the world is big enough for everyone, even government
I'm not opposed to government per se, just government funding of the art.
It has some useful functions, like funding DARPAnet and its successor.
PMccutc103
gwan...@u.washington.edu (R. Tang) wrote:
> IMAO, we should try to retain as many methods of generating arts
>as possible; each method has its weaknesses and a multiplicity of methods
>covers for individual methods' weaknesses.
I agree that some government-sponsored art may in fact be good art,
however that might be defined. My objections to government arts funding
are based on other issues.
Like many, but by no means all, sf fans, I'm a libertarian. I observe
that if somebody doesn't pay his taxes, the IRS will seize his property
and may even come to his home with guns and lock him in a cage.
Government money is money that was taken from people agains their will.
Thus, while I am not an anarchist, I do think that government should be
limited to a very narrow set of functions -- those functions that are
absolutely necessary and that cannot be accomplished without government.
I don't think that arts money qualifies on either count.
In addition, I happen to be what you might call a big consumer of the arts
-- I go the theater, the symphony, museums, etc. One of the things I
notice there is that the people attending such institutions -- including
me -- are not poor. In fact, they tend to be of above-average income.
Often well above average. I fail to see why the guy working behind the
counter at McDonald's or in the factory should be taxed so that I can see
the Chicago Symphony Orchestra for five bucks less. Arts funding is a
wealth transfer to the middle and upper classes. As such, it doesn't even
have the usual flimsy justification for wealth transfers.
________________________
Pete McCutchen
Simon van Dongen
On or about 8 Apr 1997 14:28:34 -0400, Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>Perhaps writers should get jobs as bureacrats....it's less controversial
>than art grants and more dignified than welfare--and it worked for Kafka.
>--
>Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
>October '96 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
I don't know what Kafka did exactly, and 'bureaocrat' is rather a
large category. What is worrying me is Orwell's argument that writing
is writing, whether it's government bureaucratese or briljant SF, and
that after a day of producing the first you won't feel inclined to
spent your evening producing the second. This certainly matches my
experience. Orwell concludes that a writer is better of digging
ditches as a dayjob.
Simon
(Of course, that does raise the question what all those writers are
doing here in rasfw wasting those precious creative juices...)
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Simon van Dongen <sg...@pi.net> Rotterdam, The Netherlands
'My doctor says I have a malformed public duty gland and a
natural deficiency in moral fibre,' he muttered to himself,
'and that I am therefore excused from saving Universes.'
Life, the universe and everything
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Liz
In article <19970411050...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, PMccutc103
<pmccu...@aol.com> writes
>In addition, I happen to be what you might call a big consumer of the arts
>-- I go the theater, the symphony, museums, etc. One of the things I
>notice there is that the people attending such institutions -- including
>me -- are not poor.
Uhhhh... perhaps the poor people don't go because they can't afford to -
and wouldn't be able to, no matter _how_ much they saved in taxes? This
is actually one of the best arguments I've heard _for_ subsidising art
(whether via venue or company or artist is another matter).
--
Liz
Dave Griffith
In article <ie5HrHAB...@gila.demon.co.uk>,
The GAO (General Acccounting Office) did a study of this a while ago.
They determined that arts subsidies had no discernable impact on
consumption of art by the poor. That is to say, the poor stayed away
from the middle- and high-brow venues whether they were subsidized or not.
This makes sense, if you think about it. Subsidies rarely if ever
translate into lower ticket prices, and there are no mechanisms for
requiring that they do so. Arts subsidies are welfare for the rich,
pure and simple.
--
--Dave Griffith, grif...@crl.com
Liz
In article <5iliq4$r...@crl.crl.com>, Dave Griffith <grif...@crl.com>
writes
I would like to see the study - after all, statistics are notoriously
easy to manipulate.
I think you might find that the situation in the UK is different - I
know I didn't mention the fact (didn't see that I should need to) but
I'm not from the US (your spelling and e-mail address lead me to assume
that's where you're from), and so wouldn't presume to talk about what
goes on there. This is a matter of great debate over here in the UK,
and so far much of what I've read supports the conclusion that
subsidising the arts does lead to it being more accessible across the
board.
It is quite possible to require that subsidy money is earmarked for
different purposes - lowering seat prices, capital expenditure,
developing original work, bringing in international talent or shows or
whatever. This is routinely done in the UK - why it couldn't be done in
the US is beyond me.
And don't forget that arts subsidies can be used in different ways: over
here, for instance, such subsidies are quite often used to fund
visiting/resident artists/writers in schools, community centres and
prisons etc. There's also been quite a lot of research done into the
effect of high admission prices on the visiting habits of the population
close to (mainly) museums. This seems to support the idea that entry
fees do stop local residents using the facilities as extensively as they
might. Finally, in this country the arts (of all kinds) bring in a
_lot_ of tourists and their money. I suspect that a large amount of
arts subsidy can probably be written off against that influx of money to
the local economy - and some of the direct beneficiaries are going to be
from the poorer sections of the community (I'm thinking here of those
working in associated service industries, retailing, transport and so
on).
Liz
--
Liz
R. Tang
In article <ie5HrHAB...@gila.demon.co.uk>,
Liz <L...@gila.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <19970411050...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, PMccutc103
><pmccu...@aol.com> writes
>>In addition, I happen to be what you might call a big consumer of the arts
>>-- I go the theater, the symphony, museums, etc. One of the things I
>>notice there is that the people attending such institutions -- including
>>me -- are not poor.
>
>Uhhhh... perhaps the poor people don't go because they can't afford to -
>and wouldn't be able to, no matter _how_ much they saved in taxes? This
>is actually one of the best arguments I've heard _for_ subsidising art
>(whether via venue or company or artist is another matter).
That's where funding goes for Pay What You Can Nights for many
arts companies.
R. Tang
In article <5ik36l$u...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
Mister Skin < mrs...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <uxsp10j...@jach.hawaii.edu> Frossie,
>fro...@jach.hawaii.edu writes:
>>>> Are you aware of what has happened in Europe and other areas where
>>>> most movies and television programs are mostly funded by government
>>>> agencies? They're getting CREAMED at the box office and in the
>>>> ratings by American film and TV productions. Why? Because the
>>>> government-funded crap is so boring.
>>>>
>>Liz> hmmm.... The BBC is generally considered to produce at least
>>Liz> _some_ decent tv, even if very little of it is sf. That's funded
>>Liz> by mandatory licence fees. Is this what you mean?
>
>Other than Monty Python, The Avengers and Blackadder, BBC has been a huge
>wasteland (Dr. Who not excepted) for decades. That's what I mean.
>
>>Liz makes an excellent point. Public subsidy can and is often used
>>to fund work that would not find commercial sponsors due to an an
>>avant-garde, shocking, obscure or otherwise unacceptable to the public
>>content.
>
>Don't forget boring.
But the market does a MUCH better job of this.
Paul Ciszek
Bill MacArthur <billmac.s...@uwindsor.ca> writes:
>ech...@crl.com (Edmund C. Hack) wrote:
>>
>>You have bought the line that the NEA in the USA spends the bulk of their
>>funding on individual artists like the controversial feminist performance
>>artist that is raved about all the time and the guy that did "Piss
>>Christ". In fact, the bulk of the money goes to institutions (such as
>>museums) and performing arts companies, who then stage shows by and
>>exhibits of artists they think are important.
I understand that the original intention was for the NEA to exist ENTIRELY
and ONLY to bring known art to those who would not ordinarily have access
to it. I.e., it was to exist for the benefit of taxpayers, not artists.
Some of us would prefer that it operated that way.
>>Certainly, for every Mozart,
>>there was a Salieri or ten funded, but overall the European ruling class
>>did a pretty good job in promoting talent.
>>
>I think that your pasting of Salieri is based on "Amadeus". I've read
>that he was very influential as a teacher and apparently assisted
>Schubert with his counterpoint.
Salieri was a competent composer who had the extreme bad luck to be alive
at the same time as Mozart, and worse, in the same place.
Spam blocked address; to | "When the press is free and every man
send mail, change "at" to | able to read, all is safe."
