From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #253 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, July 6 1998 Volume 07 : Number 253 Today's Subjects: ----------------- truth in songwriting [tanter ] Re: Revelling in evil (long and probably boring) [dlang ] lobster catchup [Natalie Jacobs ] door #2... I slipped in some Hitchcock content... [Mark_Gloster@3com.com] Re: door #2... I slipped in some Hitchcock content... [Eb Subject: truth in songwriting I find that most songwriters but some element of their life into their songs. I don't think it's much different than writing prose or poetry. Chris Difford writes about personal situations in almost every song, John Lennon often did, etc. etc. You can't write well about something you've never experienced--well, almost never. You can be journalistic or academic about it and do a good job in that sense, but with a song, if there's no honesty behind it, the song doesn't work. That's not to say it can't be done and the person singing a song isn't always the writer but I think that to evoke certain emotions, you need to know what you're talking about. For example (to revive a dead horse), I could never write anything about an acid trip but I could write about the loss of a grandparent. I couldn't write from the perspective of a black man in Jasper, Texas but I can write from the perspective of someone who's viewed that tragedy from the outside. If I tried to write from the man's perspective, I wouldn't be convincing. Some people can and do pull it off, but it's rare. Robyn's best stuff is either very personal or totally bizarre and off the wall. IMHO. Marcy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 22:32:38 -1850 From: dlang Subject: Re: Revelling in evil (long and probably boring) I recklessly said you probably don't need to explore the dark side of your nature to great extremes if you are for instance , writing comedy , or >possibly science fiction. and sue replied Eh? I always thought those were really excellent genres for dark-side explorations. Most of the world's darkest writing can be placed loosely (or firmly) in the SciFi genre. Well , yes again ,, you are right, but what I meant was in relation to Randi saying that the only way to be a great writer was to explore ones dark side. By that I imagined she meant the angst ridden exploration of the inner being , which is a sort of romanicised view of the writer having to suffer for their art. Whilst many great comedians and sci fi writers have been pretty dark people -Dick, Hancock, for instance , many many others have produced good work without having to deeply explore the depths of their personality. Now one could say that the best and most acomplished writers have taken this exploration , butsome of the best comedy writers- Simpson and Galton, Douglas Adams, ,etc as far as i know have not done this. Really , my point was that everyone gets to their goal by their own means, there is no recipe for success in writing or any other art form .One cannot apply absolutes because there are too many variables in life and in people for them to apply to every situation or discipline. I then went on ad nauseum about a few kids i taught who killed people. >violent fantasies and eventually acted it out. The other two were >involved in a killing of a male as part of gang fight, but their >attitude to evil certainly would have predicated them towards committing >the act, they "revelled " in evil to great extent. Then Sue said-in relation to the two kids who were involved in stabbing a guy to death in a local park. Yeah, but did "Scream" do this work? H.P. Lovecraft? Alfred Hitchcock? No. That was there and would have been there had these kids not seen or read ANY horror fiction. They would have "revelled" no matter what, given their particular internal make up, and not exactly in the sort of way I had in mind when I was using it about writers. As soon as i sent this I thought you might think I was blaming the media for their acts, but once posted..... Actually I mean this to be an example of where the media was probably not an influence,rather their background of associating with other peers who were very antisocial, into gang mentality and drug abuse . The only aspect that one could possibly blame the media for was their adoption of the rap gansta lifestyle that is quite prevalent in some deprived areas here. But I agree that to a great extent their personalities made them gravitiate towards violent and pointless acts of evil that had a horrific conclusion. However , in the case of the other guy there may have been some media influence at work. He was a loner who stayed at home constantly watching violent movies. He had a great deal of violent pornography .He fantasied about stabbing women , he wanted to know what it felt like todo so. Eventually he tried it, fortunately the woman survived, but onlyjust. In his case I think there was some connection, but certainly writing like Ballard's ,Lovecraft or Burroughs would not have inspired