Filking Subculture. Workshops? (was "good enough for filk")
James Walton
B> Then Readercon -- oriented toward sf literature -- would also be
a
B> fringecon? Doesn't quite work...Or is there a term for such an
elite
B> con that it excludes "fringe fandoms" altogether?
Depending on who you talk to, Readercon is a "realcon" because it is
about
literature, which is the original focus of science fiction cons, or a
"sercon" for serious con meaning that anything other than books and
litereature isn't serious.
--
|Fidonet: James Walton 1:129/260 Gateway: Black Dragon Inn
|GateOp: ro...@bdragon.shore.net
--
Filk Digest
(echomail and newsgroup readers disregard this as it doesn't apply to you)
To post to the list, send a message to filk...@bdragon.shore.net
To (un)sub-scribe, send a message to list...@bdragon.shore.net
with "subscribe filk-d" in the message body
|Gateway: Black Dragon Inn
|GateOp: ro...@bdragon.shore.net
Mark A Mandel
James Walton (James....@129-260.bdragon.shore.net) wrote:
: Depending on who you talk to, Readercon is a "realcon" because it is
: about
: literature, which is the original focus of science fiction cons, or a
: "sercon" for serious con meaning that anything other than books and
: litereature isn't serious.
Not to dispute, but to add a (dis)grace note: I first learned "sercon" as
an adjective applying to cons, fans, activities, and wherever else
"SERious and CONstructive" (as opposed to just plain fun, and other
things) was meaningful.
-- Mark A. Mandel
FIJAGH
Now, *filking*, on the other hand...
Avram Grumer
In article <EED9p...@nonexistent.com>, Bruce Adelsohn
<bru...@cybernex.net> wrote:
>Yes. I actually was aware of the term "sercon", though not of "realcon"
>-- yet, in today's environment, it strikes me as horrifically arrogant
>to assume that books -- whose readership and sales are sadly diminishing
>as a percentage of the SF experienced by even core SF fandom -- are the
>only "serious" or "real" fandom.
Well, that depends upon whether you consider the defining aspect of fandom
to be the enjoyment of SF or the participation in the historical fannish
culture (primarily propigated via fanzines and conventions). There are
millions of people out there watching the various _Star Trek_ offspring
every week and whatever big budget special effects fest Hollywood is
putting out this month, but I don't know if it's meaningful to consider
them a part of fandom.
James Walton's "Depending on who you talk to" aside, do we have an actual
citation for the claim that there's someone out there who thinks of
Readercon as a (perhaps even _the_) "realcon"? I've attended three
Readercons so far, and I have yet to encounter anything even vaguely
resembling such an attitude among the attendees.
--
Avram Grumer Home: av...@interport.net
http://www.crossover.com/agrumer Work: agr...@crossover.com
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.
Teach him how to fish, and you drive up the price of
bait and tackle, and disrupt the local ecosystem.
Bruce Adelsohn
James Walton wrote:
> B> Then Readercon -- oriented toward sf literature -- would also be
> a
> B> fringecon? Doesn't quite work...Or is there a term for such an
> elite
> B> con that it excludes "fringe fandoms" altogether?
>
> Depending on who you talk to, Readercon is a "realcon" because it is
> about
> literature, which is the original focus of science fiction cons, or a
> "sercon" for serious con meaning that anything other than books and
> litereature isn't serious.
Yes. I actually was aware of the term "sercon", though not of "realcon"
-- yet, in today's environment, it strikes me as horrifically arrogant
to assume that books -- whose readership and sales are sadly diminishing
as a percentage of the SF experienced by even core SF fandom -- are the
only "serious" or "real" fandom. (I admit that my readership has
dropped from about 200 books per year to about 100, largely because of
other interests that take time. Music, a fiancee, and other such
stuff...:-)
[philosophical semirant mode ON]
The problem, you see, is that if Readercon and its ilk are "real" cons,
then even "gencons" and "areas" or "regionals" must be, to some degree
or other, "unreal". For which I find, in my thesaurus, such synonyms as
"fake" and "phony". And that's rather offensive.
