From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #57 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, February 13 1998 Volume 07 : Number 057 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Leonard Cohen [no Titanic] [BC-Radio@corecom.net (Brett Cooper)] Re: Writing Titanic Driver [Capuchin ] Sgt. Titanic [TROYD1@Westat.com (TROYD1)] Soundtracks/Love/RH2% [Jim Moore ] now did someone mention TITANIC? [lj lindhurst ] Bob: 40% Beatles: 30% Others: 10% Conspiracy: 20% Titanic and X-Files: 0% [Gary Sedgwick ] Danielle & Katherine: Welcome from the Surreal Posse [The Great Quail Has Leonard Cohen been elected to the Rock'N'Roll Hall of Fame? only curious, >don't actually consider it a measure of worth, of course...... No. ************************************************************** Cooper Collections P.O. Box 876462 Wasilla, Alaska 99687 (907) 376-4520 BC-Radio@corecom.net http://www.corecom.net/~no6pp/BC_Radio_Online.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 04:29:46 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Writing Titanic Driver More of the same: On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, The Great Quail wrote: > Capuchin writes, > >Acting, like writing, shouldn't be > >noticed the first time through. > > While I can sympathize somewhat with your comments on acting, your > comment about writing is completely a subjective opinion based solely on > taste, cleverly couched as a truism. [snip] > For instance: Joyce, Beckett, Woolf, Eliot, Stoppard, > Burroughs, Barth, Barthelme, and Pynchon are very notable examples, and > to a lesser extent, Burgess, Mailer, DeLillo, Ginsberg, Garcia Marquez, > and Nabokov. . . . Your comment would dismiss most of the works created > by these writers. Screenwriting. I'm talking about screenwriting. Same for playwriting. There's something we call "Suspension of disbelief". If someone says something that makes you think "Boyo, Cameron sure was on the ball when he wrote that!", you're losing out on the idea that the person saying the words thought them up and spoke them spontaneously. And this is even worse, it was more like "Yipes, Cameron must think we're 5th graders!" Screenwriting is best seen in hindsight. If you notice while you're watching, you've been distracted. And I don't EVEN want to hear that Cameron was trying to make a point about the medium and its inherent subjectivity. He doesn't make movies like that. He tells stories to entertain. And I still say that this time he failed. (However, a date and I went way out of our way to see Terminator 2: Judgment Day just two weeks before Titanic when it played at a little theater across town. I don't completely hate Cameron. But... err... I guess I should note the following exchange during the flick: Maddie: Um... why doesn't he just... ? Me: Maddie? You're scratching way too hard. Maddie: What do you mean? Me: I mean it'll all rub off if you keep askign questions like that. It's not that deep. There's a value difference between Titanic and T2.) > I am not saying that you are wrong, mind you -- just > that your statement is not as "matter of fact" as you would have it. > Indeed, many people *do* favor writing that conforms to your standards, > and I am willing to bet that you would rather read "The Old Man and the > Sea" than "Ulysses" or "Gravity's Rainbow." Just different -- but equally > valid -- styles. Oh dear! Who's holding the money on this one? Daddy needs a new car. > Now I want to make this CLEAR: I don't know Eb well enough to know his > love-life, so I am NOT implying that Eb is a cynical grouch who has never > found true love. That would be arrogant and foolish of me, and I wouldn't > even try to jokingly imply it. Love is so . . . so big, and weird, and > so *different* for all of us, that for all I know Eb is totally in love > with someone, and he would not have jumped back on because he knows that > she would want him to go on and live, and maybe that's the bigger > sacrifice. . . . but still, interesting questions, no? I promised myself I wouldn't touch this one, but I must. That's sick and wrong. Going back to face death instead of leaving behind someone you love? If you love them, they love you (otherwise you're wasting your time and really just kind of sad, no?). If they love you, they'll want you to survive. Love or no love, without your life, you have nothing. That's simply that. As for this particular ridiculously contrived situation, she went back for him when he was (ahem, ok, some people don't want plot points, I'll be vague) in no position to save himself. She was the ONLY person who might work in his favor. So that's kind of good that she went back so he'd have a chance. I don't see that she was particularly giving up on her chance at life in that scene. But later? Everyone's in a position to comfortably help themselves and she's on a boat and JUMPS BACK. That's just stupidity. I mean, it's pretty easy to argue (big plot point giveaway) that HE could have climbed up on that chest or piece of wood or whatever and saved himself if she'd just gotten on the damned boat. Then maybe they'd both be old people retelling the story. That's how I see it. > >Ridiculous and manipulative, as was that > >whole save-Dawson-from-the-handcuffs sequence (where she split the cuffs > >with an axe...WITH HER EYES CLOSED?). > Oh, come on! That was just plain fun! Yeah, that's nitpicking. There are much larger issues with the story and plotline that make the movie unbearable. > Gee, Capuchin, that's pretty dire! I mean, first of all, Cameron had