"@" and "dot" to ".". | --Thomas Jefferson
Leigh R Hidell
: spent your evening producing the second. This certainly matches my
: experience. Orwell concludes that a writer is better of digging
: ditches as a dayjob.
My feeling is that time/energy is limited & that any job
is a minus if you are serious about being a writer.
People who have "something to fall back on" generally
fall back on it. --Leigh
Rebecca Ore
Dave Griffith <grif...@crl.com> wrote in article
<5iliq4$r...@crl.crl.com>...
> The GAO (General Acccounting Office) did a study of this a
while ago.
> They determined that arts subsidies had no discernable impact
on
> consumption of art by the poor. That is to say, the poor
stayed away
> from the middle- and high-brow venues whether they were
subsidized or not.
> This makes sense, if you think about it. Subsidies rarely if
ever
> translate into lower ticket prices, and there are no mechanisms
for
> requiring that they do so. Arts subsidies are welfare for the
rich,
> pure and simple.
>
> --Dave Griffith, grif...@crl.com
>
Art subsidies are only subsidies for the rich if there's no
attempt to do works the poor might find more appealing. I also
know that the decor and demeanor of the local art museum in
Martinsville, VA, reminded my working class students of a funeral
home (semiotics). They might have liked things, but the class
prejudice and decor put them off. Some of them who had a love
for the arts were quite frustrated. Then there was the Virginia
Museum of Natural History with some art exhibits. The building
had been a school, not a formal upper class house. Working class
people seemed to feel a lot more comfortable there.
From some small evidence, guys working on cars in SW Virginia
prefer PBS's nature programs to the network's daytime soaps. I
don't think the reason is that spiritual enlightenment is
spreading everywhere, as one hippie friend decided. It's just
that men who watch t.v. aren't a huge market compared (still) to
women, so they need PBS to put on the animals fucking and killing
films. Maybe the real reason is somewhere between.
My local county found it could attract working people to the
local arts center if the performance was for a string band. And
the local arts arbitrator female was dumbfounded that when I gave
a presentation on _Left Hand of Darkness_, that a couple of local
guys who worked as hospital orderlies showed up.
What any arts council needs is a person who can tie together the
high culture and the low. Interestingly enough, the banjo
circuit shows are beginning to feature Africans playing African
instruments kin to banjos (an Etheopian was playing with, I
think, Earl Scruggs). A really good arts administrator knows how
to expose people to different things, juxtaposing blue grass with
Irish with baroque.
--
Rebecca Ore
Elisabeth Carey
Bill MacArthur <billmac.s...@uwindsor.ca> wrote in article
<E8Dq9...@news.uwindsor.ca>...
<snip>
> Some of Canada's best writers, be they SF or not, have received grants to
> help them with their writing. I believe (and I hope he'll correct me if
> I'm wrong) Robert Sawyer has received Canada Council Grants and so has
> Elizabeth Vonarburg. The trouble is that without some sort of support in
> a small market place (like Canada's) the work just wouldn't get written
> without support. OTOH who is to judge whether it is going to be any good
> when the funding application comes in. Also, would the good authors get
> published anyway. I don't know.
It's Elisabeth Vonarburg, not Elizabeth Vonarburg.:)
She writes in French. The Francophone market in North America is small
enough that I doubt French-language sf would be commercially viable without
subsidies. OTOH, Anglophone Canadian writers have access to the same market
American writers do - and, with all due respect to deeply-held Canadian
beliefs about American parochialism, in Real Life[tm], books that use
Canadian characters, settings, and themes seem to succeed or fail on the
same basis as anything else, which is to say, on the basis of whether or
not they have a story that people want to read. Robert Sawyer's _The
Terminal Experiment_ is an obvious example, or Charles de Lint's fantasies.
Whether a separate Canadian publishing industry could survive is another
question, and I suspect the answer there may be, not as major commercial
publishers. Economics would lead to them getting swallowed up - or else
doing some swallowing, which would be harder but not necessarily
impossible.
Lis Carey
Bill MacArthur
Liz <L...@gila.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <19970411050...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, PMccutc103
><pmccu...@aol.com> writes
>>In addition, I happen to be what you might call a big consumer of the arts
>>-- I go the theater, the symphony, museums, etc. One of the things I
>>notice there is that the people attending such institutions -- including
>>me -- are not poor.
>
>Uhhhh... perhaps the poor people don't go because they can't afford to -
>and wouldn't be able to, no matter _how_ much they saved in taxes? This
>is actually one of the best arguments I've heard _for_ subsidising art
>(whether via venue or company or artist is another matter).
Poverty doesn't seem to stop people from seeing Bill Ray Cirrus (sp?) or
their kids from seeing Marilyn Manson. The trouble is that the
aforementioned cultural items are not mainstream. Should we let them die
because they require more sophisticated knowledge to appreciate? I'm of
two minds on that.
Bill MacArthur
grif...@crl.com (Dave Griffith) wrote:
>In article <ie5HrHAB...@gila.demon.co.uk>,
>Liz <L...@gila.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <19970411050...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, PMccutc103
>><pmccu...@aol.com> writes
>>>In addition, I happen to be what you might call a big consumer of the arts
>>>-- I go the theater, the symphony, museums, etc. One of the things I
>>>notice there is that the people attending such institutions -- including
>>>me -- are not poor.
>>
>>Uhhhh... perhaps the poor people don't go because they can't afford to -
>>and wouldn't be able to, no matter _how_ much they saved in taxes? This
>>is actually one of the best arguments I've heard _for_ subsidising art
>>(whether via venue or company or artist is another matter).
>
>They determined that arts subsidies had no discernable impact on
>consumption of art by the poor. That is to say, the poor stayed away
>from the middle- and high-brow venues whether they were subsidized or not.
>This makes sense, if you think about it. Subsidies rarely if ever
>translate into lower ticket prices, and there are no mechanisms for
>requiring that they do so. Arts subsidies are welfare for the rich,
>pure and simple.
>
supported by the government? That's a bigger question in smaller
countries than it is in the US where there are a number of large
foundations.
James Nicoll
In article <5ik36l$u...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
Mister Skin < mrs...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>Other than Monty Python, The Avengers and Blackadder, BBC has been a huge
>wasteland (Dr. Who not excepted) for decades. That's what I mean.
You forget _Red Dwarf_ and (IMO, the best hard sf show ever
produced on TV) _Star Cops_.
--
Liz
>In article <uxsp10j...@jach.hawaii.edu> Frossie,
>fro...@jach.hawaii.edu writes:
>>>> Are you aware of what has happened in Europe and other areas where
>>>> most movies and television programs are mostly funded by government
>>>> agencies? They're getting CREAMED at the box office and in the
>>>> ratings by American film and TV productions. Why? Because the
>>>> government-funded crap is so boring.
>>>>
>>Liz> hmmm.... The BBC is generally considered to produce at least
>>Liz> _some_ decent tv, even if very little of it is sf. That's funded
>>Liz> by mandatory licence fees. Is this what you mean?
>
>wasteland (Dr. Who not excepted) for decades. That's what I mean.
As a point of interest, are you based in the UK or the US, or somewhere
else? Because if you aren't based in Britain, then you are only talking
about material which gets exported, and - frankly - you aren't really in
a position to judge; and even if you are based in Britain, what you've
just said is simply an expression of your personal taste, unsupported by
any detailed analysis. The BBC has produced much more good work (in my
opinion) than the above, including original fiction, costume drama (not
to my _personal_ taste, but the quality of the productions can't be
contested), classics (eg, the entire BBC Shakespeare), documentaries,
science programs and news.
But hey, what would I know? I only live here.
Liz
--
L...@gila.demon.co.uk
Phil Hunt
In article <E8J3z...@novice.uwaterloo.ca>
jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca "James Nicoll" writes:
> In article <5ik36l$u...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
> Mister Skin < mrs...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >Other than Monty Python, The Avengers and Blackadder, BBC has been a huge
> >wasteland (Dr. Who not excepted) for decades. That's what I mean.
>
> You forget _Red Dwarf_ and (IMO, the best hard sf show ever
> produced on TV) _Star Cops_.
When did they do that? I've never heard of _Star Cops_.