I used to think that fandom was the fringe of society and proud of it;
in many ways, it was the keeper of much good that mainstream --
"mundane" -- society had lost or ignored. Then the term "fringe
fandom" emerged as something of a derogatory description, and I began to
wonder. Sometimes, I still do...
[end philosophical semirant]
Three days -- one work week -- until Pennsic departure. Zero time to
spare. Okay, I'm just a *tad* tense...
--
- mka Bruce Adelsohn - | "He ain't much of a prophet
ska Stefan Davidson, | if nobody can understand
called Fingersinger | a thing he wrote."
bru...@cybernex.net | -- Orson Scott Card, SEVENTH SON
Bruce Adelsohn
Avram Grumer wrote:
> In article <EED9p...@nonexistent.com>, Bruce Adelsohn
> <bru...@cybernex.net> wrote:
>
> >Yes. I actually was aware of the term "sercon", though not of
> "realcon"
> >-- yet, in today's environment, it strikes me as horrifically
> arrogant
> >to assume that books -- whose readership and sales are sadly
> diminishing
> >as a percentage of the SF experienced by even core SF fandom -- are
> the
> >only "serious" or "real" fandom.
>
> Well, that depends upon whether you consider the defining aspect of
> fandom
> to be the enjoyment of SF or the participation in the historical
> fannish
> culture (primarily propigated via fanzines and conventions). There
> are
> millions of people out there watching the various _Star Trek_
> offspring
> every week and whatever big budget special effects fest Hollywood is
> putting out this month, but I don't know if it's meaningful to
> consider
> them a part of fandom.
I see your point, Avram. I would define fandom as comprising those
people who enjoy SF sufficiently to make a serious commitment to it in
their choice of media experience (books, zines, TV, movies, music,
costuming, etc.). By that definition, the people whose exposure is
seeing ST: T/h/e/ S/i/t/c/o/m/ Voyager weekly aren't covered. But, like
it or not (and I don't always), the group DOES include "Trekkies" (to
whom the world of the Federation or the Klingon Empire is near to their
reality) and people who have never read an SF book in their life but who
have seen every episode of Irwin Allen's TV series and continue to watch
them and things like them to this day.
On a more pragmatic level, fandom has always seemed to define itself as
requiring something of both elements you mention: the classic "faan" is
one who not only reads (or, to be generous here, reads/watches/listens
to) a significant chunk of SF relative to hir overall reading/etc., but
who makes the effort to get to conventions, write zines in or out of
apas, maintain curent membership in clubs, and so forth. I have never
had a problem with this definition. My only problem is the limiting of
this definition by noting that the primary ("only"?) means by which fen
experience SF is by reading it.
> James Walton's "Depending on who you talk to" aside, do we have an
> actual
> citation for the claim that there's someone out there who thinks of
> Readercon as a (perhaps even _the_) "realcon"? I've attended three
> Readercons so far, and I have yet to encounter anything even vaguely
> resembling such an attitude among the attendees.
I don't know; that was the first I'd hear the term. And, if you go back
several messages in this thread, you will find in one of my posts that
while I've never made it to Readercon, I don't have any problems with
the individuals who do. It may be that the "realcon" tag was stuck on
by a minority (of as few as one) or was attached to someone outside the
segment of the community that attends Readercon.
> --
> Avram Grumer Home: av...@interport.net
> http://www.crossover.com/agrumer Work: agr...@crossover.com
>
> Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.
> Teach him how to fish, and you drive up the price of
> bait and tackle, and disrupt the local ecosystem.
--
pia p thadani
>Avram Grumer wrote:
>
>> In article <EED9p...@nonexistent.com>, Bruce Adelsohn
>> <bru...@cybernex.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> >-- yet, in today's environment, it strikes me as horrifically
>> arrogant
>> >to assume that books -- whose readership and sales are sadly
>> diminishing
>> >as a percentage of the SF experienced by even core SF fandom -- are
>> the
>> >only "serious" or "real" fandom.
>>
>> Well, that depends upon whether you consider the defining aspect of
>> fandom
>> to be the enjoyment of SF or the participation in the historical
>> fannish
>> culture (primarily propigated via fanzines and conventions). There
>> are
>> millions of people out there watching the various _Star Trek_
>> offspring
>> every week and whatever big budget special effects fest Hollywood is
>> putting out this month, but I don't know if it's meaningful to
>> consider
>> them a part of fandom.
