Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Even even@***********.fr
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Tue, 11 Apr 2000 22:45:06 +0200

Message no. 1 abortion_engine wrote:

> Correct, which is why science fiction is such a barren genre, in terms of
> literature; the greatest mass of it pays no heed to being good, in literary
> terms.<snip>

Barren? I have always thought that science fiction was just about the opposite. I have not
read the 'greatest mass of it', though, but I love writers such as LeGuin, Gibson, the
less well-known Norwegian Bing & Bringsværd... perhaps I have just been lucky and
missed all the bad stuff?
--
(>) Alleycat [even.tomte@*********.com]

From:	abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Tue, 11 Apr 2000 16:49:53 -0400

Message no. 2 From: "Even" <even@***********.fr>
> abortion_engine wrote:
> > Correct, which is why science fiction is such a barren genre, in terms
of
> > literature; the greatest mass of it pays no heed to being good, in
literary
> > terms.<snip>
>
> Barren? I have always thought that science fiction was just about the
> opposite. I have not read the 'greatest mass of it', though, but I love
> writers such as LeGuin, Gibson, the less well-known Norwegian Bing
> & Bringsværd... perhaps I have just been lucky and missed all the bad
stuff?

Or your definition of "quality literature" bears little resemblance to my
own.

From:	Glenn Sprott wasntka44@*********.net
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:37:05 -0400

Message no. 3 Deird'Re M. Brooks wrote:
>> Correct, which is why science fiction is such a barren genre, in
terms of
>> literature; the greatest mass of it pays no heed to being good, in
literary
>> terms. And that's very sad, since science fiction has some
wonderful
>> possibilities. But, as with romance novels, if it would like
respect, it
>> needs to have more than the few authors it possesses right now
writing for
>> all time, and not for grocery-store shelf space for a week. It
needs to
>> write for adults, and not teenagers.
>
>You mean Greg Egan? Charles Pellegrino? KW Jeter? S.M. Sterling?
Harry
>Turtledove? Perhaps you're not widely read enough to see the good
stuff?

Sci-fi is being taught and studied on the collegiate level these days.
A barren genre? hmmm... not likely.

Granted, there is some bad sci-fi out there, but then again, name one
genre that doesn't have its bad seeds.

abortion_engine wrote:

>> Barren? I have always thought that science fiction was just about
the
>> opposite. I have not read the 'greatest mass of it', though, but I
love
>> writers such as LeGuin, Gibson, the less well-known Norwegian Bing
>> & Bringsværd... perhaps I have just been lucky and missed all the
bad
>stuff?
>
>Or your definition of "quality literature" bears little resemblance
to my
>own.

Then again, there are those who have tastes that differ from my own.
oh well. To each, their own!

I guess the "Majority Rule" is what comes into play here.

-------------------------------
Wasntka
"...That peculiar disease of intellectuals,
that infatuation with ideas at the expense
of experience that compels experience to
conform to bookish preconceptions."
--Archibald MacLiesh

From:	abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:54:11 -0400

Message no. 4 From: "Glenn Sprott" <wasntka44@*********.net>
> Sci-fi is being taught and studied on the collegiate level these days.
> A barren genre? hmmm... not likely.

What my original statement said was that it was, in terms of literature,
currently a largely barren genre. Which is to say, in 500 years, very few
will be looking to these books as "classics." There is little that science
fiction written today does to add to the artistic and cultural level of our
race.

> Granted, there is some bad sci-fi out there, but then again, name one
> genre that doesn't have its bad seeds.

"Some?" I would certainly go so far as to say "most," and include most
popular fiction, including "fantasy."

> Then again, there are those who have tastes that differ from my own.
> oh well. To each, their own!

This is not of which I speak. I am not attempting to evaluate these works on
a personal level - I read BattleTech, for gods' sake - but on an objective,
cultural level. And on this level, I say, science fiction contributes little
at this time.

> I guess the "Majority Rule" is what comes into play here.

The majority rule should never come into play in artistic matters; the
majority of people are uneducated and unintelligent. You may not like these
truths, but truths they are. The "majority rule" comes into play only with
sales figures, and gives us only mediocrity, by definition; the average.
"Majority rules" gives us Danielle Steel and Ricky Martin.

From:	Logan Graves logan1@********.net
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Tue, 11 Apr 2000 20:10:12 -0400

Message no. 5 In our last episode, abortion_engine wrote:
>
> The majority rule should never come into play in artistic matters; the
> majority of people are uneducated and unintelligent. You may not like these
> truths, but truths they are. The "majority rule" comes into play only with
> sales figures, and gives us only mediocrity, by definition; the average.
> "Majority rules" gives us Danielle Steel and Ricky Martin.

Well, there's a scary-but-true way to look at it. ;-/

--Fenris
_____________________________________________Fenris@************.virtualAve.net
The mediocre are *always* at their best.
That's why you oughtn't hire them.