--
Phil Hunt. See <http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/index.htm>
for info on Eurolang / Politics / Voting Systems / Basic Income.
Mister Skin
In article <E8Iw...@news.uwindsor.ca> Bill MacArthur,
billmac...@uwindsor.ca writes:
>Poverty doesn't seem to stop people from seeing Bill Ray Cirrus (sp?) or
>their kids from seeing Marilyn Manson. The trouble is that the
>aforementioned cultural items are not mainstream. Should we let them die
>because they require more sophisticated knowledge to appreciate? I'm of
>two minds on that.
Let me help you. I think it is a legitimate charge of government to
archive information about vanishing elements of culture. If the symphony,
the ballet, et. al., were to have such a small number of adherents that
they could no longer be performed for people who are willing to pay for
them, then I think there should be a government department that collects
all conceivable information about the art form and keeps it safely stored
for students, historians and anyone else who might need to know about it.
Mister Skin
In article <BTDfIBAo...@gila.demon.co.uk> Liz, L...@gila.demon.co.uk
writes:
:As a point of interest, are you based in the UK or the US, or somewhere
:else? Because if you aren't based in Britain, then you are only talking
:about material which gets exported, and - frankly - you aren't really in
:a position to judge; and even if you are based in Britain, what you've
:just said is simply an expression of your personal taste, unsupported by
:any detailed analysis. The BBC has produced much more good work (in my
:opinion) than the above, including original fiction, costume drama (not
:to my _personal_ taste, but the quality of the productions can't be
:contested), classics (eg, the entire BBC Shakespeare), documentaries,
:science programs and news.
As a point of interest, I'm based in the U.S. But we get whole gawking
hordes of British programming over here -- all sorts of supremely boring
costume dramas, original fiction, historical dramas, so-called comedies,
and other assorted junk. Between PBS, cable channels like Arts &
Entertainment, and other cable channels, we get slathered with "Are You
Being Served?" Fawlty Towers, that Helen Mirren boring cop show, a lot of
other boring cop shows, and whatever else you deem suitable for export. I
guess we're just lucky you confine your food exports to fish and chips
and we don't find outselves eating blood sausage or toad in the hole at
restaurants.
I'm not sure documentaries, science programs and news should be classed
with dramatic presentations in this argument. True, these are to some
extent entertainment programs, but I don't know if they can be considered
art forms.
Do you mean to imply that there are whole secret classes of vastly
entertaining programs over there in Britain that we poor Yankees never
see? If so, why not export them?
Roger Smith
In article <5ik36l$u...@camel2.mindspring.com>, Mister Skin
<mrs...@mindspring.com> wrote
>Other than Monty Python, The Avengers and Blackadder, BBC has been a huge
>wasteland (Dr. Who not excepted) for decades. That's what I mean.
I don't wish to offend you but you can't blame/credit the BBC
with The Avengers it was produced by ABC which was one of the
independent (commercial) television companies over here. The BBC's
involvement came only recently when they did some sought of deal that
got them all kinds of old shows including the Gerry Anderson series and
The Avengers.
--
aRJay
Elisabeth Carey
Mister Skin < mrs...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<5ipa7c$j...@camel3.mindspring.com>...
> In article <BTDfIBAo...@gila.demon.co.uk> Liz, L...@gila.demon.co.uk
> writes:
> :As a point of interest, are you based in the UK or the US, or somewhere
> :else? Because if you aren't based in Britain, then you are only talking
> :about material which gets exported, and - frankly - you aren't really in
> :a position to judge; and even if you are based in Britain, what you've
> :just said is simply an expression of your personal taste, unsupported by
> :any detailed analysis. The BBC has produced much more good work (in my
> :opinion) than the above, including original fiction, costume drama (not
> :to my _personal_ taste, but the quality of the productions can't be
> :contested), classics (eg, the entire BBC Shakespeare), documentaries,
> :science programs and news.
>
> As a point of interest, I'm based in the U.S. But we get whole gawking
> hordes of British programming over here -- all sorts of supremely boring
> costume dramas, original fiction, historical dramas, so-called comedies,
> and other assorted junk. Between PBS, cable channels like Arts &
> Entertainment, and other cable channels, we get slathered with "Are You
> Being Served?" Fawlty Towers, that Helen Mirren boring cop show, a lot of
> other boring cop shows, and whatever else you deem suitable for export. I
> guess we're just lucky you confine your food exports to fish and chips
> and we don't find outselves eating blood sausage or toad in the hole at
> restaurants.
But we get all those things because your personal taste doesn't reflect the
whole spectrum of taste; we get them not because that's what the British
decide to EXport, but because that's what PBS and A&E and others choose to
IMport, and they import them because they can get people to pay to see
them. "That Helen Mirren boring cop show" is popular enough here that she
got a movie role based partly on her ability to draw in American audiences.
Honestly, you sound like a Frenchman bitching about "American cultural
imperialism" because EuroDisney is raking in profits; if American audiences
rejected _Prime Suspect_ or _Fawlty Towers_, they would disappear from our
tv screens, and if American diners started expressing enthusiasm for blood
sausage, it would start turning up on a lot more restaurant menus, and
become more available in the supermarkets.
No, most British-import shows don't have *mass* audiences, but they do have
substantial audiences who watch them voluntarily and with enjoyment, not
because they are forced to, and in the case of the shows that are on PBS,
express their enthusiasm in a practical way by the pattern of their
contributions at pledge time. _Mystery_ is a big money-raiser for PBS
because it *does* import "that Helen Mirren boring cop show". Although the
numbers are smaller, it's the same principle as ratings and advertising
revenues, or ticket sales at the box office.
Lis Carey
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On 13 Apr 1997 00:43:24 GMT, Mister Skin < mrs...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
>I guess we're just lucky you confine your food exports to fish and chips
>and we don't find outselves eating blood sausage or toad in the hole at
>restaurants.
Hey! I LOVE toad in the hole!
Seriously, it's one of my favorite dishes anywhere, and I wish I COULD
get it on this side of the Atlantic.
TOUCHED BY THE GODS: Hardcover, Tor Books, November 1997
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Updated 2/7/97
Beyond Comics at Lakeforest Mall, Gaithersburg MD is now open!
Roger Smith
In article <860887...@vision25.demon.co.uk>, Phil Hunt
<ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk> wrote
>> Mister Skin < mrs...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Other than Monty Python, The Avengers and Blackadder, BBC has been a huge
>> >wasteland (Dr. Who not excepted) for decades. That's what I mean.
>>
>> produced on TV) _Star Cops_.
>
>When did they do that? I've never heard of _Star Cops_.
>
(9:30pm on BBC1 on Mondays IIRC); rumour had it that the suits at the
beeb weren't prepared to pay for two SF series in the next year so _Star
Cops_ was dropped in favour of _Red Dwarf_ as they could get that past
the anti SF people by saying it was a comedy.
--
aRJay
Liz
In article <uxsp10j...@jach.hawaii.edu>, Frossie
<fro...@jach.hawaii.edu> writes
>Liz> In article <5i9lkd$u...@camel2.mindspring.com>, Mister Skin
>Liz> <mrs...@mindspring.com> writes
>>> Are you aware of what has happened in Europe and other areas where
>>> most movies and television programs are mostly funded by government
>>> agencies? They're getting CREAMED at the box office and in the
>>> ratings by American film and TV productions. Why? Because the
>>> government-funded crap is so boring.
>>>
>Liz> hmmm.... The BBC is generally considered to produce at least
>Liz> _some_ decent tv, even if very little of it is sf. That's funded
>Liz> by mandatory licence fees. Is this what you mean?
>
>to fund work that would not find commercial sponsors due to an an
>avant-garde, shocking, obscure or otherwise unacceptable to the public
>content.
I'd love to be able to agree this is what I meant - but the stuff the
BBC puts out is (generally) very far from shocking or avant garde (and
when it is, there's generally an outcry. Some of it - particularly on
BBC2 - is, however, more niche marketing than anything else; this also
applies to many of its documentaries and science/nature programmes.
Liz
--
L...@gila.demon.co.uk
Junsok Yang
In article <5ip9dj$i...@camel3.mindspring.com>, mrs...@mindspring.com says...