>
while I do see your point that these people don't share the same
background of experience with the "classics" that you do, i still find
this view horribly limiting....i mean after all remember what made movies
like "Star Wars" a classic? big budget (for the time it was made) special
effects.
I'm 20. I never saw Star wars in any form until it was recently
re-released at which time i was dragged off to see all three movies. i've
never red tranger in a strange land, never read heinlin (did i spell it
right?) or spider robinson, i don't write, i can't sing or play music, i'm
not a costumer, a furry person or a klingon. my intro to sci fi, to a
large extent was religiously watching star trek tng every day. i HAVE read
all misty's books, lots of piers anthony, robert asprin, and a bit of anne
mcaffrey and one or two others. but if you talk about classic sci fi, i
won't know what you're talking about.
i go to every con i can afford to, especially if there's good filk, and i
STILL watch Star Trek whenever I can.
am i a fan?
@>--`--,---
Pia
Bruce Adelsohn
pia p thadani wrote:
> while I do see your point that these people don't share the same
> background of experience with the "classics" that you do, i still find
>
> this view horribly limiting....i mean after all remember what made
> movies
> like "Star Wars" a classic? big budget (for the time it was made)
> special
> effects.
Not entirely. STAR WARS was current with STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE,
and it was Trek that got all of the hype, at first. Certainly, its
effects were plenty big and glitzy enough. But what made Star Wars work
was its writing and its acting. Ultimately, just as it takes good
writing to become a classic story in book form, it takes good writing to
become a classic story in movie form.
> I'm 20. I never saw Star wars in any form until it was recently
> re-released at which time i was dragged off to see all three movies.
> i've
> never red tranger in a strange land, never read heinlin (did i spell
> it
> right?) or spider robinson, i don't write, i can't sing or play music,
> i'm
> not a costumer, a furry person or a klingon. my intro to sci fi, to a
>
> large extent was religiously watching star trek tng every day. i HAVE
> read
> all misty's books, lots of piers anthony, robert asprin, and a bit of
> anne
> mcaffrey and one or two others. but if you talk about classic sci fi,
> i
> won't know what you're talking about.
You seem to know what the classics *are* in the genre. With that
knowledge, you could easily find many if not most of them in a decent
library or bookstore. If you want to get beyond ST and its book
equivalents, then I would recommend finding one of the "classics" you
haven't yet read, and read it. Or, if it's a movie (like FORBIDDEN
PLANET, or 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY), rent it. If you want
recommendations, just ask, here, or in rec.arts.sf.*, or at a library.
People will fall all over themselves providing recommendations.
> i go to every con i can afford to, especially if there's good filk,
> and i
> STILL watch Star Trek whenever I can.
>
> am i a fan?
By my lights, yes, you seem to be.
Woodford John
Bruce Adelsohn <bru...@cybernex.net> writes:
>Avram Grumer wrote:
<<long and interesting discussion chopped to save bandwidth>>
Personally, I would automatically disqualify anyone seriously
using the term "sci-fi" from "real" fandom--but that's just me; it
makes my teeth hurt.
Anyway, as a historical (and filk) note, I wanted to mention that
Jeff Duntemann* wrote a bunch of parodies of songs from _West Side Story_,
for a musical about the battle between the Techs and the Treks for
control of Giganticon I. This was in the mid-late 70's, ISTR. In
the "Officer Krupke" parody, a (Duntemann-described) fringefan laments:
"I do like science fiction; it's reading I can't stand;
Hugo Gernsback! Why ain't I a fan?"
No, I don't know where the rest of it is written down. Yes, I think it's
pretty obvious where Duntemann was on the question twenty years ago.