to > fight to get this movie made. Cameron had a vision, and it was his will > alone that kept this whole thing going. To typify him as a studio > flunkey, or even to typify "Titanic" as a typical Big Studio Movie, well > I think that is a misrepresentation. Not exactly his will alone. His will, and the wallets and salivary glands of two huge movie studios. Yeah, I'm sure Cameron has to fight pretty hard to get movies with big budgets made... after his last what? four films? have made the studio for which he's working around $100M apiece? I'm sure they were really reluctant to give him any kind of reign. I think there is no more typical Big Studio Movie than Titanic. > And I think it is also a misleading > exaggeration to say that seeing one movie somehow eliminates seeing > others . . . I would hardly call "Kundun" a commercial movie, and yet I > fit it in, loved it, and thought it one of the top ten of the year. I have limited time and resources (the latter extremely limited of late) and I can't see every movie that I want to see and certainly not ever movie that comes out. I've been to three movies in the past two months, two were limited runs in small theaters that had to be seen when they were here or never again on a big screen, and the third was Titanic. The night I saw Titanic, I could have gone to see any movie I wished. I was alone, fairly comfortable financially (for the evening... yeah, I've been living like that lately), and without any pressing obligations of limited runs or time restrictions. I chose Titanic. I could have made probably twenty better choices in this town that night. I blame myself. > (And > -- unsurprisingly, just like "Jackie Brown" -- almost completely ignored > by the hidebound, unimaginative, idiot, > plays-sickeningly-PC-but-are-really-racist, crabby, stuffy, nauseatingly > safe-playing Academy). Yeah, I feel the same about AMPAS. Just look at all the credit they gave Titanic! But seriously, The Academy is made up of previous winners and folks who work in the industry. They often vote for their pocketbooks. Big money movies and recent releases get more nominations because if they win, it means bigger receipts. Studios campaign heavily for particular nominations. And don't be fooled by some of the more obscure nominations, there's somebody with distribution rights gambling on a nomination and sending flyers and free videos to academy members for months. Go to the AMPAS web site and check out the list of eligible films for any given year. It's huge. There's no way anything like a significant percentage were viewed by anyone in the Academy. I personally dig what Craig Kilborn said (but probably didn't write): "It's spring: And that's when all those people in Hollywood bestow award after award upon each other because they didn't get enough love from their parents." or something like that. > And while I am on the subject, you know there are > a lot of independent films out there which really are crap, too. . . . > this whole "Big Studio vs. Independent Film" thing has really been > getting on my nerves lately. I mean, who can really think Miramax is an > Indie company any longer? Well, not really, no. But Miramax doesn't really produce too much anyway. Mostly they just pick up distribution on films produced by and for others. But I think you missed my point anyway. I wasn't saying Independent Films are better than Big Studio films by any kind of intrinsic property. I said (or maybe meant to say, I don't have my words in front of me) that we tell Big Studios what kind of films they should make by going to see other films. If they make crappy formula pictures like Titanic and Batman & Robin and we pay big money to SEE those movies, they make more of them. If we spend our money on completely different kinds of movies, they'll make and distribute very different kinds of movies. I'd LOVE to see well written, intelligent, entertaining cinema come from major studios. And we occasionally get it. Terry Gilliam gets to make fairly big budget flicks. The Coens are working and well known. Gus Van Sandt is even getting some long deserved attention by the Players. I'm super happy with that. I just want MORE and I want less crap. See, good records are cheap to produce and distribute (relatively). I can just turn off my radio and put on a good CD. Books are cheap to write and produce and distribute (even cheaper if you skip any kind of physical production and just deliver the data to people). So I can walk past Scribner's and Borders and Barnes & Noble and pick up something at Powell's or out of Project Gutenberg and read it whenever I like. But movies cost big money. Distributing movies to good theaters costs huge money and takes big influence. The folks that hold the purse strings and the theater doors think that we all want to see crap. That's because we go see crap. I'm as guilty as anyone. I think that was my point. > Cameron really *worked* for his moment in the sun, and he made a movie > that -- for me, and many others -- was truly breathtaking. This was an > experience, in every way. Was it perfect? Of course not. (Only "Wings of > Desire" and "Fellini's 8 1/2" were perfect movies :-) But I suppose what > has been really irking me are the people who see "Titanic" and then > nitpick or whine about stupid little details. (Which I do not think Eb > was doing, by the way.) Well, I wasn't either. That's the easy thing to do. I think my biggest gripe with Titanic is that it didn't really produce anything. I didn't learn anything about that big boat nor about the times