Why the government? There are departments in universities (both
private and public) which have much more experience in the area; (much of
the university resources are geared toward such things); actually care about
these art forms, both disappearing and the nearly-disappeared; and their
databases would probably be a lot more accessible than a government managed
archives would be. A more appropriate question may be whether the
government should support more substantially such projects which already
exist; not whether they should set one up themselves.
--
***********************************************************************
"The trouble with being educated is that it takes a long time; it
uses up the better part of your life and when you are finished what you
know is that you would have benefited more by going into banking."
...Angel Archer [from The Transmigration of Timothy Archer by Philip K.
Dick]
Junsok Yang (yan...@yalevm.cis.yale.edu)
Daniel J. Starr
In article <3357fd75...@news.clark.net>,
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>On 13 Apr 1997 00:43:24 GMT, Mister Skin < mrs...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>I guess we're just lucky you confine your food exports to fish and chips
>>and we don't find outselves eating blood sausage or toad in the hole at
>>restaurants.
>
>Hey! I LOVE toad in the hole!
Um. What is toad in the hole, and does it look like one?
ObFoodTrivia: I've been told that fish and chips were invented by
Sephardic Jews, and correspond approximately to Ashkenazic Jews' latkes
(potato pancakes).
--
Daniel Starr (dst...@math.mit.edu)
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by indigestion.
Christopher Davis
MS> == Mister Skin < mrs...@mindspring.com>
MS> Between PBS, cable channels like Arts & Entertainment, and other
MS> cable channels, we get [...] that Helen Mirren boring cop show
Which, in the UK, is neither produced by or shown on the BBC, therefore
ruining the whole "public funding" argument.
It's shown on *advertiser-supported* channels.
(Now, in the US, it's shown on PBS, and in fact Boston's WGBH is involved
in the production along with Granada...so your problem is with *American*
public television. Sponsored by Mobil.)
--
Christopher Davis | loiosh LOC 42 21 43.921 N 71 5 6.213 W -25m 1m 100m
<c...@kei.com> | Put geographic locations into the DNS! See RFC 1876 &
PGP & MIME OK | <URL: http://www.kei.com/homepages/ckd/dns-loc.html >
Bill MacArthur
"Elisabeth Carey" <lis....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Bill MacArthur <billmac.s...@uwindsor.ca> wrote in article
><E8Dq9...@news.uwindsor.ca>...
>
><snip>
>
>> Some of Canada's best writers, be they SF or not, have received grants to
>
>> help them with their writing. I believe (and I hope he'll correct me if
>> I'm wrong) Robert Sawyer has received Canada Council Grants and so has
>> Elizabeth Vonarburg. The trouble is that without some sort of support in
>
>> a small market place (like Canada's) the work just wouldn't get written
>> without support. OTOH who is to judge whether it is going to be any good
>
>> when the funding application comes in. Also, would the good authors get
>> published anyway. I don't know.
>
>
>It's Elisabeth Vonarburg, not Elizabeth Vonarburg.:)
>
>She writes in French. The Francophone market in North America is small
>enough that I doubt French-language sf would be commercially viable without
>subsidies. OTOH, Anglophone Canadian writers have access to the same market
>American writers do - and, with all due respect to deeply-held Canadian
>beliefs about American parochialism, in Real Life[tm], books that use
>Canadian characters, settings, and themes seem to succeed or fail on the
>same basis as anything else, which is to say, on the basis of whether or
>not they have a story that people want to read. Robert Sawyer's _The
>Terminal Experiment_ is an obvious example, or Charles de Lint's fantasies.
>
I agree with you that the Francophone market in North America is small
and the majority of it is concentrated in the province of Quebec.
However, by the same logic that you use to expand the market for Canadian
English publications to North America, the French language market could
be expanded to the French speaking world. Furthermore, Vonarburg has her
works translated into English so with an established Anglophone market in
North America, she does not need Canada Council grants. My question is
could Sawyer and Vonarburg have gotten started without them. Now that
they are established, there is no problem.
The belief about American parochialism is true. One has to only look
back to the last Olympics with Donovan Bailey winning two gold metals and
see how little recognition he and his team mates have received in the
American media. I can cite lots of other examples but there is also a
problem that Canadian stars are not accepted in Canada until they have
made it in the US (one exception- hockey).
Actually, IIRC, it was Crawford Kilian who said that to sell books in the
US, Canadian writers have to Americanize their stories.
>Whether a separate Canadian publishing industry could survive is another
>question, and I suspect the answer there may be, not as major commercial
>publishers. Economics would lead to them getting swallowed up - or else
>doing some swallowing, which would be harder but not necessarily
>impossible.
>
That's a major issue for Canada at the present time. The protection of
Canadian culture is a major issue in trade discussions with the US. It
was discussed when Jean Chretien had his two day visit to Washington last
week. (The one that wasn't covered on any of the major US networks).
As I said in an earlier post, I have mixed feelings on this as I think
some groups in Canada are using this to protect their own turf. OTOH
some artists might not get a shot if it wasn't for some sort of support.
Simon van Dongen
On or about Sat, 12 Apr 1997 14:23:39 GMT, James Nicoll wrote:
>In article <5ik36l$u...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
>Mister Skin < mrs...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>Other than Monty Python, The Avengers and Blackadder, BBC has been a huge
>>wasteland (Dr. Who not excepted) for decades. That's what I mean.
> You forget _Red Dwarf_ and (IMO, the best hard sf show ever
>produced on TV) _Star Cops_.
>--
And don't forget that before the books, the tv-series, the badges, the
towels and the two-headed teddybears, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the
Galaxy was a serial on BBC's Radio 4.
Simon van Dongen
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Simon van Dongen <sg...@pi.net> Rotterdam, The Netherlands
'My doctor says I have a malformed public duty gland and a
natural deficiency in moral fibre,' he muttered to himself,
'and that I am therefore excused from saving Universes.'
Life, the universe and everything
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Elisabeth Carey
> "Elisabeth Carey" <lis....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Bill MacArthur <billmac.s...@uwindsor.ca> wrote in article
> ><E8Dq9...@news.uwindsor.ca>...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> Some of Canada's best writers, be they SF or not, have received grants
to
> >
> >> help them with their writing. I believe (and I hope he'll correct me
if
> >> I'm wrong) Robert Sawyer has received Canada Council Grants and so has
> >> Elizabeth Vonarburg. The trouble is that without some sort of support
in
> >
> >> a small market place (like Canada's) the work just wouldn't get
written
> >> without support. OTOH who is to judge whether it is going to be any
good
> >
> >> when the funding application comes in. Also, would the good authors
get
> >> published anyway. I don't know.
> >
> >
> >It's Elisabeth Vonarburg, not Elizabeth Vonarburg.:)
> >
> Thanks for the correction.
That "s" in the middle is important to me.:)
Bill, I hate to break this to you - but ABC took a near-continuous
pummelling all through the Olympics for their idiotic obsession with
Americans-only coverage; they chose to claim that the high ratings meant
that people approved, but their phones were in fact swamped with
complaints, and people who lived close enough to the border to watch
Canadian coverage bragged about the fact. Over the course of the two weeks,
they did, in fact, get *somewhat* better, and, in fact, the tape of the
hundred-yard dash was repeatedly rerun, because even the dim bulbs at ABC
had managed to figure out that people *wanted* to see it.
Other American media outlets were having a field day covering ABC's failure
to actually cover the Olympics, including seeking out and highlighting good
stories that ABC ignored. Unfortunately, the practice of raising money for
the Olympics by selling a monopoly on coverage to one media outlet in each
country virtually guarantees that unhappy viewers do not translate into
plunging ratings.
But if you look only at ABC's coverage of the Olympics, and ignore the
highly vocal American reaction to ABC's coverage, in your attempt to
establish the facts about American "parochialism", I will be forced to
conclude that you are, in fact, arguing from your conclusion.
>
> Actually, IIRC, it was Crawford Kilian who said that to sell books in the
> US, Canadian writers have to Americanize their stories.