JBWoodford
woodford at cae dot wisc dot edu
*of General Technics fame; wrote _The Outer-Space Marines_,
_Zero-G Polka_, some other filks, and a truly excellent parody of
T. S. Eliot's _The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock_.
Joe Kesselman, yclept Keshlam
In <EED9p...@nonexistent.com>, Bruce Adelsohn <bru...@cybernex.net> writes:
>[philosophical semirant mode ON]
>
>The problem, you see, is that if Readercon and its ilk are "real" cons,
>then even "gencons" and "areas" or "regionals" must be, to some degree
>or other, "unreal". For which I find, in my thesaurus, such synonyms as
>"fake" and "phony".
My own usage also provides "unreal!" with synonyms of "far out!" and
"cool!" and related positive exclamations.
Remember, a thesaurus is NOT a dictionary. It suggests many words
that have meanings similar to _some_ usages of a word. It's up to you
to decide which of them you want to accept as relevant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph J. Kesselman http://pages.prodigy.com/keshlam/
"This note is a production of Novalabs Consulting, which is solely
responsible for its content. Opinions not necessarily those of IBM."
Bruce Adelsohn
Joe Kesselman, yclept Keshlam wrote:
[re my own discussion of synonyms for "unreal"]
> My own usage also provides "unreal!" with synonyms of "far out!" and
> "cool!" and related positive exclamations.
>
> Remember, a thesaurus is NOT a dictionary. It suggests many words
> that have meanings similar to _some_ usages of a word. It's up to you
> to decide which of them you want to accept as relevant.
I would rather accept "far out!" etc. I confess to being just a tad
annoyed with what seemed to be creeping elitism on the part of some fen.
Barry Gold
In article <EED9p...@nonexistent.com>,
Bruce Adelsohn <bru...@cybernex.net> wrote:
>Yes. I actually was aware of the term "sercon", though not of "realcon"
Traditionally, "sercon" means not "serious convention" but "serious
constructive," the attitude that fandom should try to accomplish
serious worthwhile goals. The traditional opposite is "insurgent,"
a carefree delight in weirdness. (Well, those are my own
definitions. I can look up the two words -- or others I'll use later
in this comment -- in the Fancyclopedia if anyone cares.)
>I used to think that fandom was the fringe of society and proud of it;
>in many ways, it was the keeper of much good that mainstream --
>"mundane" -- society had lost or ignored. Then the term "fringe
>fandom" emerged as something of a derogatory description, and I began to
>wonder. Sometimes, I still do...
"Fringe fan" may be derogatory; "fringe fandom" isn't -- at least not as
I've heard the two phrases used.
a) A fringe fan aka a faan fan is someone who likes SF
fandom but NOT science fiction/fantasy. Such a person hangs around
fandom to enjoy fannish doings (or to hunt a husband, snare him,
and take him away from his old friends -- in a number of instances).
b) A fringe fandom is a hobby peopled almost entirely by fen
but not shared by all fen -- such as the SCA, costuming, filking, etc.
Because virtually all of the people in this hobby are trufen, it's a
fringe fandom but the hobbyists are not fringefen.
I haven't heard "fringe fandom" _or_ "fringe fan" used recently,
Come to think of it, it's been a long time since I've heard "stef,"
"trufen," or many other Fanspeak words. And increasingly I hear people
criticizing the use of "mundane" as unfairly derogatory, an attempt
to make what remains of Fanspeak politically correct. Anyway,
"fringe fandom" didn't emerge recently; it was an old term, already
falling out of use, back in the mid-60s when I joined fandom.
In order to keep the waters properly muddy, and return the topic
toward filking, I'd better mention Ted Johnstone's division of
trufen into three basic groups -- clubfen, zinefen, and confen --
as seen in his "Travelling Trufen" filk (which IIRC I pubbed in one
of the FILKER UPs), in which the travellers transcend all three groups.
--Lee Gold
bg...@platinum.com
Daniel R. Reitman
On Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:34:17 GMT, Bruce Adelsohn <bru...@cybernex.net>
wrote:
>pia p thadani wrote:
>>. . . .
>> this view horribly limiting....i mean after all remember what made
>> movies like "Star Wars" a classic? big budget (for the time it was made)
>> special effects.
>Not entirely. STAR WARS was current with STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE,
>and it was Trek that got all of the hype, at first. Certainly, its
>effects were plenty big and glitzy enough. But what made Star Wars work
>was its writing and its acting. . . .