in which the events occured (Cameron made sure of that... he stuck to the grade school text book facts about the era and the people... and when the facts weren't good enough, he made shit up). There was nothing insightful that might give me a better understanding of (or even food for thought about) people, myself, love, the nature of film, oceanography, storytelling, shipcraft, icebergs, turn of the century politics, deep sea diving, or hypothermia. And the distracting writing and deplorable acting (which I've come to agree with whoever posted in believing was caused by the actor's inablity to comprehend the motivations and direction given in the script so ineptly written -- see? Someone changed my opinion with their post) kept me from enjoying it as a simple, mindless entertainment. I know what you're saying, "T2?" Again, I think there's a value difference. Like if your cat has kittens in the oven, you don't call them biscuits. It's a whole other thing. > Honestly speaking, I think there are some people > in our modern society that are just so freaking jaded. . . . I mean, how > can you sit through that movie and not think, "Holy shit!" To quote Eb, > "Titanic" made me go "Whhheeeeeeeeeee!" There are certain movies which > can still fill me with wonder, awe, terror, and astonishment. Thank > goodness. Wanna sit through a movie and go "Whhheeeee!" as the water comes crashing it behind everyone? Wanna see wholly developed (and even somewhat contrived) characters you care about get rescued and killed in a losing struggle for survival? Wanna see this all done well? See The Poseidon Adventure. All the best disaster films were made in the 70s anyway. The genre's tapped. > --The Unsinkable Molly Quail Don't get me started. J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:38:36 -0500 From: TROYD1@Westat.com (TROYD1) Subject: Sgt. Titanic You know, as much as I love the Beatles, and I don't think I could like any band/artist more, I've never really taken to some of their more accalaimed albums. Sgt. Pepper has some very ordinary songs on it (Within you Without You, the boring Fixing a Hole, the mawkish She's Leaving Home) mixed with a few good songs (LSD, Good Morning, etc.) and one brilliant one (A Day in a Life). The so-called concept covers, what, three songs? I also find Abbey Road a little dull and think Let it Be is downright disposable. I absolutely worship Revolver, Rubber Soul, and most of the White Album. I'd much rather listen to their early rock'n'roll stuff than Sgt. Pepper. As for Titanic, for $200 million you'd think they could have found another $5k for a decent script. The story was awful, the characters were cardboardish. How many times did we need to be shown that Kate Winslet's fiance was a heel? How stupid do they think we are? Well, I guess they have $300-400 million of our money proving how stupid we are. Regarding Hollywood's depiction of women, not only is it offensive that 98% of actresses on screen must comform to a rail-thin standard of beauty, but they pass off ugly, aging boomers like Nicholson and Harvey Keitel as being sexy, while their female peers can't even get jobs once they hit 40. Aside form Harold & Maude, how often do we see a romance between a young man and an older woman? It happens the other way around fairly often. Dan, who promises not to write in again until he has something positive to say. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:10:00 -0600 From: Jim Moore Subject: Soundtracks/Love/RH2% Feg #1 quoth: > I don't often use record sales as a defense, but the soundtrack's > performance on the pop charts is absolutely REMARKABLE. That's gotta speak > well for Horner's work. And it's not just because the movie's a hit -- I > mean, what chart position did the Jurassic Park soundtrack attain? I > believe I heard that the Titanic score is the first album on a classical > label EVER to reach #1. Garsh! You go, James! I'd be curious to see how high the "Rach 3" David Helfgott CD went in the charts a year and a half ago--during the height of the David Helfgott "craze". I know his CD was selling like mad. Feg #2 quoth: > Love is so . . . so big, and weird As I read this in its context I just *had* to remove it and post it here all by its lonesome self. I think it's brilliant. I hope Robyn is reading along and will pen a groovy tune using this line... :) Guambat ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 10:18:21 -0500 (EST) From: lj lindhurst Subject: now did someone mention TITANIC? Had to share this little tidbit... Well, I recently had the displeasure of sitting through TITANIC (in FRANCE, no less, because nothing else was showing "en anglaise"), and I HAAATEED IT! It might as well have had Lou Reed in the starring role. I mean, really, I hated this movie. So a week or so later, I was sitting in a restaurant with my sister and a friend, and we were discussing Titanic. They both, of course, LOVED it, and were actually making plans to see it again. I was voicing my crotchety opinion of what a total fucking CLICHE the entire storyline was, and how utterly implausible, and why was that dude wearing eyeliner?, and how come the cast of MAD ABOUT YOU couldn't have gone down on that ship?, etc., etc. - --when a girl approached us from another table. She looked to be about 18 Hanson years old, and her face was all flush with anger. "Excuse me, but are you talking about TITANIC?!" she asked me, with a hint of threat in her tone. Completely shocked, I hesitantly said yes, and she started *berating me* about it loudly. "I can't believe the