While I don't doubt that Crawford Kilian may have run into some
particularly stupid editor, his conclusion isn't supported by the facts,
either. I mean, has anybody informed Charles de Lint that his books will
never sell in the US until he Americanizes them? Or told Robert J. Sawyer
that his winning the Nebula must have been a mistake because they
*couldn't* have mean to give it to a a novel set in Canada?:)
And they're not the only examples; they're just the two most obvious ones
for this group, given that most sf and fantasy doesn't involve contemporary
settings or obviously contemporary themes at all.
>
> >Whether a separate Canadian publishing industry could survive is another
> >question, and I suspect the answer there may be, not as major commercial
> >publishers. Economics would lead to them getting swallowed up - or else
> >doing some swallowing, which would be harder but not necessarily
> >impossible.
> >
> That's a major issue for Canada at the present time. The protection of
> Canadian culture is a major issue in trade discussions with the US. It
> was discussed when Jean Chretien had his two day visit to Washington last
> week. (The one that wasn't covered on any of the major US networks).
Huh. Funny I remember seeing, hearing, and reading coverage of it, then,
though admittedly they paid more attention to his remarks regarding the
Helms-Burton act than to more strictly trade-related issues.
Don't you ever get the *teensiest* bit tired of carrying around that chip
on your shoulder?
And far be it from any American to point out that protected markets for
Canadian corporations is not *exactly* the same thing as "protection of
Canadian culture".
>
> As I said in an earlier post, I have mixed feelings on this as I think
> some groups in Canada are using this to protect their own turf. OTOH
> some artists might not get a shot if it wasn't for some sort of support.
>
>
But the latter statement is potentially true of anything that puts money in
the pockets of artists, including the availability of part-time jobs, and
not necessarily an adequate reason for the pursuit of policies that Canada
denounces vehemently when any *other* country pursues them. Sorry, but if
it's A Vile Offense Against the Sacred Principle of Free Trade when the
USA does it, it doesn't become magically transformed into Necessary
Protection of Our Valued National Culture when Canada does it. Canada wants
all those pesky trade restrictions removed in *one* direction, but wants to
keep an awful lot of them in the *other* direction. This is also true of
both the USA and Mexico, of course, but for some reason or other, Mexico's
claims to have been ruthlessly exploited and oppressed by the USA for the
last century and a half have a much more convincing ring to them, don't you
think?:)
Lis Carey
Mister Skin
In article <5ipmcs$i...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Junsok Yang,
yan...@minerva.cis.yale.edu writes:
::archive information about vanishing elements of culture. If the
symphony,
::the ballet, et. al., were to have such a small number of adherents that
::they could no longer be performed for people who are willing to pay for
::them, then I think there should be a government department that collects
::all conceivable information about the art form and keeps it safely
stored
::for students, historians and anyone else who might need to know about
it.
:
: Why the government? There are departments in universities (both
:private and public) which have much more experience in the area; (much
of
:the university resources are geared toward such things); actually care
about
:these art forms, both disappearing and the nearly-disappeared; and their
:databases would probably be a lot more accessible than a government
managed
:archives would be. A more appropriate question may be whether the
:government should support more substantially such projects which already
:exist; not whether they should set one up themselves.
I find this generally agreeable. Let governments sponsor the universities
which archive the art forms.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On 14 Apr 1997 12:33:41 -0400, dst...@math.mit.edu (Daniel J. Starr)
wrote:
>In article <3357fd75...@news.clark.net>,
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>>On 13 Apr 1997 00:43:24 GMT, Mister Skin < mrs...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>Hey! I LOVE toad in the hole!
>
>Um. What is toad in the hole, and does it look like one?
It's sausage in pudding, more or less. It looks like a mess, but it
tastes good.
>ObFoodTrivia: I've been told that fish and chips were invented by
>Sephardic Jews, and correspond approximately to Ashkenazic Jews' latkes
>(potato pancakes).
Say what?
Bill MacArthur
"Elisabeth Carey" <lis....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Bill MacArthur <billmac.s...@uwindsor.ca> wrote in article
<a lot of stuff snipped re: the Canada Council and the correct spelling
of Elisabeth Vonarburg>
However, where did Donovan Bailey place in the "Athlete of the Year"
category? Should he not have been either one up or one down from Michael
Johnson?
>>
>> Actually, IIRC, it was Crawford Kilian who said that to sell books in the
>
>> US, Canadian writers have to Americanize their stories.
>
>While I don't doubt that Crawford Kilian may have run into some
>particularly stupid editor, his conclusion isn't supported by the facts,
>either. I mean, has anybody informed Charles de Lint that his books will
>never sell in the US until he Americanizes them? Or told Robert J. Sawyer
>that his winning the Nebula must have been a mistake because they
>*couldn't* have mean to give it to a a novel set in Canada?:)
>
He was the first Canadian born and resident writer to win the Neb.
William Gibson was the first Canadian although he immigrated from the US.
However, _Neuromancer_ was set in the US predominantly. Sawyer also
played a little trick on the US reader. The opening sequence refers to
the "North York Hospital" which might lead careless readers to think it
was set in New York.
I'm not familiar with de Lint's work but did either he or Sawyer make it
without grants to help them get started?
>And they're not the only examples; they're just the two most obvious ones
>for this group, given that most sf and fantasy doesn't involve contemporary
>settings or obviously contemporary themes at all.
>
>>
>> >Whether a separate Canadian publishing industry could survive is another
>> >question, and I suspect the answer there may be, not as major commercial
>> >publishers. Economics would lead to them getting swallowed up - or else
>> >doing some swallowing, which would be harder but not necessarily
>> >impossible.
>> >
>> That's a major issue for Canada at the present time. The protection of
>> Canadian culture is a major issue in trade discussions with the US. It
>> was discussed when Jean Chretien had his two day visit to Washington last
>
>> week. (The one that wasn't covered on any of the major US networks).
>
>Huh. Funny I remember seeing, hearing, and reading coverage of it, then,
>though admittedly they paid more attention to his remarks regarding the
>Helms-Burton act than to more strictly trade-related issues.
>
>Don't you ever get the *teensiest* bit tired of carrying around that chip
>on your shoulder?
>
I don't have a chip on my shoulder just citing examples to support my
point. I would argue that in some cases Canada is better off because
most Americans don't pay very much attention to us.
>And far be it from any American to point out that protected markets for
>Canadian corporations is not *exactly* the same thing as "protection of
>Canadian culture".
>
That's a good point, Lis, and one that I share with you. As I stated
earlier below.
>>
>> As I said in an earlier post, I have mixed feelings on this as I think
>> some groups in Canada are using this to protect their own turf. OTOH
>> some artists might not get a shot if it wasn't for some sort of support.
>>
>>
>
>But the latter statement is potentially true of anything that puts money in
>the pockets of artists, including the availability of part-time jobs, and
>not necessarily an adequate reason for the pursuit of policies that Canada
>denounces vehemently when any *other* country pursues them. Sorry, but if
>it's A Vile Offense Against the Sacred Principle of Free Trade when the
>USA does it, it doesn't become magically transformed into Necessary
>Protection of Our Valued National Culture when Canada does it. Canada wants
>all those pesky trade restrictions removed in *one* direction, but wants to
>keep an awful lot of them in the *other* direction. This is also true of
>both the USA and Mexico, of course, but for some reason or other, Mexico's
>claims to have been ruthlessly exploited and oppressed by the USA for the
>last century and a half have a much more convincing ring to them, don't you
>think?:)
>
The same argument can be made in the opposite direction in relation to
softwood lumber and durum wheat to name a couple of counter examples to
yours of Canadian perfidity. All but the most strident Canadian
nationalists (and even some of them) would argue that Canada has
benefited from being a neighbour to the US. (Paradoxically,
Helms-Burton might even be helping Canadian companies by excluding US
competition but that's another digression.) I've worked with several
people who are married to Americans or live in the US. And, of course,
we have to go through the US to visit our 11th province- Florida.
Mexican claims do have a more convincing ring although I do drive past
General Hull's landing point from 1812 regularly but that's another
story.
If I go back to the original point, Canada has a population of 30 million
people (not all of whom are English speaking) spread throughout the
second largest country in the world. I don't know that some of the
literature about it would be written and published without public
support. OTOH I don't know how much of this money is necessary and how
well spent it is.