Alec Guiness, yes.
Harrison Ford, yes.
James Earl Jones, yes.
Carrie Fisher, maybe.
Mark Hamill? Dawn may come meal half.
Dan, ad nauseam
Erica Neely
Lee Gold wrote:
<snip of lots of interesting comments>
> I haven't heard "fringe fandom" _or_ "fringe fan" used recently,
> Come to think of it, it's been a long time since I've heard "stef,"
> "trufen," or many other Fanspeak words. And increasingly I hear people
> criticizing the use of "mundane" as unfairly derogatory, an attempt
> to make what remains of Fanspeak politically correct. Anyway,
> "fringe fandom" didn't emerge recently; it was an old term, already
> falling out of use, back in the mid-60s when I joined fandom.
Okay, I'll ask the dumb question: what does "stef" mean?
Take care,
Erica
Kay Shapero
On <Aug 05 10:29>, Bruce Adelsohn <bru...@cybernex.net> wrote;
b>Joe Kesselman, yclept Keshlam wrote:
> Remember, a thesaurus is NOT a dictionary. It suggests many words
> that have meanings similar to _some_ usages of a word. It's up to
you
> to decide which of them you want to accept as relevant.
b>I would rather accept "far out!" etc. I confess to being just a
b>tad annoyed with what seemed to be creeping elitism on the part of
b>some fen.
"Creeping"? For what it's worth, elitism is hardly new to fandom;
you can
find it right back in the earliest records of the phenomenon, cf
Moskowitz' _The Immortal Storm_ and Harry Warner Jr's (far more
readable)
_All Our Yesterdays_. And I know of others from tales told by other
fans,
and in some cases direct experience. Like the initial reaction to
Star
Trek fandom - "Trekkies" were definitely Beyond the Pale with some
fen.
--
|Fidonet: Kay Shapero 1:102/524 Gateway: Black Dragon Inn
Kay Shapero
On <Aug 06 22:53>, Erica Neely <eln...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
EN>Okay, I'll ask the dumb question: what does "stef" mean?
It's the pronounciation of STF, the abbreviated form of "scientifiction",
an early term for science fiction.
Mark A Mandel
Erica Neely (eln...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Lee Gold wrote:
: Okay, I'll ask the dumb question: what does "stef" mean?
Also, I think, spelled "stf", it's = "sf". Comes from the old name
"scientifiction", and allows formation of the adjective "stfnal".
(To email me, remove the obvious spam-block from the address.)
Brenda Daverin
In article <8708298...@dejanews.com>, je...@coriolis.com wrote:
> I'm not sure the "Gee Chairman Keller" filk is written down anywhere but
> in my head and on my sister's hard disk somewhere. She's trying hard to
> make it a little more PC. Back when I was a kid, a "queer" was just some
> off-brand person of no particular persuasion. Things are different
> today...but cripes, guys, I needed a word that rhymed with "beers!"
And these days, many people feel it is a perfectly useable short-form word
for "gays, lesbians, bisexuals, BDSM practitioners, other people whose
sexual behavior is between or among consenting adults but don't get an
even break from the system because it isn't standard-issue heterosexual
monogamous conduct, and people whose gender identity doesn't conform to
the 'pink is for girls, blue is for boys, and anatomy is destiny' school
of thought." Of course, if you want it to mean "garden-variety weirdo,"
you do have to find a substitute. There are some people who qualify as
"queer" in the modern context who refuse to accept that a word can stop
being an insult while still meaning exactly what it says, and everyone
else will wonder what the heck you mean. Language drift is fun, isn't it?
BTW and FYI, "queer" did mean "nasty homosexual" in 1976, according to
some slang lexicons (though obviously not all, based on your usage). I was
being called "queer bait," meaning "someone highly likely to attract the
attention of a lesbian," in 1975 when I was but a wee lass and the boys
using the term were in training to become Beavis and Butthead. In
retrospect, I think they were psychic. ;>
> Here's the part I like the best. (It's more fun if you know "Officer
> Krupke" well:
>
> "Myyyyyyyyy mommy read The Hobbit, about a thousand times;
> My dad rewrote the phone book, and made the whole thing rhyme.