him, I doubt if he had ever heard of any of these guys. Perhaps however , movies can be a catalyst, because of their immediacy and power. Certainly some marginal types do use movies as an inspiration when committing murder etc, Bad boy bubby for instance, a guy here wrapped his girlfriend's face up with clingfilm because he saw the method used in the movie.However, I don't think the movie caused him to kill his girlfriend, it merely supplied a method. which brings up the question, how much responsibility should an artist bear when he /she creates a product as powerful as a film? What if someone copies the film when committing a bank robbery , or a murder , should the artist feel responsible ? After the Martin Bryant mass murder here in tasmania this question was asked to a mumber of filmakers and they all said that as far as they were concerned they did not feel any responsibility for any affects their films had on an audience, they were works of art and they stood by them. However,I feel there is a bit of a problem with this. For instance, the film "Romper stomper". This is an ultra violent antiracist film about skinheads beating up asian migrants. The filmaker was anti racist and the film was supposed to be a condemnation of ultra right skins. However, in many places those same skins went to see the film and were cheering their celluloid counterparts . As far as they were concerned they were being glorified, not condemned and the film was a rallying point. So even though the film was giving a message of anti violence and anti racism , it was only seen as such by those who had sufficent intelligence to perceive the message or already held strong anti racist or anti violent beliefs, because there was no clear narrative that condenmed the skins as the wrongdoers ( the book had the same effect, and was also crap, but thats by the way). Perhaps the problem nowadays is that because we do not make as many artistic media products with definitive , easily understood messages and characters ,and because we blur the edges between good and evil, we create products that do not always have the effect that the artist desires. For all I know the Poppy Z Bryte book that I was gabbing on about recently with the scene where two murderers are eviscerating a young guy may be supposed to show the reader that this sort of thing is bad,( and in my case it so revolted me that I stopped reading the book) but because Poppy never seemed to take any sort of moral stand in the book to show me she disapproved of the the evil acts,I was unsure about her motives and thus I rejected her work. Now I don't want to return to the days where bad guys always wore black or have much more censorship imposed on artists,I am implicitly opposed to this, but I do worry about the effects that some products have on the very young, or on susceptible individuals .My big concern is that its so easy for young kids to watch stuff which would never havebeen available to them a few decades ago. I have noticed that more and more kids that I teach are obsessed with violence in a very explicit way ie :yr 8 kids who want toact out a rape scene in drama - not to deter people from rape, but because they think its cool, or they've seen it on a video.We make plasticine animations in media and almost all the ones the boys make are violent -, cats being run over, cars causing mayhem in the streets ,skateboarders killing each other, dead bodies being hitched behind cars and dragged off-ok, its only plasticine, but I don't remember anyone I knew when I was at school who had fantasies that were that violent. Perhaps its just being teenagers and they will grow out of it,perhaps the making is cathartic and they get rid of their potential violence rather than acting it out, perhaps they just have a sick sense of humour,perhaps I'm just so off their wavelength that I don't understand where they are coming from , certainly they aren't going out and mowing down hordes of people in the streets , which is probably the best indication .However, when we watch South park and most of the kids say its like real life,in the way that the kids relate to each other, then I do wonder sometimes, especially when in my first 15 years of teaching ,no one I taught had committed murder, yet in the last five I've taught three who tried it out.Perhaps its just the law of averages.. dave ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 09:24:30 -0400 From: "Scott (Ferris) Thomas" Subject: Morrison/Bragg/Wilco/Guthrie (0% RH) Hey Ho Has anyone gone for the double Van Morrison disc? All the unreleased stuff? Saw it and thought....well...maybe.... Was in Border's over the weekend and saw Mermaid Avenue for sale but (foolishly, apparently) didn't buy it. If you don't know, it's the Billy Bragg/Wilco effort based on unfinished works by Arlo Guthrie. Anyway, yesterday I was reading the Voice and realized two things: One, Bragg played the Bottom Line last Thursday, and two, there was this pretty good review of the disc I'd just passed