Robert J. Sawyer
> Some of Canada's best writers, be they SF or not, have received grants to
> help them with their writing. I believe (and I hope he'll correct me if
> I'm wrong) Robert Sawyer has received Canada Council Grants
I have never received a Canada Council grant. I did receive a tiny grant
(Cdn$500) from the Ontario Arts Council's Writers Reserve Program (for
the writing of THE TERMINAL EXPERIMENT). I got tired of snooty literary
types in Canada saying to me that, oh yes, sure, your work might be
widely read, but you know it isn't "grantable" (yes, that's a word that
snooty literary types up here actually use). I decided to prove them
wrong, and so submitted an application. I would have applied for a $1 grant,
but $500 was the lowest value they give. I've never had any other grants.
>Actually, IIRC, it was Crawford Kilian who said that to sell books in the
>US, Canadian writers have to Americanize their stories.
This was indeed the received wisdom here in Canada until about ten years ago.
But a bunch of us decided that it had never really been tested. So we
tested it. Terence M. Green was probably the first out of the starting
gate with his SF/cop thriller BARKING DOGS, which St. Martin's Press
published in 1988. Tanya Huff leapt into the fray with her on-going
BLOOD PRICE/PACT/etc. series for DAW. I weighed in with END OF AN ERA and
THE TERMINAL EXPERIMENT. Green is back with a sequl to BARKING DOGS
(BLUE LIMBO, just out from Tor).
Never once has an American editor said a negative word to any of us
about the blatant Canadian settings in our books (for that matter, my
editors in France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Japan, Poland, Russia, and
Spain have never complained, either).
Some writers are still a little coy about this (when Charles de Lint
had to give the call letters for a radio station in his fictitous Newford,
which is commonly thought to be Ottawa, he used letters beginning with a K,
denoting an American station, rather than C, which would denote a Canadian
one), but I'd say the old saw about needing to set something in the States
in order for it to be published there has been completely disproven.
All best wishes.
-----------------------------------------------
R O B E R T J . S A W Y E R
Next Novel: FRAMESHIFT (Tor, June 1997)
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/sawyer
-----------------------------------------------
Tom Galloway
In article <01bc4938$a4fbe8a0$36d8...@cathouse.worldnet.att.net>,
Elisabeth Carey <lis....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Bill, I hate to break this to you - but ABC took a near-continuous
>pummelling all through the Olympics for their idiotic obsession with
Um, that was NBC that decided to completely jingoize this past Summer
Olympics, not ABC. About the only good thing they did was bring back
the previously only used by ABC for Olympics coverage Bugler's Dream
theme music.
And showing that they really didn't learn a damn thing, they've already
asked John Tesh back as a commentator for the 2000 Sydney Games.
tyg t...@netcom.com
Elisabeth Carey
Tom Galloway <t...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<tygE8p...@netcom.com>...
> In article <01bc4938$a4fbe8a0$36d8...@cathouse.worldnet.att.net>,
> Elisabeth Carey <lis....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >pummelling all through the Olympics for their idiotic obsession with
>
> Um, that was NBC that decided to completely jingoize this past Summer
> Olympics, not ABC. About the only good thing they did was bring back
> the previously only used by ABC for Olympics coverage Bugler's Dream
> theme music.
Uh - oops!
My apologies to ABC.
>
> And showing that they really didn't learn a damn thing, they've already
> asked John Tesh back as a commentator for the 2000 Sydney Games.
*cringe*
Lis Carey
Elisabeth Carey
> Johnson?
If I had the slightest awareness of an "Athlete of the Year" category, I
might be able to answer this question. However, baskeball gets primetime
coverage throughout its season, and track, regardless of the nationality of
the competitors, doesn't; this might affect results in any number of
categories.
>
> >>
> >> Actually, IIRC, it was Crawford Kilian who said that to sell books in
the
> >
> >> US, Canadian writers have to Americanize their stories.
> >
> >While I don't doubt that Crawford Kilian may have run into some
> >particularly stupid editor, his conclusion isn't supported by the facts,
> >either. I mean, has anybody informed Charles de Lint that his books will
> >never sell in the US until he Americanizes them? Or told Robert J.
Sawyer
> >that his winning the Nebula must have been a mistake because they
> >*couldn't* have mean to give it to a a novel set in Canada?:)
> >
> He was the first Canadian born and resident writer to win the Neb.
> William Gibson was the first Canadian although he immigrated from the US.
> However, _Neuromancer_ was set in the US predominantly. Sawyer also
> played a little trick on the US reader. The opening sequence refers to
> the "North York Hospital" which might lead careless readers to think it
> was set in New York.
Only if you're stupid enough to believe that the people reading the book
are going to be near-illiterate. I don't think Mr. Sawyer was being that
silly, or playing any such stupid sort of trick. Have you actually read the
book all the way through? It's quite unambigously set in *Canada*, not the
USA.
>
> I'm not familiar with de Lint's work but did either he or Sawyer make it
> without grants to help them get started?
I have no idea whether de Lint did; I first found his books in mass market
editions from an American publisher. For Robert Sawyer's grant history, I
refer you to his post.:)
<snip>
Um, but as far as I know "our" complaints on those subjects are frankly
economic ones, not clothed in nonsense about Preserving Our Culture.
<snip>
>
> If I go back to the original point, Canada has a population of 30 million
> people (not all of whom are English speaking) spread throughout the
> second largest country in the world. I don't know that some of the
> literature about it would be written and published without public
> support. OTOH I don't know how much of this money is necessary and how
> well spent it is.
Canadian writers who actually write Canadian novels and then submit them to
American publishers do not seem to have a problem. And indeed, Toronto or
Ottawa are scarcely as "alien" to the average American reader as, say, Anne
Rice's New Orleans.
Lis Carey
James Kirkup
Can anyone help me?
I am a journalist researching the links between sf and real science - and
I don't know a vast ammount about either.
I'm looking for predictions made in sf that were proved right - or
spectacularly wrong. My inspiration is 2010 and life on Europa - anyone
know anymore? I'm especially interested in bio-medical and space stuff.
Does anyone know any books/TV which make use of things like artificial
organs/eyes, and were written 1980's and before. Or any examples of the
space-borne bacteria theories of the evolution of human (and alien) life?
i'll be v grateful for any crumbs anyone can throw my way - I'm also v
interested in finding out about the cutting edge of sf - what are people
predicting these days?
And are there any published sf writers around with opinions on the
subject?
Cheers,
james kirkup
Robert J. Sawyer
>Sawyer also played a little trick on the US reader. The opening sequence
>refers to the "North York Hospital" which might lead careless readers to
>think it was set in New York.
This certainly wasn't a deliberate trick. I lived most of my life in
North York, which bops back and forth between being Canada's fourth-largest
and fifth-largest city (but which will in all likelihood be folded into
the new combined megacity of Toronto), and "North York General" (the
term I actually used) is a real hospital that's provided terrific care for
several members of my family over the years.
THE TERMINAL EXPERIMENT does state explicitly that it's set in Toronto on
page 7 of the HarperPrism USA edition.
Liz
>>and we don't find outselves eating blood sausage or toad in the hole at
>>restaurants.
>
>
>get it on this side of the Atlantic.
>
It's not at all difficult to make, Lawrence. At some point, I really,
really will put that copy of Starlight Barking in the post to you (I
hadn't forgotten - just a small matter of launching a new magazine
that's quite turned my head), and when I do, I shall put a recipe for it
in...
Liz
--
L...@gila.demon.co.uk
Liz
In article <5ipa7c$j...@camel3.mindspring.com>, Mister Skin
<mrs...@mindspring.com> writes
>
>Do you mean to imply that there are whole secret classes of vastly
>entertaining programs over there in Britain that we poor Yankees never
>see? If so, why not export them?