From:	Glenn Sprott wasntka44@*********.net
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Tue, 11 Apr 2000 21:00:19 -0400

Message no. 6 abortion_engine wrote:

>This is not of which I speak. I am not attempting to evaluate these
works on
>a personal level - I read BattleTech, for gods' sake - but on an
objective,
>cultural level. And on this level, I say, science fiction contributes
little
>at this time.

Isn't that kind of an impossibility: to not evaluate something on a
personal level? Whether we admit it or not, we do it. And to say
that you are attempting to evaluate something on an objective and
cultural level is just an extension of that personal level. You can
be objective, but you can't attempt to tell society what is cultural
and what isn't. It may be your opinion, but you may as well start an
argument about the existence of God or maybe about abortion...

>> I guess the "Majority Rule" is what comes into play here.
>
>The majority rule should never come into play in artistic matters;
the
>majority of people are uneducated and unintelligent. You may not like
these
>truths, but truths they are. The "majority rule" comes into play only
with
>sales figures, and gives us only mediocrity, by definition; the
average.
>"Majority rules" gives us Danielle Steel and Ricky Martin.

Couldn't agree with you more... in that sense. However, when I said
the majority, I meant the majority of the people with power. These
people decide what is important and "cultural." I once asked my
professor why these books I was studying were considered great. He
said, "because I told you so." He went on to explain that there is no
reason why certain works are chosen over others except that someone
said, "hey, this is really good!" And if you think about it, is
society any better for having read "The Faerie Queen?" Or "The
Aeneid?" Perhaps. What about "Roots?" or "All the President's
Men?"
Maybe. The point is, what makes these any better than fiction today?
Nothing, except they have stood the test of time. And we shall se
what else stands with them.

And also, the majority does rule... your books in school are approved
by your legislators and parents... and the votes that put these
people in office...

And the majority didn't ask for Ricky Martin... He was handed to us.
Just like the Spice Girls, and Korn, and Christina Aquillara (sp?),
and Backstreet Boys. They were handed to us on a platter, and played
on the radio a thousand times until you liked them! The Backstreet
Boys didn't get to be #1 because your daughter cries everytime she
sees them. They got big because the company MADE them big.

and Majority Rule gave us religion and christianity... You think they
are "mediocre?" Have you been to a Pentecostle church?

This is a silly point... We could go round and round about this for
days. I see what you are saying. I just don't agree with it. I hope
you understand that. Sorry if I seem a little over-argumentative.

----------------------------
Wasntka
"...That peculiar disease of intellectuals,
that infatuation with ideas at the expense
of experience that compels experience to
conform to bookish preconceptions."
--Archibald MacLiesh

From:	Iridios iridios@*****.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Tue, 11 Apr 2000 21:11:38 -0400

Message no. 7 abortion_engine wrote:

> What my original statement said was that it was, in terms of literature,
> currently a largely barren genre. Which is to say, in 500 years, very few
> will be looking to these books as "classics."

IMO, in 500 years 99.99 percent of "modern literature" will be read.
But that doesn't mean that they aren't (will not be) considered
classics. Sure there are 500+ year old classics, but those were
different times. For the most part, the majority could not read. So
there wasn't as much competition for attention. The same is not true
today. The majority of people can read and write and many more try
their hand at authorship. The signal to noise ratio is at an extreme,
especially with the boom of the internet.

> .... There is little that science
> fiction written today does to add to the artistic and cultural level of our
> race.

The same can be said for most ficition. But today's fiction may (IMO
will) have an effect on tomorrow's culture. It's the people who grow
up reading today's fiction that will shape tomorrow's world. Just as
people who grew up in the 50's reading Asimov have shaped our current
world to include robotics (although not yet to the degree that Asimov
envisoned).

--
Iridios
--
Invalid thought detected. Close all mental processes and restart
body.

Visit "The ShadowZone"
http://members.xoom.com/Iridios/ShadowZone

Sig by Kookie Jar 5.97d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
9:00:43 PM/225:02:03 (1) [no thud]

From:	Jonathan Hurley silvercat@***********.org
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Tue, 11 Apr 2000 21:27:24 -0400

Message no. 8 ----- Original Message -----
From: "abortion_engine" <abortion_engine@*******.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 19:54
Subject: Re: [OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion

> From: "Glenn Sprott" <wasntka44@*********.net>
> > Sci-fi is being taught and studied on the collegiate level these days.
> > A barren genre? hmmm... not likely.
>
> What my original statement said was that it was, in terms of literature,
> currently a largely barren genre. Which is to say, in 500 years, very few
> will be looking to these books as "classics." There is little that science
> fiction written today does to add to the artistic and cultural level of
our
> race.