things you're saying about that movie! It was wonderful! That's my favorite movie of all-time! I don't know where you GET OFF saying those things, but I just couldn't sit by and listen to you bad-mouth such a great piece of art!" (this is fairly close to verbatim) Meanwhile, everyone in the restaurant is now looking at us, and my two companions have the most smug and satisfied grins I have ever seen. I'm at a total loss for words! Then I remembered that SHE was the one who approached OUR TABLE, and really SHE's the one who looks like a jackass at this point, so I took the road that was less traveled: I didn't say ANYTHING. I just gave her the blankest of stares, like I didn't understand English or something. She stood there, arms crossed, fuming, tapping her foot for a few pregnant moments, then blurted out, "I just want to know your reasons!" Once again, as the great musical genius Phil Collins would say: No reply at all. We actually *all* had big grins on our faces at this point, and more people than ever were staring at this girl. Her face turned bright, bright red, she balled her hands up into fists, and she turned and marched back to her table. Gosh, this movie sure has gotten everyone all worked up, hasn't it? l "Kate-Winslet-freshman-fifteen" j n.p., my new obsession, the Auteurs. anyone? anyone? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 15:31:38 -0000 From: Gary Sedgwick Subject: Bob: 40% Beatles: 30% Others: 10% Conspiracy: 20% Titanic and X-Files: 0% On Thu 12 Feb, Susan wrote: > > Really, guys. Has your love blinded you to what is *truly* the world's > > worst voice? Yes, it's the wheezing asthmatic donkey's bray that belongs > > to Our Pal from Minnesota, Mr. Robert Zimmerman > > I tried to let this pass. But I already said nothing to the Elvis Costello > slam others have previously noted, and plus I've had a nasty flu for the > past four days or so, so I'm tired of holding back my crankiness :). I > think that Terry hit it on the head when he said that you can be a great > singer without having a great voice, basically. And Dylan is a great > singer. An easy target for mockery, to be sure, but a great singer > nonetheless. So much so that I really have a hard time listening to other > people do his songs, because they just don't sound right. > I agree - and I *love* Bob Dylan's work, probably only 2nd to Lennon - but he does have off days (years). I've seen him live a couple of times - - once when his voice was virtually non-existant, and at Phoenix (95 I think) when he was spectacular. But the type of singing people usually have a go at - the 'hoover' sound of Blonde on Blonde - I really like. Those songs are very free, rhythmically, lyrically, and melodically, so the loose style of singing fits them perfectly. I can't, off the top of my head, really think of any *bad* singing on official albums (although I don't have much very late stuff) - it's usually when he's live and not in the mood to put effort into the singing. One point I'd really like to make - Bob has occasionally sung *technically* very well. All those that think he sings out of tune all of the time should listen to all of Desire. And I challenge all those who think his range is limited to have a go at (properly) singing It's All Over Now, Baby Blue. > > objectively, because I LOVED it when I was a kid, but as I got older, I > > thought... damn, this album isn't that good, is it? But every time I say > > so, I get blasted with rage and contempt. So it's nice to know someone > > agrees with me. > > I can sort of relate here, because this is the reaction I get every time I > say I don't like Stereolab :). But I can't agree. It's a great album, > though by no means deserving of the fulsome praise that's been heaped upon > it ("a great moment in Western Civilization"????). "Revolver" and "Abbey > Road" are much stronger records. > Does *anyone* else have Sgt. Pepper down for their favourite album of all time? I don't think you can deny it it's place in history - that *is* simply the way people reacted to it and the praise that's been heaped upon it. But I really rate albums on being *albums*, and to my ears, Sgt. Pepper works as an album much better than Revolver or Abbey Road. Revolver has some great songs, and a good sound... but as an album, it just comes across as a collection of those songs. Abbey Road side one suffers the same thing, and side two doesn't have the great songs in the segue. Sgt. Pepper has just about everything... consistently good songs, a great sound and atmosphere, the effects, the packaging... it's just really the feel of the album. It's one of the only albums I can put on and get completely lost in for forty minutes. And yes, I even like Within You Without You. Some other albums that I think are some of the best ever made because of the same reason: Kinks - Lola vs Powerman And The Money-Go-Round (close 2nd: Something Else). Pink Floyd - Piper At The Gates Of Dawn, Wish You Were Here. David Bowie - Ziggy Stardust. Bob Dylan - Blonde On Blonde, Blood On The Tracks. And, although I wouldn't put it up there with these, Blur - Parklife. And, dare I say it, my fave Robyn album... Eye. Close runners up: Moss Elixir, Underwater Moonlight. Next runners up: Element Of Light, Queen Elvis, Fegmania. And... On Thu 12 Feb, Nick Winkworth wrote: > And who is this Feg known to us as "Gary" - a relative of Sir George > Gareth Graham Sedgewick perchance? A plant? Stool Pidgeon? (And also > note: "Gareth" ..a well known Welsh name.) Quail, boyo - I think they're on to us... Gary (derived from