up. Here 'tis: BILLY BRAGG & WILCO: Mermaid Avenue (Elektra) So here's this Brit folksinger, a punk by heritage and a pop star by ambition whose most salient talent is how guiltlessly he mixes up the three. And here's this middle-American alt band, folkies by sensibility and pop pros by ambition whose most salient talent is a musicality they don't know what to do with. With the wisdom of half a century's rip-offs behind them, both are more resourceful melodically than the icon whose thousands of unpublished lyrics they were chosen to make something of. So be glad he kept the tunes in his head. Because while the words are wonderful and unexpectedÛauthor of several published books and reams of journalism, Woody Guthrie might have made his mark in any literary callingÛit's the music, especially Wilco's music, that transfigures the enterprise. Projecting the present back on the past in an attempt to make the past signify as future, they create an old-time rock and roll that never could have existed. FinallyÛfolk-rock! : A Enjoy. Let me know if anybody has either disc, and what you think. - -f. ______________________ Ferris Scott Thomas Programmer Funnybone Interactive ______________________ Pecking for the pellet. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 17:30:50 +0100 (BST) From: M R Godwin Subject: The Wreck of the Bryan Maclean Just to let you fegs know that I finally cracked and bought the Bryan Maclean album "Ifyoubelievein" which I saw in HMV last week. The only songs of BM's that I had previously heard were 'Come softly to me' (1st Love album); 'Orange skies' (from Love's 'da Capo'); 'Alone again or' and 'Old man' (from Love's 'Forever Changes'). Some of you (hi, Tony!) will also remember the Damned's hit version of 'Alone again or'. The album consists of vocal / guitar demos mainly dating from 1966, but with a few later re-recordings as well. There are two versions of 'Orange skies', two versions of 'Alone again or' and one version of 'Old man'. The other 11 tracks are all "new" BM songs written in 1966 for Love to use, but rejected by Arthur Lee in favour of his own material. At least four or five of the songs are first class. The tune of 'Orange skies' is slightly different from the 'da Capo' tune (sung by Arthur Lee). BM writes that he nearly came to blows with Lee about the way he sang 'Orange skies', and you can hear exactly why when you listen to the original tune. He also describes how good Lee was at beating people up, which explains why they didn't come to blows! The songs mainly have flamenco-influenced melodies, with a characteristic oddball chord change on the last word of the first line (like 'Old man'). The only disappointment is a rather silly "love 'em and leave 'em, don't get involved" number, but after all, BM was only 17/18 when he wrote all these amazing songs. Apparently he developed his guitar style watching Ryland Cooder playing at McCabes and later hanging out with Dave Crosby and the Byrds. The drawback is that these are only guitar demos - there is no backing at all, although on 'Barber John' BM hums a line which was presumably intended to be the string part. It would be great to hear a hotshot psychedelic band (like Rain Parade or the Mock Turtles) tackle some of these songs. - - Mike Godwin PS Here is an extract from Patrick Borezo's review of the album at http://www.flagpole.com/Issues/04.08.98/reviews.html: "One listen to the fully-realized demos of songs like "Barber John," which opens the album, and "Old Man," which closes it (written in 1967 and '66 respectively by Maclean at the ripe old age of about 18), both tracks, along with much of the other material, bear a striking resemblance to the early, tremulous songwriting style and baroque sensibilities of another obscure Los Angeles legend, Tim Buckley. As a result, all preconceived notions of where the talent lay [i.e. the talent in Love - MRG] are shattered. That's not to diminish Lee's stature as a true visionary, but much of the irreducible majesty of the first three Love albums, and especially 1968's largely acoustic masterpiece Forever Changes (one of the greatest and weirdest records of all time) is a result of the beautifully gossamer guitar playing which, with this release, can finally be attributed, if not totally then at least in large part (Love boasted three guitarists) to Maclean. It is both the tragedy and the apotheosis of this collection, that having been released for the first time some 30 years after they were written, one is left to imagine what could have been, had the complex chemistry of Love allowed for the growth of Maclean's talent (only three titles from this collection ever found their way onto Love albums), and had he overcome his problems with drugs, drink, and self-confidence to actively pursue a solo career". ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 13:26:58 -0400 From: Natalie Jacobs Subject: lobster catchup >What is it with psychos and foil!? No comment. >Paul Simon: "Her name was Lorelei/She was his only girl/She called him >'Skidoo'/But his Christian name was Mr. Earl." >Pogues: "and no one knows but Lorelei/river, river have mercy, take me >down to the sea..." >Tom Tom Club: "Lorelei Lorelei/What is happening?/I'm not sure" >Styx: "Lorelei let's live together/brighter than the stars forever" >Forgot the lyrics to the Cocteau Twins' Lorelei song, but it's floating >out there too. I assume you know the original Lorelei story... a sort of siren-esque figure that sits on a rock in the middle of the Rhine and tempts men to their death. There's a Heine poem about her. That's quite a character to be named after - though I know someone named Phaedra, which is a lot worse... anyway, welcome to the list! > Who're you calling obscure? I'll have you know they made number one on > the singles chart down here in 1989! ;) I thought the Chills used to be > relatively big on US college radio? Or was that just propaganda from > Flying Nun? I was merely seventeen in 1989, but I remember hearing about the Chills - they played in Ann Arbor and my friend Marc became pals with Justin Harwood (now of Luna). I also recall seeing a video for "Male Monster from the Id" a couple of years after that. But they've definitely faded from the (American) public eye - last year I was trying to find a link for them to put on my website but every time I put "Chills" into a search engine, all I got was weather sites. (They have a new, official site now: http://www.btinternet.com/~chills/chillyweb/index.htm .) n. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 13:53:21 -0700 From: Mark_Gloster@3com.com Subject: door #2... I slipped in some Hitchcock content... Is anyone else listening to Ray Manzerak on NPR's "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross? I probably could have made quite a good living deriving humor at the expense Doors in my day. There was so much material. Oh well, I did it for free, and to piss off my oldest brother (who looked strikingly like Jim Morrisson and thought that The Doors were the greatest thing ever). That said, I am thouroughly enjoying how animated and engaging Ray M. is as an interviewee. I also don't think I gave RM much credit for his technical proficiency and multicultural musical dexterity. He's discussing and playing along to demonstrate much of the Doors' creative creation machine. It's always made me feel weird about Robyn Hitchcock categorized as a "psychedelic" artist. I've said this before. Somehow, having associated the Strawberry Electric Airplane Popsicle Doors as something very different and not necessarily complimentary, somehow I feel less like "psychedelic" is an endightment. Ray tells stories a little like a cross between Emo Phillips and Garrisson Keeler. The Jesus-in-a-tortilla story about Jim Morrisson in Florida is pretty amusing. Hope you're all having a great day. - -sharkboy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 14:06:47 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: door #2... I slipped in some Hitchcock content... Mark_Gloster@3com.com wrote: > > Is anyone else listening to Ray Manzerak on NPR's "Fresh Air" with Terry > Gross? > > I am thoroughly enjoying how animated and engaging Ray M. is as an > interviewee. I also don't think I gave RM much credit for his technical > proficiency and multicultural musical dexterity. I'm not listening, but yeah, Manzarek is very entertaining. Even though he does say "Man" more than anyone else on Earth, as far as I can tell. > Ray tells stories a little like a cross between Emo Phillips and Garrisson > Keeler. Well, you know, he has those Doors anecdotes polished to a precision sheen by now.... I recently heard that Hitler and Mother Teresa were born on the very same day. Is this true? Although they sometimes sack out till noon, they begin the day with a slug of orange juice and a bowl of Special K. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 14:40:27 -0700 From: Mark_Gloster@3com.com Subject: Re: door #2... robyn slipped out of the frame on a bar of soap... >I'm not listening, but yeah, Manzarek is very entertaining. Even though >he does say "Man" more than anyone else on Earth, as far as I can tell. "Yea, man. And he said, 'man, man...' so I said,'man...'" Right again, Eric. When he does that, he sounds like a phragged Dead fan combined with Emo and Garrisson. ... >I recently heard that Hitler and Mother Teresa were born on the very >same day. Is this true? Have you ever seen Mother T with a moustache or dressed in black? They're about the same size. I'm also curious about the conversational ballistics of the trajectory of how my post might have inspired this. This is in no way intended to accuse anybody else of rambling, from someone who lives in a glass house. Just curious how me, Ray Manzerek, Jim Morrisson, Emo, or Garrisson makes someone go, "Oh yea, this reminds me of Hitler." I'm hoping that I'm not the associative pivot in this context. BTW, neither white nor black are really my fashion colors. I'm not sure if yellow stripes