> My sister wears lasagna; my brother eats his beard--
> H. P. Lovecraft, *That's* why I'm so weird!"
That *is* brilliant. If you get stuck trying to rewrite it, look me up,
please. I'd love to help.
-Brenda
--
Remove spamblocking data from address before sending private response
Maya T. Amis
Please, pretty please, Jeff, any more of "Gee, Chairman Keller" that
you can dredge up! It's wonderful! My friends are clamoring for more
than a verse and a half.
Brenda, your explanation/definition of queer is great. Thanks.
Best,
Maya
--
Maya
reply to m...@pipeline.com
Mark Bernstein
>and it was Trek that got all of the hype, at first.
>
released in 1979, two years after SW.
Mark Bernstein
m...@arbortext.com
Kay Shapero
On <Aug 12 13:59>, m...@arbortext.com (Mark Bernstein) wrote;
>Not entirely. STAR WARS was current with STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE,
>and it was Trek that got all of the hype, at first.
>
MB>This looked wrong to me, so I did a quick web search. ST:TMP was
MB>released in 1979, two years after SW.
I saw both movies when they were first released, and your information is
correct. And not only did Star Wars come out two years before ST:TMP, it
got a LOT of publicity and attracted plenty of attention, attendance and
cash. It marked the introduction of modern large-scale spectactular
special effects and held the category to itself for quite awhile.
Filksinger
In article <aa2_970...@salata.com>, kay.s...@salata.com says...
>
> I saw both movies when they were first released, and your information is
> correct. And not only did Star Wars come out two years before ST:TMP, it
> got a LOT of publicity and attracted plenty of attention, attendance and
> cash. It marked the introduction of modern large-scale spectactular
> special effects and held the category to itself for quite awhile.
>
I too, saw them both when they first came out. However, your comment
about Star Wars publicity is not strictly correct.
Most movies get played up biggest when they first come out. This is to
build up the initial crowds, as a movie that isn't a success in the first
week usually never makes it.
Star Wars, however, was not advertised well at all initially. When my
parents came home from vacation and said they saw this great movie, and
that when it reached town they would take us to see it, I hadn't even
heard of Star Wars. Star Wars became big in the advertising and publicity
only _after_ it was big with audiences.
Filksinger
Filksinger
In article <5s81jh$u...@janus.la.platsol.com>, bg...@platinum.com says...
>
> I haven't heard "fringe fandom" _or_ "fringe fan" used recently,
> Come to think of it, it's been a long time since I've heard "stef,"
> "trufen," or many other Fanspeak words.
I can relate to that. I live in the Seattle area, and while I speak
Fanglish pretty well, I didn't learn it from the fen around here. No one
in Seattle seems to _ever_ speak it.
Filksinger
Mary Kay Kare
In article <MPG.e5cfee3f...@news.sttl.uswest.net>,
filks...@geocities.com (Filksinger) wrote:
> I can relate to that. I live in the Seattle area, and while I speak
> Fanglish pretty well, I didn't learn it from the fen around here. No one
> in Seattle seems to _ever_ speak it.
>
From my observations, Seattle, and generally Northwest fandom, is rather
isolated from the mainstream. Most of the folks there don't get to cons
in other areas, and the former transmitters of fannish life, fanzines,
seem not to be too healthy these days.
MK
Mary Kay Kare
Compuserve's Team SF/F
Filksinger
That is generally my take on it, too. It isn't surprising. The
population concentrations in the Northwest are a long way from anyone
else. I was one of the only people I know who made it to the Worldcon
in Los Angeles, over 1000 miles one way.
Filksinger
"Keeping in mind that the notes we sing are never, ever wrong!"
Rich Brown
In article <MPG.e5cf8831...@news.sttl.uswest.net>,
filks...@geocities.com says...
>Star Wars, however, was not advertised well at all initially. When my
>parents came home from vacation and said they saw this great movie, and
>that when it reached town they would take us to see it, I hadn't even
>heard of Star Wars. Star Wars became big in the advertising and publicity
>only _after_ it was big with audiences.