Oh, please. I don't read them to read a "classic", I read sci-fi because
it's entertaining. If your definition of "barren" means "is unlikely to be
considered a classic 500 years from now", then all current gernes are
barren. And have been since the written word was developed. How many of
Shakespeare's contemporaries are read today? (And he had a *lot* of
competition, if th ehistories I have read are at all accurate).

> > Granted, there is some bad sci-fi out there, but then again, name one
> > genre that doesn't have its bad seeds.
>
> "Some?" I would certainly go so far as to say "most," and include
most
> popular fiction, including "fantasy."

90% of everything is crap - Sturgeon' law, and hardly anything to condemn
*any* form of literature for.

> > Then again, there are those who have tastes that differ from my own.
> > oh well. To each, their own!
>
> This is not of which I speak. I am not attempting to evaluate these works
on
> a personal level - I read BattleTech, for gods' sake - but on an
objective,
> cultural level. And on this level, I say, science fiction contributes
little
> at this time.
>
> > I guess the "Majority Rule" is what comes into play here.
>
> The majority rule should never come into play in artistic matters; the
> majority of people are uneducated and unintelligent. You may not like
these
> truths, but truths they are. The "majority rule" comes into play only with
> sales figures, and gives us only mediocrity, by definition; the average.
> "Majority rules" gives us Danielle Steel and Ricky Martin.

Oh bollocks. I give up. Art is where you find it, and what you make of it.
It can be popular. Go play White Wolf if that's your attitude.

But don't tell me because most works of speculative fiction won't be
considered classic 500 years from now there isn't worth in them. And go read
Isaac Asimov's Robots books and stories, and then come back to me about art
and classics.

Ian Silvercat claims the above in the name of himself!
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security - Benjamin Franklin
That which does not exist has never been named - Mirumoto Nohito
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:silvercat@***********.org)

From:	Deirdre M. Brooks xenya@********.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:50:17 -0700

Message no. 9 Glenn Sprott wrote:
>

> >You mean Greg Egan? Charles Pellegrino? KW Jeter? S.M. Sterling? Harry
> >Turtledove? Perhaps you're not widely read enough to see the good stuff?
>
> Sci-fi is being taught and studied on the collegiate level these days.
> A barren genre? hmmm... not likely.

Yes, Science Fiction is quite active, with material running from really
fantastic "hard" SF to particularly grandiose space opera to some unholy
merging of the two.

[Not aimed at you] I don't think it's possible to write "to last" as
opposed to "writing for a modern audience." The former is
nigh-impossible to predict or plan for and the latter is how you
actually get royalties. There's no moral high ground in writing to some
as-yet-unknown aesthetic that could possibly survive as long as
Shakespeare's plays or what-have-you. I suspect that if any modern SF
stories are going to survive, the Star Wars trilogy seems most likely.
Go figure.

> >Or your definition of "quality literature" bears little resemblance to
my
> >own.
>
> Then again, there are those who have tastes that differ from my own.
> oh well. To each, their own!

Yes. I don't know anyone whose taste in SF matches my own, and I
wouldn't expect it.

--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xenya@********.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
"If you loved me, you'd all kill yourselves today."
-- Spider Jerusalem | http://www.teleport.com/~xenya

From:	Deirdre M. Brooks xenya@********.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:56:06 -0700

Message no. 10 abortion_engine wrote:
>
> From: "Glenn Sprott" <wasntka44@*********.net>
> > Sci-fi is being taught and studied on the collegiate level these days.
> > A barren genre? hmmm... not likely.
>
> What my original statement said was that it was, in terms of literature,
> currently a largely barren genre. Which is to say, in 500 years, very few
> will be looking to these books as "classics." There is little that science
> fiction written today does to add to the artistic and cultural level of our
> race.

I sincerely doubt most literature that exists now ever set out to do
that. Dracula's a racy novel by Victorian standards and titillated more
than anything. The Three Musketeers was an adventure novel.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is no aesthetic
responsibility for novelists to write material that "improves the race."
That's a heavy responsibility to lay on anyone. Just let people write
what they will and some will survive. Some will not. I guarantee that
your predictions, mine or anyone else's about what is likely to survive
500 years is mired in our own prejudices and thus not likely to resemble
the truth.

If I (for example) write a novel, I'm not going to write for some
hypothetical society 500 years in the future, I'm writing for people who
will read it now. It's hard to collect royalties from 500 years in the
future.

> > Granted, there is some bad sci-fi out there, but then again, name one
> > genre that doesn't have its bad seeds.
>
> "Some?" I would certainly go so far as to say "most," and include
most
> popular fiction, including "fantasy."

90% of everything is crap. Sturgeon's Law? Corollary would be "Different
people have different definitions of what constitutes 'crap.'"