are either, not that anybody asked. Humor and happies to all, - -Markg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 17:21:18 -0500 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: door #2... robyn fell on his ass and sued me for millions... >Just curious how me, Ray Manzerek, Jim Morrisson, Emo, >or Garrisson makes someone go, "Oh yea, this reminds me of Hitler." Well, you did mention the infamous "Jesus in a tortilla" story, in which (as I recall) Mother Teresa had a nasty spill while eating a bean-filled tortilla, and ended up with a Hitler-like "bean mustache" on her face at the precise moment a marauding gang of British tabloid paparrazzi happened by. (Some variants of the story involve a beef enchilada, which is funnier-sounding, but as we all know Mother T. was a strict vegetarian.) As for Mother T's birthdate, IIRC the official records of the precise date were lost, probably during World War II, and Mother Teresa was never all that certain of the date herself - when asked about her age she usually just replied "I'm 39". True story: I once met a young woman who'd travelled to Bombay on an academic fellowship to work for Mother Teresa. As soon as she arrived they put her to work cleaning out toilets in a children's dysentery clinic. After a month, she finally got to meet Mother Teresa - and spoke to her for about five minutes. She said it was "the greatest experience of her life." JH3 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 18:54:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Fuller Subject: from randi - evil, Robyn, Maisie, you & oblivion, and reality > susan began with: > I do think that all of us have the potential to do considerable evil, > ...it is better to try to deal with your potential to be evil... I always figured that's what Robyn was doing when he took time off and wrote for and with Captain Sensible - during the 'hiatus' between GD and IODOT - trying to deal with his demons. > susan continued: > I always thought those {comedy and sci-fi} were really excellent genres > for dark-side explorations. > Most of the world's darkest writing can be placed loosely (or firmly) > in the SciFi genre. > Comedy too, -can- be excellent for this, as it is often the place where > people deal with issues that if presented seriously would perhaps cause > riots or be too much to handle... When I saw RH and the Egyptians in Toronto in 1993 - he said - "I'd write songs about reality but I don't think any of you would want to listen to them." I guess RH can get closer to his own artistic and personal reality when he is a solo artist, rather than with the Egyptians. > then marcy responded to my statement "I think the only way to > be a good writer is to explore one's dark side": > If you're talking from your own personal experience, it's OK to make an > absolute statement--the best writers are those who write from their own > experiences (not necessarily autobiographical things) and for you, your > dark side is the experience that works. :) I wish I had said that myself. It is what I meant - and Dave - I really didn't mean the statement to be so *completely absolute.* Within my own personal experience...being in and out of hospitals for 15 years...I feel like I have been to hell - and made it back. For years I was afraid to tap into that part of me, and then I started to have a bit of a writer's block. Not that I couldn't write - but something was missing. So, when I personified my disease as a "male," all this writing came pouring out - because I was letting 'the dark side' - the Crohn's, the pain, the fear of dying - come out. So when I read the poetry that came from letting a little bit of darkness seep out - authour Timothy Findley came up to me and said "I understand your pain." As I said before, it could be interpreted as S/M poetry to someone else, because I was writing about the sadistic Crohn's hurting me inside, and the masochistic me having to take the pain and find a way to accept it, deal with it, and, in a sick way, to believe it is there for a reason. So, someone hearing/reading my poetry might interpret it as S/M - but it is just me fighting the reality. I hope that explains things a bit more...and Mr. Findley, after giving him my portfolio, said I need to delve deep into my psyche to find the 'dark side', explore it, and come to grips with it to be able to write honestly. Perhaps not everyone needs to do that, but I feel it makes art more interesting - at least, it makes my writing more interesting...does "Danielle Steele" explore her dark side - yuck - but I'd actually be interested in knowing...and those romance writers too - guess that's why I'll stick with Timothy Findley and J.G. Ballard as some of my favourite writers. > then Mr. Terrence Marks inquired: > Well, was Robyn ever married? > What year was Maisie born in, anyhow? As far as I know, Maisie - who looks so cute on the cover of "Element of Light" - was born in 1976. > and luther went on to say about the song "you and oblivion" - and > the line - "right when the death train got my pa": > I walked into the 9:30 club in DC just as Robyn started into > this song...My lasting impression of that night was of Robyn singing > those lines...His expression was indescribable...Anyone else notice > how it sometimes sounds like he is choking on those words when he does > it live...also, did he ever do it electrically with the Egyptians? I've seen every show in Toronto and Montreal, from 1986 onwards, when RH or RH&E played, and he's never played it with the band. When I saw RH in Detroit during his last jaunt, and in Toronto when he opened for Billy Bragg, I couldn't even look at Robyn when he sang that line. And in Detroit, I met up with Robyn and Tim and former manager Steve by accident while they were having dinner, so we had a pleasant chat before and after the show - and every once in a while during the set he'd look straight at me, 'cause I was glued to the stage - but I had to cast my eyes downwards when I saw his expression during the singing of that line - I'd really like to know about other fegs experiences with RH and this line in the song. > and finally, carrie gave some cool info: > I have always held GD as one of my personal favourites {and now Moss > Elixir} due just to the painful and honest lyrics. That's what I love about Robyn, he can go from the obscure and strange to honest and painful. Having not heard __any__ new songs except "Gene Hackman" and "I Used To Love You" and "Cheese Alarm" - courtesy of excellent Eddie Tews...I'm wondering if RH's new stuff is keeping up on the honesty track. I felt so sorry for Robyn in Detroit - he felt he'd made his best album - ME - and the sales were not great - he seemed so disappointed. A shame, because really, ME is quite brilliant, imho. And Carrie, cool that Kipling's "The Light That Shines" has a character named Maisie - who is a painter - sounds a tad coincidental to me :} Take care all in this most wonderful Globe of Fegs... fading back into yesterday before tomorrow comes, Randi *what scares you most will set you free* - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 18:04:07 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: Revelling in evil (also long and also probably boring :)) > Well , yes again ,, you are right, but what I meant was in relation >to Randi saying that the only way to be a great writer was to explore >ones dark side. By that I imagined she meant the angst ridden >exploration of the inner being , which is a sort of romanicised view of >the writer having to suffer for their art. Huh. Interesting. I didn't read her that way. >deeply explore the depths of their personality. Now one could say that >the best and most acomplished writers have taken this exploration , butsome >of the best comedy writers- Simpson and Galton, Douglas Adams, ,etc as far as >i know have not done this. Depends who you consider the best comedy writers :). IMO, Jonathan Swift is quite possibly the best comedy writer that ever lived, and for me Dickens comes quite close, and they were both very dark people. P.G. Wodehouse and Evelyn Waugh both fit into this for me too, especially Waugh but Wodehouse too- there were some pretty ugly truths about class in all that absurdity. Closer to our own age, Peter Cook was also a very dark personality with a quite morbid sense of humor and some pretty interesting thoughts about good and evil (cf. "Bedazzled"). All of these IMO stomp the likes of Douglas Adams to kindling, but this is a matter of taste :). > Really , my point was that everyone gets to their goal by their own >means, there is no recipe for >success in writing or any other art form .One cannot apply absolutes I actually agree with this, so we'll pass on :). I think it's a matter too of what one personally finds effective, moving, insightful, &c. because God knows there aren't any absolutes there :). >their background of associating with other peers who were very antisocial, >into gang mentality and drug abuse . The only aspect that one could possibly >blame the media for was their adoption of the rap gansta lifestyle that is >quite prevalent in some deprived areas here. So we agree than that in a certain sense they were looking for this, and found it. Where I disagree is that I think it is the same situation with the other guy you mention as well. IMO in all cases this has to do with deep-rooted emotional dysfunction which is for sure being fed and nurtured at that particular trough, but didn't come from there. Honestly where I'd lay the blame is squarely on the parenting or lack thereof. Lots of improperly socialized people running around these days. Nobody ever set limits for them and they can't do it for themselves. Maybe they grew up in a house with a parent who couldn't do it for -themselves- either, doubly reinforcing this, who knows? I see this in the BDSM world a lot (apologies to those who are disturbed by my mentioning it, but again, it's very relevant here). People come into say, a club, and they look around and