Well, to start with it's quite clear from the list you just gave that
you aren't distinguishing between the output of the BBC and the
commercial British stations, so it does make it a bit difficult even to
talk about this meaningfully. I have no idea how much stuff gets
exported to the US - I was assuming that if the first list you gave was
all you had seen, then not much was available. But in fact I think the
salient point is that what you think is crap is just your _opinion_, at
least when it's presented this way. There are many, many people who
would argue that (for instance) Fawlty Towers was brilliant - but that's
the point: they'd argue their case rather than assuming that merely
stating that they liked it was a rational basis for discussion.
Oh - and you're way off base about British restaurants, too - but you're
so obviously bigoted about the UK that I really don't think I'm going to
waste my time explaining.
Liz
--
L...@gila.demon.co.uk
Bill MacArthur
Robert J. Sawyer <7670...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> > Some of Canada's best writers, be they SF or not, have received grants to
> > help them with their writing. I believe (and I hope he'll correct me if
> > I'm wrong) Robert Sawyer has received Canada Council Grants
>
>I have never received a Canada Council grant. I did receive a tiny grant
>(Cdn$500) from the Ontario Arts Council's Writers Reserve Program (for
>the writing of THE TERMINAL EXPERIMENT). I got tired of snooty literary
>types in Canada saying to me that, oh yes, sure, your work might be
>widely read, but you know it isn't "grantable" (yes, that's a word that
>snooty literary types up here actually use). I decided to prove them
I've often suspected as much.
>wrong, and so submitted an application. I would have applied for a $1 grant,
>but $500 was the lowest value they give. I've never had any other grants.
>
Well done!
> >Actually, IIRC, it was Crawford Kilian who said that to sell books in the
> >US, Canadian writers have to Americanize their stories.
>
>This was indeed the received wisdom here in Canada until about ten years ago.
>But a bunch of us decided that it had never really been tested. So we
>tested it. Terence M. Green was probably the first out of the starting
>gate with his SF/cop thriller BARKING DOGS, which St. Martin's Press
>published in 1988. Tanya Huff leapt into the fray with her on-going
>BLOOD PRICE/PACT/etc. series for DAW. I weighed in with END OF AN ERA and
>THE TERMINAL EXPERIMENT. Green is back with a sequl to BARKING DOGS
>(BLUE LIMBO, just out from Tor).
>
>Never once has an American editor said a negative word to any of us
>about the blatant Canadian settings in our books (for that matter, my
>editors in France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Japan, Poland, Russia, and
>Spain have never complained, either).
>
The latter part doesn't surprise me as many of these countries are often
interested in Canadiana.
>Some writers are still a little coy about this (when Charles de Lint
>had to give the call letters for a radio station in his fictitous Newford,
>which is commonly thought to be Ottawa, he used letters beginning with a K,
>denoting an American station, rather than C, which would denote a Canadian
>one), but I'd say the old saw about needing to set something in the States
>in order for it to be published there has been completely disproven.
>
I stand corrected on all accounts. Thanks for good info and restoring my
faith in at least a sector of the Canadian literary community.
Bill MacArthur
"Elisabeth Carey" <lis....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Bill MacArthur <billmac.s...@uwindsor.ca> wrote in article
<snip re: discussion of Canadian perception of American parochialism>
>> Only one example, Lis. Your points about ABC's coverage are all valid.
>> However, where did Donovan Bailey place in the "Athlete of the Year"
>> category? Should he not have been either one up or one down from Michael
>
>> Johnson?
>
>If I had the slightest awareness of an "Athlete of the Year" category, I
Honestly, I forget whether it was the APS poll, Sports Illustrated or
what.
>might be able to answer this question. However, baskeball gets primetime
>coverage throughout its season, and track, regardless of the nationality of
>the competitors, doesn't; this might affect results in any number of
>categories.
>
Yes, but why is Donovan Bailey ignored yet Michael Johnson lauded? I see
Johnson's picture and endorsements all over the place.
>>
>> >>
>> >> Actually, IIRC, it was Crawford Kilian who said that to sell books in
>the
>> >
>> >> US, Canadian writers have to Americanize their stories.
>> >
>> >While I don't doubt that Crawford Kilian may have run into some
>> >particularly stupid editor, his conclusion isn't supported by the facts,
>> >either. I mean, has anybody informed Charles de Lint that his books will
>> >never sell in the US until he Americanizes them? Or told Robert J.
>Sawyer
>> >that his winning the Nebula must have been a mistake because they
>> >*couldn't* have mean to give it to a a novel set in Canada?:)
>> >
>> He was the first Canadian born and resident writer to win the Neb.
>> William Gibson was the first Canadian although he immigrated from the US.
>
>> However, _Neuromancer_ was set in the US predominantly. Sawyer also
>> played a little trick on the US reader. The opening sequence refers to
>> the "North York Hospital" which might lead careless readers to think it
>> was set in New York.
>
>Only if you're stupid enough to believe that the people reading the book
>are going to be near-illiterate. I don't think Mr. Sawyer was being that
>silly, or playing any such stupid sort of trick. Have you actually read the
>book all the way through? It's quite unambigously set in *Canada*, not the
>USA.
>
Yes, I have read the book. It's marvelous and as you have said it is
unambiguously set in Canada. As Rob, himself, has stated that he and
other current Canadian writers can sell their work with it set in Canada,
I have to concede the point.
>> The same argument can be made in the opposite direction in relation to
>> softwood lumber and durum wheat to name a couple of counter examples to
>> yours of Canadian perfidity.
>
>Um, but as far as I know "our" complaints on those subjects are frankly
>economic ones, not clothed in nonsense about Preserving Our Culture.
>
Yes, but they are economic complaints clothed in nonsense about Unfair
Trading practices.
>Canadian writers who actually write Canadian novels and then submit them to
>American publishers do not seem to have a problem. And indeed, Toronto or
>Ottawa are scarcely as "alien" to the average American reader as, say, Anne
>Rice's New Orleans.
>
Again I bow to Rob Sawyer's expertise in this area. The two of you have
made a convert out of me.
Steve Sloan
Robert J. Sawyer wrote:
>
> >Sawyer also played a little trick on the US reader. The opening
> > sequence refers to the "North York Hospital" which might lead
> > careless readers to think it was set in New York.
>
> in North York,
It's not your trick; it's a trick of the American eye. When people
(me, for example) skim quickly through names, while reading, their
minds will fill in little details they missed (because they're
reading quickly) with what experience suggests to them. When I see
"N.... York" I automatically think of New York, unless I'm actually
thinking about it while reading.
_____________________________________________________________________
Steve Sloan E-mail: sl...@geosim.msfc.nasa.gov
Senior in Computer Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville
Check out Kithrup.JPG on MY NEW WEB SITE (I'm so excited):
http://www.cs.uah.edu/cs/students/ssloan/
Guy Kay
In article <5j2tg2$69e$1...@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>, Robert J. Sawyer
<7670...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> >Sawyer also played a little trick on the US reader. The opening sequence
> >refers to the "North York Hospital" which might lead careless readers to
> >think it was set in New York.
>
> This certainly wasn't a deliberate trick. I lived most of my life in
> North York, which bops back and forth between being Canada's fourth-largest
> and fifth-largest city (but which will in all likelihood be folded into
> the new combined megacity of Toronto), and "North York General" (the
> term I actually used) is a real hospital that's provided terrific care for
> several members of my family over the years.
>
> THE TERMINAL EXPERIMENT does state explicitly that it's set in Toronto on
> page 7 of the HarperPrism USA edition.
>
Oh, stop it Rob! Quit hiding behind truth and facts. Just ADMIT it was
another nefarious deception that is part of the subtle Canadian takeover of
the genre.
GGK
--
Do note the 'nospam' in my return address if replying.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Thu, 17 Apr 1997 02:53:58 +0100, Liz <L...@gila.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3357fd75...@news.clark.net>, Lawrence Watt-Evans
><lawr...@clark.net> writes
>>
>>Hey! I LOVE toad in the hole!
>>
>>Seriously, it's one of my favorite dishes anywhere, and I wish I COULD
>>get it on this side of the Atlantic.
>>
>
>It's not at all difficult to make, Lawrence. At some point, I really,
>really will put that copy of Starlight Barking in the post to you (I
>hadn't forgotten - just a small matter of launching a new magazine
>that's quite turned my head), and when I do, I shall put a recipe for it
>in...