>
That's how I remember it. One day my roommate came home repeating "Help me,
Obi-Wan Kenobi, Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi,..." until I relented and we went to
see Star Wars, first time for me, second (that day) for my roomie. I hadn't
heard of the thing before I went to see it.
Mary Kay Kare
In article <33f50243...@news.sttl.uswest.net>, filks...@usa.net
(Filksinger) wrote:
> That is generally my take on it, too. It isn't surprising. The
> population concentrations in the Northwest are a long way from anyone
> else. I was one of the only people I know who made it to the Worldcon
> in Los Angeles, over 1000 miles one way.
Well, lots of other places are further from LA than Seattle. Boston for
example, but there were lots of people from that area. It depends on the
outlook of the people involved. The entire West Coast seems to think
nothing exists east of the Rockies. Or if it does, it's too far to get
to. Note than I live in California and include CA in this matter. Of
course I've also lived in several other regions of the country and know
how much the attitudes differ. I really don't understand it.
Mary Kay Kare
In article <5t76tt$i5p$2...@shadow.skypoint.net>, r...@skypoint.com (Rich
Brown) wrote:
Sigh. Am I the *only* person here who remembers the 1976 worldcon. And
the neat presentation a couple of guys named Lucas and Hamill gave about
this really cool movie...
Filksinger
On 17 Aug 1997 16:22:44 GMT, ka...@sirius.com (Mary Kay Kare) wrote:
>Sigh. Am I the *only* person here who remembers the 1976 worldcon. And
>the neat presentation a couple of guys named Lucas and Hamill gave about
>this really cool movie...
>
Possibly. I didn't make it to the 1976 Worldcon. I'd have loved to go,
but my mommy and daddy wouldn't take me.:)
Kay Shapero
On <Aug 14 12:12>, filks...@geocities.com (Filksinger) wrote;
References: <MPG.e5cf8831...@news.sttl.uswest.net>
..<33f0ce76....@news.arbortext.com>
..<aa2_970...@salata.com>
F>Star Wars, however, was not advertised well at all initially.
F>When my parents came home from vacation and said they saw this great
F>movie, and that when it reached town they would take us to see it, I
F>hadn't even heard of Star Wars. Star Wars became big in the advertising
F>and publicity only _after_ it was big with audiences.
Depends on where you were - while you're quite right that mundane publicity
was greatest after the movie actually came out, it WAS heavily publicised
at SF conventions for years before it appeared. Lucas went where his
largest core of fans could be expected to be. I remember the first trailer
I ever saw for it, shortly before the release; with no warning a spray of
tie fighters arced across the screen, Nicolai and I looked at each other
and simultaneously said "Star Wars!", much to the confusion of those around
us. We'd been waiting for this for years.
Jim Partridge
r...@skypoint.com (Rich Brown) wrote:
>In article <MPG.e5cf8831...@news.sttl.uswest.net>,
>filks...@geocities.com says...
>>Star Wars, however, was not advertised well at all initially. When my
>>parents came home from vacation and said they saw this great movie, and
>>that when it reached town they would take us to see it, I hadn't even
>>heard of Star Wars. Star Wars became big in the advertising and publicity
>>only _after_ it was big with audiences.
>>
>That's how I remember it. One day my roommate came home repeating "Help me,
>Obi-Wan Kenobi, Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi,..." until I relented and we went to
>see Star Wars, first time for me, second (that day) for my roomie. I hadn't
>heard of the thing before I went to see it.
Same here. A friend and I had just ditched a Friday night church
dance because it was boring, and we decided to swing by the Cine Capri
in Phoenix to see what was playing. There was a line around the
theater, and the sign sounded science fictional . . . so we ordered
pizza to be delivered to the line a got into it. Only later did I see
the full-page ads, and cannot now tell if they were taken out *before*
or *after* opening night.
Jim.
Joe Kesselman, yclept Keshlam
Bringing it almost back on topic -- I presume I've already mentioned
that Obiwan Kenobi's younger brother dropped out of Jedi training
and became a jazz musician.
You've probably heard of him: Ubibop Shadubi...
MSMinLR
no, I was there also. I don't recall going to any of the scheduled
presentations, but I do recall the big display they had in one of the hallways.
Margaret