they see people who are in various states of undress or what have you. Being as they don't really understand that just because some rules are suspended, that doesn't mean ALL rules of conduct are suspended, they think "AHA! I now have license to be my true self, an assaultive asshole!", and then they get all pissy and genuinely confused when they get thrown out for acting on that notion :). They never learned basic respect for other people because no one ever taught it to them, and they never learned much about limits on personal behavior other than how to successfully impersonate people who do have them on those occasions when it serves their ends to do so. So on the first chance they perceive they drop it like so much baggage. It's a rather disturbing thing to see in action. When I spot a guy like that (sorry to the XYs in the house here, but it's pretty much always a guy), I can practically -spot- those particular wheels turning and it frightens me. >media influence at work. He was a loner who stayed at home constantly >watching violent movies. He had a great deal of violent pornography .He >fantasied about stabbing women , he wanted to know what it felt like todo so. >Eventually he tried it, fortunately the woman survived, but onlyjust. In his >case I think there was some connection, Sure, there's a connection. There's no way to argue that there isn't. But I still believe that he sought this stuff out for a reason, and probably had violent thoughts and fantasies for a very long time. Perhaps exposure to such materials is responsible for giving him the notion that this was - -permissible-, but again, I believe that he was probably emotionally and mentally far along that path before he saw such things. >kill his girlfriend, it merely supplied a method. which brings up the >question, how much responsibility should an artist bear when he /she >creates a product as powerful as a film? What if someone copies the film when >committing a bank robbery , or a murder , should the artist feel responsible ? IMO not on your life. An artist is not at all responsible for some criminal's derangement. If that person hadn't found that, they'd have found something else. Actually Dahmer is interesting in this regard, because a lot of the things that HE was obsessed with were things that weren't even obviously gory or horrible, e.g., certain scenes in "Star Wars". His demented imagination was responsible, and sure there are parents or stepparents who bear some responsibility for abuse, or for bad teaching, or for simply not recognizing and/or being in denial about a diseased mind when they saw one, I don't really know enough about his background to go too far into that. But George Lucas isn't responsible, I'm pretty certain on that, nor should he feel that he is. >stood by them. However,I feel there is a bit of a problem with this. For >instance, the film "Romper stomper". However, in many places those >same skins went to see the >film and were cheering their celluloid counterparts . I've seen this film. To me it was pretty obvious that it was a condemnation, and the brutality was included with the intent of revealing just how serious these thugs' hatred really is and just how serious the consequences are for society in general, not just the people they persecute. I read it as an attempt to really drive it home that these are far from merely being harmless loonies that can be redeemed with a little therapy. And as such I think it was very effective. This all reminds me of a comment a naive acquaintance made about "Drugstore Cowboy". Something to the effect of "Nobody REALLY lives like this, this has got to be a fantasy". And I think that probably in part the intent behind something like "Romper Stomper" is to show those who feel that way that this IS very real and that such people do exist. Of course it is disturbing that the cheering was happening, but IS there a way to make such a film in a manner that that wouldn't be a consequence? In a way the cheering shows that the filmmakers accomplished what they meant to- that it is damn accurate and that yes Virginia, there ARE such people in the world- this ain't a fantasy. > As far as they were concerned they were being glorified, not condemned >and the film was a >rallying point. That's their stupidity, not the filmmakers'. Just like the people who interpreted Nirvana's "Polly" as being pro-rape and actually raped a woman while it was playing on the stereo. Cobain issued a very emotional statement condemning this, but the thing is, what's a writer supposed to do, put a "don't do this kids, it's bad" tagline at the end of it just in case? Do we have to stupid-proof EVERYTHING? It's not as if a clearly-spelled-out condemnatory message would really change these people anyway. >intelligence to perceive the message or already held strong anti racist or >anti violent beliefs, because there was no clear narrative that condenmed >the skins as the >wrongdoers Again, is that necessary? Most people with the intelligence of a