Welsh, Gareth: means 'gentle') Sedgwick (only one 'e', and nothing to do with plants or Stool Pidgeons) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:25:50 -0500 From: kenster@MIT.EDU (Ken Ostrander) Subject: can sing vs. can't sing >> Re. Robyn's voice, it's not a terrific one - he's a bit nasal and can't >> always hold a pitch - but it mostly does what he wants it to do. > >My argument for years has been that he doesn't sing, he talks in tune >(somewhat). Robyn does this sometimes and sometimes he honestly sings. i think that the best singing i've heard robyn do is in his remake of 'bells of rhymney'. i get all tingly everytime he hits that high note. KEN ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 98 16:42:28 EST From: Ross Overbury Subject: Re: Bob: 40% Beatles: 30% Others: 10% Conspiracy: 20% Titanic and > Does *anyone* else have Sgt. Pepper down for their favourite album of > all time? I don't think you can deny it it's place in history - that > *is* simply the way people reacted to it and the praise that's been > heaped upon it. But I really rate albums on being *albums*, and to my > ears, Sgt. Pepper works as an album much better than Revolver or Abbey > Road. Revolver has some great songs, and a good sound... but as an > album, it just comes across as a collection of those songs. Abbey Road > side one suffers the same thing, and side two doesn't have the great > songs in the segue. Sgt. Pepper has just about everything... > consistently good songs, a great sound and atmosphere, the effects, the > packaging... it's just really the feel of the album. It's one of the > only albums I can put on and get completely lost in for forty minutes. > And yes, I even like Within You Without You. This raises a side issue: How many of us feel we can have a favourite album? I'd put Sgt. Pepper in my desert island collection, but selecting a single favourite recording? That's like selecting a single favourite *beer*! The fact remains that Sgt. Pepper changed all the rules. Brian Wilson said when he first heard SP, he had been ready to take the world by storm with "Pet Sounds", and immediately decided his work was about to go unnoticed. It seems it's no longer fashionable to say you ever liked SP. Since the advent of punk, you're only forgiven a liking for the Beatles if you qualify it by saying "but they were *much* better before SP". We've all had plenty of time to make up our minds about SP, so I'm not expecting to make any converts here. Saying everybody should like it is like saying everbody should like Guinness. Sgt. Pepper is rich and full. It's sparkling without being irritatingly effervescent, and its aftertaste lingers pleasantly. Many find SP shockingly different when they first sample it, but if you keep trying it you'll likely begin appreciate SP for the bittersweet masterpiece that it is. - -- Ross Overbury (Guinness lover) Montreal, Quebec, Canada email: rosso@cn.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 22:26:13 GMT From: dwdudic@erols.com (luther) Subject: good TV On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 03:25:13 -0500 (EST), you wrote: > >Eb, who thinks the original summer-replacement run of Twin Peaks was the >greatest television he ever saw You just may be right...Well, Northen Exposure was pretty damn good too, actually... Chris Stevens rules! -luther ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 01:25:37 +0510 From: dlang Subject: Re: Mulder, are you there? This is Diane. Re: Mulder, are you there? This is Diane. Re: Mulder, are you there? This is Diane. . Quail meeped: But anyway, do you think if I throw a pie at Tipper Gore, Jodie will be impressed with me? Quail, if you throw a pie at Tipper Gore, EVERYONE will be impressed with you. While you are at it ,.throw one at Newt G as well just to even things up! Dave L (the mean olde fasrt frum dowen ooondre) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 22:26:58 GMT From: dwdudic@erols.com (luther) Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V7 #56 On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 03:25:13 -0500 (EST), you wrote: >Simpsons gets paler and paler. It hasn't been the same since Conan O' >Brien left. Watch an old rerun and compare it with a new one and you'll >see. Hell, watch King Of The Hill right after a new Simpsons episode and >you'll see that The Simpsons no longer leads the way humor-wise. Well, it still has it's moments...all the same, I am glad this is the last season. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 22:17:12 GMT From: dwdudic@erols.com (luther) Subject: attractive? On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 03:25:13 -0500 (EST), you wrote: > >>I didn't mean that as a catty remark. And Julia Roberts is horrifying in >>both acting ability and appearance (boyo, I'm ASKING for trouble). > >AGREED! ` i second that emotion...I don't think she's that good looking, her acting is bad...she's a female bill shatner! (ok, no one is that bad.) > >>- ------Michael K., who would love to see the Kate Winslet look surpass >>the >Kate Moss look. > >as Dawn French once said (and I'm paraphrasing cause I can't find the damn >quote!): "If I'd been around in Goya's time, I'd have been a supermodel, >and they'd have been queuing up to paint me. Kate Moss? She'd have been the >paintbrush." Agreed! Anybody see that show "desmond morris' the human animal?" He showed on there how the ad makers use computers to 'enhance' photos for ads...the images out there of the 'idea woman' are people THAT REALLY DON'T EXIST (and not just "anymore" (hey, robyn content! :0))!!! ...And besides, Am I the only one that thinks slightly chubby (and intelligent) is actually a GOOD thing? I think it's more attractive than empty headed women (the kind Robyn was always attacking lyrically in the Soft Boys) who have spent a lot of time, uh, kneeling before the porcelin god. (don't flame me for that comment, please.) -luther ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 22:24:50 GMT From: dwdudic@erols.com (luther) Subject: human animals On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 03:25:13 -0500 (EST), you wrote: >Now you see, that's kind of interesting. That very scene triggered a full >round of discussions at a party I was at recently. The question was, >"Would you have jumped back onto the boat?" > >Yes, a very intriguing question . . . it really amounts to a view of >love, doesn't it? All I can say is this: I would have jumped. Back on the >Titanic. To be with the one I loved. No matter what. . . . So that's why >that scene really got to me, and I don't think it was manipulative at >all. I think those who are in love, or have been in love, would give >serious consideration to jumping back out. . . . at the party, I noticed >that all those who said Rose was stupid for doing it, most of them were >pretty cynical people. (Eb -- You are not cynical, are you?) I find that >the scene -- the implied question -- really stimulates some good >conversation. . . . and I also discovered that I am indeed a romantic >fool at heart. > "Fools in love...." :-) While we are on this subject of 'love', I ask again, any other fans of Desmond Morris's social theories out there? >Now I want to make this CLEAR: I don't know Eb well enough to know his >love-life, so I am NOT implying that Eb is a cynical grouch who has never >found true love. That would be arrogant and foolish of me, and I wouldn't >even try to jokingly imply it. Love is so . . . so big, and weird, and >so *different* for all of us, that for all I know Eb is totally in love >with someone, and he would not have jumped back on because he knows that >she would want him to go on and live, and maybe that's the bigger >sacrifice. . . . but still, interesting questions, no? Well, maybe he's just a Richard Thompson fan, like many others of us on this list, and as such is a cynic anyway! For example, how appropriate that valentine's day and Firday the 13th are one and the same day! To celebrate, I think I'm gonna listen "Watching the Dark" over and over...I need to come up with some new songs by my next gig! -luther ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 98 14:34:04 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Bob: 40% Beatles: 30% Others: 10% Conspiracy: 20% Titanic and On 2/13/98 1:42 PM, Ross Overbury wrote: >selecting a single favourite recording? That's like selecting a single >favourite *beer*! > Truer words have never been spoken... >Sgt. Pepper is rich and full. It's sparkling without being irritatingly >effervescent, and its aftertaste lingers pleasantly. Many find SP >shockingly different when they first sample it, but if you keep trying >it you'll likely begin appreciate SP for the bittersweet masterpiece that >it is. And if you listen to it everyday, you'll end up a blithering idiot living in a box under a railroad trestle. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:35:07 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Pepper >This raises a side issue: How many of us feel we can have a favourite album? Mine is Dylan's oh-so-annoying Highway 61 Revisited. ;) And yes, Sgt. Pepper would rank at LEAST in the Top 20. I like Revolver better than Sgt. Pepper, but Pepper ranks #2 in the Beatles catalog for me. I could never rate Abbey Road over Pepper...it's great, of course, but the material is really shaky (and of course, fragmented) compared with Pepper's and the production is just sooooo conversative and FM-radio. My favorite Hitchcock-related album (Underwater Moonlight) would probably rank in the 40s somewhere. Or so I'm casually guessing. Akin to LJ's hilarious Titanic story, some of you might get a giggle out of the fact that I'm being semi-harassed right now by some irate, religious Deep South husband-left-me woman who can't deal with the fact that I loathe Barenaked Ladies (and mentioned this in the Beatles newsgroup). ;) Quote from her: "God and BNL are my rock of Gibraltar, and I don't take nasty comments about either lightly." Oof. My other favorite quote: She claims that there are three types of music today: "BNL, heavy metal and hip-hop." Funny. I don't think she liked it much when I sent her the Trouser Press Guide entry on BNL, which calls the band "as cute as a baby, and as appealing as a loaded diaper." HA! Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 98 19:26:17 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Danielle & Katherine: Welcome from the Surreal Posse CHAPTER ONE: In which we meet the unlikely hero of our story and experience what could probably be called "a very bad morning." - --------------------------- BBbzzzt! . . . cheep . . . cheep . . . cheep . . . The shrill cheeping of the alarm must have been lacerating the air for the last hour before Dan-Yell's swollen brain finally registered it. One groggy hand emerged from under the Tuck-O-Covers and fumbled at the alarm clock like a blind albino bat with a pair of broken wings. Swack! Swuck! Fmip! Three passes later she finally managed to hit the top "h'muh" feather of the quail-shaped alarm clock, and the incessant cheeping twittered to a sudden halt. "Damn." The world was a cold, harsh, bright place outside of the covers -- there was no doubt about that. Additionally, she hadn't helped the matter by imbibing all that moss elixir last night at the Zinc Pear. But . . . it was, after all, her anniversary. One year working for EbCorp, one year of taking her place in the New Feg Society. Still, she had gone on a bender . . . but she deserved it, especially after that "Baird" twerp kept asking her why a girl was named "Dan." What a stupid question. Never had she met such an inconsiderate bastard! The though triggered a sudden spasm of headache. "Damn." The moss elixirs had, clearly, made the morning colder, harsher, brighter. Hmm. Wasn't that the title of the new Four Non Blondes minidisc? Something like that. The thought of her new minidisc player (The Winkworth 3000, matte black finish, chrome knobs, and clever disguised as a stuffed wombat tea-caddy thanks to her new clarkium Holograph Projector!) brought her feelings of happiness, prosperity, peace and serenity . . . yes . . . sleep . . . She could feel the ME hangover dragging her back down into a well of slumber, its clumsy hands tugging at her like a drowning child waring oversized mittens. . . . sleeeeeep. . . . hypnogogic images swirled pleasureably in her head . . . and the Tuck-O-Covers snugglewumped against her, a cozy cocoon of warmth. What a great present, and those little pictures of Godwinbears and Guambats were so cute. . . . "Hello, Fegizen! Good Morning!" The holotank clicked on and filled the room with the chrome brightness of her na-Susan's computer enhanced perkiness. A sudden flash of advertizing painted the room with the EbCorp logo: white and yellow stripes strobed across her wall. She opened one bleary eye. Fucking na-Susan. All those clone-elects, and she had to rate the Perky Model. "Damn." Nine o'clock already? Sigh. She swung her legs out of bed, and the Gloster GmbH slipper-bot came alive with a sudden clatter and scurried to duty, excreting a fresh pair of muffium slippers around her cold feet. The tinny "snickety snickety snick" filled her with a sense of peace, and she waited patiently for the bot to finish. She glanced at her hand and was alarmed to see that she had cut herself on her alarm clock's beak. Shooting it a quick and hopefully fierce glare, she repressed a shudder at it's meaningless bird-eyes. Quails. They had always given her the creeps, even *before* the. . . . "Good Morning, Fegizen Dan-Yell! This is your Personalized Message System. You have Two Saved Transmissions. Would You Like to View Them?" Perky beyond belief. She could just *hear* the capital letters, punctuating the air like a cluster of false smiles. "Fuck off and die," Dan growled as she muffied her way to the coffe-bot. It was a bad morning to have a broken coffee-bot, and frankly she didn't care who was calling. "Are You Sure? They could be . . . Important!" The voice was almost beside itself with a nauseatingly cheerful motherly concern. She bit down on her lip and stifled a curse in Welsh. "No. Save them, unread." The PMS reticule of the holotank lapsed into its waiting icon: two unhatched quail eggs, quivering with eager anticipation to be opened, spilling their happy contents. A swift kick on the clarkium chipchanger awoke the coffee-bot, and the welcome smell of java soon filled the room. The bot squeaked, "Fegizen Dan-Yell: I am almost out of coffee. If you will authorize the transfer of twelve happies, I will place an order from Gloster GnmB!" "Sure." She turned to the holotank in time to see the na-Susan fading into a new image: that of Bill Gates. Her brows furrowed . . . already? "The Bill Gates Hate Hour will begin shortly. All Fegizens please put on your clarkium Applecaps and your Thoth Shirts. All hail the Fegolution!" Great Queen of Toast, not another BGHH! That was the third one this month - -- obviously the current Tom over at AppleControl was having a bad month. Of course, the news had indicated that Tewist terrorist attacks were on the rise . . . never a good sign, and that always had the powers-that-be jumpy. Didn't Woj-Sven-Woj IV recently declare all Billy Bragg minidisc as article six contraband? That must have put the prawn in their bucket! Not that it affected her in the least bit, of course -- she had purged her collection when she joined EbCorp. Of course, there wasn't much to dump -- just two old Indigo Girls minidiscs and a bootleg concert of a John Wesley Harding show. She dumped the latter off on the Black Market and made a few extra happies; but she allowed the Eb-Censor bots to see the IG minis . . . they were only Article Four contraband, and it was best not to look *too* squeaky clean. Plus, it was their first to albums, before they went too politico. The JWH boot was another matter though. That showed a level of sincerety that would not reflect well on her record. . . . Sipping her coffee she put on her Thoth Shirt -- inside out, of course, so the heat-sensitive irridescent fabric ripppled with color -- and placed her Applecap on her head. Her was one of the second-generation originals, passed down to her from her grandmother -- as a matter of fact, it was patterned on one of the True Cones found in the original Cone Museum. The original pattern, too, sketched off the cone by the great Mikerunion himself, back before his assassination by a terrorist hit squid. . . . Ah, that was a turbulent time, she thought to herself, back in the first days after the Fegolution: The whole globe teeming with left-wing death squids, the crazy weeks of the "Perspex Island/Eye" war, and the fatal involuntary defenestration of the terrorist leader, Eddie, at Oasis's last concert at Candlestick Park. Of course, rumour has it that Eddie is still not dead, that his ghost exists in the Mailing Networks, surfing from one site to another in the name of the Tewist cause -- and the fact that the Mixed-Tape Bombings have not stopped only gives credence to that theory, as does the occasional appearance of "Eat the Quail" newsletters in various dentist offices, playgrounds, and public jelly baby dispensers. Well, that was another world, she was part of EbCorp now. . . . She flexed her brow and the Applecap began spinning on her head. The coffee was helping the hangover a bit, at least, but the quail-shaped mug was a bit tricky to drink from. She would have given anything for her old set of coffee mugs, but all images of Natalia Yokovna were oulawed by the Woj-Sven Woj after her attempt to replace the letter "Q" had failed. What a betrayal! You can never know who to trust these days. . . . Bill Gates image grew larger in the tank, and the wall speakers crackled with static. Soon her entire room was filled wit the voice of thousands of Fegs, all raised in the glorious chanting, all glaring with feverish hatred at the face of Bill Gates . . . . "We hate . . . . . Bill! We hate . . . . . Bill! We are wearing our Applecaps and we hate . . . . Bill! Bill is long dead and the Tom has placed his ashes in a clarkium container on the Moon which is assiduously guarded by six gloster-bots and surrounded by a ring of radioactive destructo-nannies, but . . . .we . . . still . . . hate . . . BILL!!!" . . . and so on, until her sixty minutes of civic hate was discharged. Bill faded away and the trademark Thoth-head logo appeared in the blank space of the holotank, spinning innocently and pulsing slightly with a nacreous green glow. The daily EbCorp Infostrip animated next to it, statistics and adverts shimmering up and down its length to the sound of Neutral Milk Hotel. Things seemed pretty normal . . . Senator Dworkin Spice had just proposed a resolution to ban all spurious use of the word "nerfherder," _Titanic_ entered it's seven- thousand and twenty-third consecutive week at number one, and The Church of Scientology was suing Dolph, Inc. for refusing to allow a sacred statue of L. Ron Hubbard in the atrium of their company headquarters. . . . Dan removed her Applecap and changed her clothing . . . a loose fitting white shirt with black polka dots today, she thought, *perfect.* Maybe the morning was finally looking up. . . . - --------------------------- CHAPTER TWO In which we take a brief but thrilling walk on the other side of life. - --------------------------- Then she heard a knocking at the door . . . . a wild tapping, erratic and hurried. She opened the door slightly, expecting to see a Girl Scout selling Thoth pumpkins, or maybe a Overbury's Witness. (Been a rash of those lately . . . "Dear ma'am, are you aware that Ross has yet to be mentioned in a newscast from the Discorporate Quail, more proof of the Invisibility of our Lord Ross and his Omnipresent Powers to be Ignored, Overlooked, and Otherwise Sublimated Out of Existence, etc etc. . ." as they press a pamphlet into your hands, same old thing, grassy fields with happy people and the benign Lord Ross not staring down over anything; good feelings just dripping off the page like sugary drool, all the Original Fegs at peace . . . The Quail lying down with the Capuchin, the Eb eating Cherry Garcia Ice Cream, and the LJ handing out small gifts. . . .that sort of thing. . . . .) But it was neither . . . it was a very frantic looking woman, and before Dan could act, she shoved her way inside and slammed the door shut. "Please help me! My God, I can't believe it all . . . . they know! They are on my trail . . ." "What?? Who are you? And is that a fretless bass? Are you -- " but her question was cut off by a harsh sound slamming into the door. Her (mandatory) clarkium gearhead yoyodyne meta-modulators snapped on, and her room was filled with green light. The walls began to melt, to turn into small fish, figurines of Elvis, and burning pieces of magnesium shaped like cornish game hens. A hum filled the room, and a voice louder than God or GWAR appeared in every point of universe at once: **THIS IS THE SURREAL POSSE. WE KNOW YOU ARE HARBORING A FUGITIVE. COME OUT WITH YOUR HANDS FRANTICALLY MAKING SHADOW FIGURES, OR WE WILL DISSOLVE YOUR ROOM INTO AN EPISODE OF SOUTH PARK** Philip Glass began playing from the geraniums at an ear-splitting volume, and the holotank started showing reruns of "Car 54, Where Are You?" Dan looked at the terrified woman, and suddenly something clicked: She had seen her face before, on the EbCorp NewsNet . . . It was Kath-y-Chaucer Ross, the Tewist terrorist responsible for the recent Tracy Chapman revival! Here, in her room at Hostetter's Happy Haus! What could she do -- All at once the walls exploded into a spasm of bad animation. . . . TO BE CONTINUED - ---------------------------------+-------------------------------- The Great Quail, K.S.C. | Literature Site - The Libyrinth: TheQuail@cthulhu.microserve.com | www.rpg.net/quail/libyrinth www.rpg.net/quail | Vampire Site - New York by Night: riverrun Discordian Society | www.rpg.net/quail/NYBN 73 De Chirico Street | Arkham, Orbis Tertius 2112-42 | ** What is FEGMANIA? ** "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents." -- H.P. Lovecraft ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #57 ******************************