Thanks.
Actually, we have my mother's recipe; the problem is that nobody here
likes it much but me, and cooking it for one person is more trouble
than it's worth.
TOUCHED BY THE GODS: Hardcover, Tor Books, November 1997
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Updated 4/16/97
PMccutc103
"Elisabeth Carey" <lis....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Bill, I hate to break this to you - but ABC took a near-continuous
>pummelling all through the Olympics for their idiotic obsession with
>Americans-only coverage; they chose to claim that the high ratings meant
>that people approved, but their phones were in fact swamped with
>complaints, and people who lived close enough to the border to watch
>Canadian coverage bragged about the fact. Over the course of the two
weeks,
>they did, in fact, get *somewhat* better, and, in fact, the tape of the
>hundred-yard dash was repeatedly rerun, because even the dim bulbs at ABC
>had managed to figure out that people *wanted* to see it.
Please note: _NBC_, _not_ ABC had the Olympics last year. ABC likely
would have done a better job.
_My_ problem with the Olympics was that every hour had about 15 minutes of
commercials, 10 minutes of announcers bantering back and forth, 10 minutes
of Dick Enberg "moments" where we saw reruns of great moments of _past_
Olympics, 20 minutes of "heartwarming" stories about some competitor's
retarded half-brother who died of cancer the day before the Olympic
Trials, and maybe 5 minutes of actual _sports_. It's as if they broadcast
the NBA playoffs by showing pictures of Michael Jordan with his father,
talking about his boyhood, talking about his father's death, showed him
lifting weights -- and then flipped to a few "highlights" of the actual
_game_.
Americans or non-Americans, I don't care -- just show _sports_ rather than
John Tesh.
________________________
Pete McCutchen
PMccutc103
Bill MacArthur <billmac.s...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>The same argument can be made in the opposite direction in relation to
>softwood lumber and durum wheat to name a couple of counter examples to
>yours of Canadian perfidity.
I think that the US softwood lumber and durum wheat industries are exactly
what the Canadian arts mavens are: an interest group worried about
competition who therefore seek protection from same. And I think that
both groups deserve the same level of protection: none whatsoever.
Both groups, of course, seek to drape their self-interested behavior in
the mantle of some higher good: in the US it's "Jobs" or "protecting the
family farmer," in Canada it's "protecting our holy Canadian culture."
There are, of course, on both sides of the border, people who say "our
protectionism good, yours bad." But given the prevelance of interest
group politics in modern liberal democracies, this is what one would
expect, wouldn't one?
________________________
Pete McCutchen
Dan Goodman
In article <19970418151...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
PMccutc103 <pmccu...@aol.com> wrote:
>_My_ problem with the Olympics was that every hour had about 15 minutes of
>commercials, 10 minutes of announcers bantering back and forth, 10 minutes
>of Dick Enberg "moments" where we saw reruns of great moments of _past_
>Olympics, 20 minutes of "heartwarming" stories about some competitor's
>retarded half-brother who died of cancer the day before the Olympic
>Trials, and maybe 5 minutes of actual _sports_. It's as if they broadcast
>the NBA playoffs by showing pictures of Michael Jordan with his father,
>talking about his boyhood, talking about his father's death, showed him
>lifting weights -- and then flipped to a few "highlights" of the actual
>_game_.
I have similar problems with just about everything on tv and radio.
(Especially now that the "public" stations have blurbs about their
sponsors which are difficult to distinguish from commercials.) I want to
hear _music_, not a recital of Mozart's jokes (which might be funny in the
original German) or banter between two hosts. Other hand, I _don't_ want
music when I'm trying to get the news -- what there is of it between funny
commentators -- on public radio.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Mister Skin
In article <5j5e2v$b...@news.inforamp.net> Guy Kay,
As I sit here in the Deep South wearing a heavy shirt and pants because
one of them Canadian air masses has sneaked across the border -- in
April! and made it all the way down here, all I can think of is, "The
Canadians have already taken over the weather! No way are they going to
take over SF, too!
I mean, my family likes to go to Windsor in winter to drive around and
listen to the weird accents -- we like Canada. But enough is enough, you
hosers!
Nyrath the nearly wise
Lawrence Watt-Evans (lawr...@clark.net) wrote:
: >Um. What is toad in the hole, and does it look like one?
:
: It's sausage in pudding, more or less. It looks like a mess, but it
: tastes good.
I take it that when you say "pudding", you don't mean
Jell-o Chocolate Pudding?
I was under the impression that in England, "pudding" was
a species of sausage.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On 18 Apr 1997 21:01:48 GMT, nyr...@clark.net (Nyrath the nearly wise)
wrote:
>I take it that when you say "pudding", you don't mean
>Jell-o Chocolate Pudding?
> I was under the impression that in England, "pudding" was
>a species of sausage.
No, pudding isn't sausage. It's more a sort of cake. It's nothing
like American pudding, you got that part right.
Toad in the hole is sausage in Yorkshire pudding. Yorkshire pudding
is hard to explain, but very simple to make.
Cally Soukup
Lawrence Watt-Evans (lawr...@clark.net) wrote:
: dst...@math.mit.edu (Daniel J. Starr) wrote:
: >Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
: >>
: >>Hey! I LOVE toad in the hole!
: >
: >Um. What is toad in the hole, and does it look like one?
: It's sausage in pudding, more or less. It looks like a mess, but it
: tastes good.
That's interesting. I grew up in suburban Chicago. My mother used to
make a dish called toad in the hole, but it's not the same dish. The TitH
I grew up with was a piece of bread with a hole cut in it by the top of a
drinking glass, with an egg fried in it. You fry the hole, too, and use it
to help eat the egg yolk. I wonder if that's a regional thing or a family
thing...
Richard Mason
Dan Goodman wrote:
>
> I have similar problems with just about everything on tv and radio.
> (Especially now that the "public" stations have blurbs about their
> sponsors which are difficult to distinguish from commercials.)
There is still a distinction, though, in that the commercials on
public stations are much fewer in number, and generally occur
only between programs, not in the middle of them.
Personally I don't mind the current situation on public TV/radio,
as long as it does not deteriorate any further. I agree, however,
that the trend is disturbing.
It was very interesting to watch the evolution of commercials
on public television. At one point, no commercials with any
action were allowed, it was only okay to show the name and/or
logo of the major corporate contributor. Then the LOGOS started
getting just as jazzy and animated as they could possibly be
(think of the shape-changing PepsiCo logo, and the IBM logo
having adventures and navigating past obstacles...)
Now it has become okay to have a shot of the product, instead of
the company logo, and have a long voice-over extolling the
virtues of the product. I think we are still one step away
from seeing the full range of commercials that appear on
network television, with celebrity spokespersons, performing
animals, etc...
--
Richard Mason "And you may say to yourself/
ma...@robby.caltech.edu My God! What have I done?" -- D. Byrne
Liz
In article <5j8nfs$1...@clarknet.clark.net>, Nyrath the nearly wise
<nyr...@clark.net> writes
>Lawrence Watt-Evans (lawr...@clark.net) wrote:
>: >Um. What is toad in the hole, and does it look like one?
>:
>: It's sausage in pudding, more or less. It looks like a mess, but it
>: tastes good.
>
>Jell-o Chocolate Pudding?
> I was under the impression that in England, "pudding" was
>a species of sausage.
What he means is Yorkshire pudding, which is basically pancake batter
poured into a pan and cooked in the oven. Made properly, it puffs up
and is very light (it's usually served without sausages in it as an
accompaniment to roast beef or - less traditionally - lamb or other
meat. You can leave the leftovers to go cold - delicious smeared with
jam-sorry-jelly....)
What he means by sausages is what I think are called in America link
sausages (ie not the pattie like things McDonald serves over here, and
which regularly drive people up to the counter to demand 'where are my
sausages, it says sausages but I've got this thing that looks like a
burger...')
What you mean by a pudding like a sausage is probably what we'd call
black pudding, which is a yukky sounding northern thing made basically
out of blood.
And we also call certain dessert type things puddings, too...
I hope that's clear now <G>.
Liz
--
L...@gila.demon.co.uk