gnat could verily see it. Does the creator owe it to us the audience to spell it out in neon? Personally I really hate that. I'll make up my own mind, thanks. Basically I agree with Robert Heinlein (the first and last time THAT will ever happen :)) when he said "You can have freedom or security. You can't have both". >artist desires. For all I know the Poppy Z Bryte book that I was >gabbing on about recently with the scene where two murderers are >eviscerating a young guy may be supposed to show the reader that this >sort of thing is bad,( and in my case it so revolted me that I stopped Well, I haven't read the book in question and indeed, I don't know much about her. But I suspect that probably revulsion (moral as well as physical) is part of what you were supposed to feel. She's -assuming- that you've got that much in place already. Is it wrong for her (or anyone else) to assume that? >have on the very young, or on susceptible individuals .My big concern is that >its so easy for young kids to watch stuff which would never havebeen available >to them a few decades ago. Now here we agree. But how does it become easy? When I was a child I was allowed to see very very little. For example, I was not allowed to see a movie with an R rating until late in adolescence (particularly if it was overly violent- same went for overly violent TV shows though actually I wasn't really interested in those), and that was well-enforced. There were certain things that were OK, e.g., I was allowed to watch the "Twilight Zone", but then, talk about something with clear moral framework :), and anyway, my parents were available to talk to and set me straight should confusion occur- they were pretty watchful. This is called parental responsibility. It is NOT called artistic responsibility :). Whose fault is it that the TV is babysitting? Not the writers, directors, or actors. >,skateboarders killing each other, dead bodies being hitched behind cars and >dragged off-ok, its only plasticine, but I don't remember anyone I knew when >I was at school who had fantasies that were that violent. I think it's true that kids feel considerably more OK about this stuff because they see it more often. I also think that to some extent parents are generally less watchful now than they were even when I was growing up 20 years ago, either because they can't be or they refuse to be for some reason, and so there's no one around to monitor what's going on. IMO however, children are by nature somewhat cruel, I think Roald Dahl was absolutely right about that, the old cynic- because they're to some extent still in an animal nature, a state of being where -you're- the only one who really actually exists and everyone else only makes sense in terms of how they can meet your needs or be got round, they aren't -people- like you are people. This is not bad per se, it's natural, an offshoot of animal survival instinct. What's bad is when there's no one around to teach, counsel, mentor, show them how to feel and live differently, or merely serve as an example. We all make mistakes throughout life, and some of them are pretty selfish and stupid (raises hand and admits to it :)), but many of us have managed to attain some semblance of a conscience, and we can learn. When children don't learn to have a conscience they persist in an animal state (cf. "Lord of the Flies"). People who never learn this are the truly dangerous ones. >where they are coming from , certainly they aren't going out and mowing >down hordes of people in the streets , which is probably the best >indication. I suspect that with most of them it's probably just a "hey, this is shocking!" fascination that they'll grow out of with time, but of course I don't know them so it's hard to know that. There'll also of course too always be some for whom this is very real, who -haven't- learned in their hearts that it's WRONG to intentionally hurt other people -merely- because you feel like it. >However, when we watch South park and most of the kids say its like real >life,in the way that the kids >relate to each other, Do they actually know what that means, like real life? Maybe they just mean that they recognize certain kinds of playground antics as similar in character (if not necessarily in kind), or maybe it's just that they too think foul language is amazingly funny in and of itself, as kids often will. Again, I don't know, I don't know these particular kids. >wonder sometimes, especially when in my first 15 years of teaching ,no one I >taught had committed murder, yet in the last five I've taught >three who tried it out.Perhaps its just the law of averages.. I would think that's partly it. Of the dozens (hundreds?) of kids you've taught, the law of averages would suggest that it was bound to happen sooner or later. Then again, I think also that it's tougher to be a parent these days, and consequently there are more kids around with less socialization. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #253 *******************************