> > Then again, there are those who have tastes that differ from my own.
> > oh well. To each, their own!
>
> This is not of which I speak. I am not attempting to evaluate these works on
> a personal level - I read BattleTech, for gods' sake - but on an objective,
> cultural level. And on this level, I say, science fiction contributes little
> at this time.

There's no such thing as an objective, cultural level. It's a literary
pretense at best.

> > I guess the "Majority Rule" is what comes into play here.
>
> The majority rule should never come into play in artistic matters; the
> majority of people are uneducated and unintelligent. You may not like these
> truths, but truths they are. The "majority rule" comes into play only with
> sales figures, and gives us only mediocrity, by definition; the average.
> "Majority rules" gives us Danielle Steel and Ricky Martin.

Who cares about art? No, really. I think people who set out to create
"lasting works" are doomed to failure. Their works aren't guaranteed to
succeed now, let alone in the future when some diligent scholar uncovers
the lost works of this long-dead starving artist who toiled for 10 years
to write the Great American Novel? Not likely. Just create what comes
naturally and things will flow from that.

--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xenya@********.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
"If you loved me, you'd all kill yourselves today."
-- Spider Jerusalem | http://www.teleport.com/~xenya

From:	Deirdre M. Brooks xenya@********.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Tue, 11 Apr 2000 20:04:57 -0700

Message no. 11 Jonathan Hurley wrote:
>
> Oh bollocks. I give up. Art is where you find it, and what you make of it.
> It can be popular. Go play White Wolf if that's your attitude.

Uhgm, no. WW's not interested in artistic pretension either. I suggest
World of Synnibar (An Evolution in Gaming!)

White Wolf? It's not 1993 anymore.

--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xenya@********.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
"If you loved me, you'd all kill yourselves today."
-- Spider Jerusalem | http://www.teleport.com/~xenya

From:	Jonathan Hurley silvercat@***********.org
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 00:58:21 -0400

Message no. 12 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Deirdre M. Brooks" <xenya@********.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 23:04
Subject: Re: [OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion

>
>
> Jonathan Hurley wrote:
> >
> > Oh bollocks. I give up. Art is where you find it, and what you make of
it.
> > It can be popular. Go play White Wolf if that's your attitude.
>
> Uhgm, no. WW's not interested in artistic pretension either. I suggest
> World of Synnibar (An Evolution in Gaming!)
>
> White Wolf? It's not 1993 anymore.

I sit corrected :) (For what it's worth, I do play White Wolf systems from
time to time, and the times I've played it tends to be some of the more
interesting games for me. The times I've run it have been interesting too.)

I was just so disgusted by the apparent pretentiousness of that one email
message that I flipped into on eof my not-so-pleasant modes, that often
tends to be triggered by some of the more pretentious RPer's (who happen to
play WW systems).

Oh, well.

Ian Silvercat claims the above in the name of himself!
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security - Benjamin Franklin
That which does not exist has never been named - Mirumoto Nohito
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:silvercat@***********.org)

From:	Deirdre M. Brooks xenya@********.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Tue, 11 Apr 2000 22:13:10 -0700

Message no. 13 Jonathan Hurley wrote:
>
> I sit corrected :) (For what it's worth, I do play White Wolf systems from
> time to time, and the times I've played it tends to be some of the more
> interesting games for me. The times I've run it have been interesting too.)

Cool. :-)

> I was just so disgusted by the apparent pretentiousness of that one email
> message that I flipped into on eof my not-so-pleasant modes, that often
> tends to be triggered by some of the more pretentious RPer's (who happen to
> play WW systems).

Yeah, well, they get into the woodwork and you have to call an
exterminator to get them out. It's just better to let them have their
fun. :-)

I don't agree with any statement that implies a responsibility on
anyone's part to try to create "Art." Whatever that is. Just create, and
let the masses eat it. Or not.

I suppose I'd get in trouble for saying that Sherlock Holmes was a
Victorian Mack Bolan. :-)

> Oh, well.
>
> Ian Silvercat claims the above in the name of himself!
> --------------
> Those who would give up a little freedom for security
> deserve neither freedom nor security - Benjamin Franklin
> That which does not exist has never been named - Mirumoto Nohito
> Jonathan Hurley (mailto:silvercat@***********.org)

--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xenya@********.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
"If you loved me, you'd all kill yourselves today."
-- Spider Jerusalem | http://www.teleport.com/~xenya

From:	Jonathan Hurley silvercat@***********.org
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 02:49:10 -0400

Message no. 14 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Deirdre M. Brooks" <xenya@********.com>

> I don't agree with any statement that implies a responsibility on
> anyone's part to try to create "Art." Whatever that is. Just create, and
> let the masses eat it. Or not.
>
> I suppose I'd get in trouble for saying that Sherlock Holmes was a
> Victorian Mack Bolan. :-)

Not from me. I've read both. Though I'd say that Flashman deserves that
comparison more than Holmes...

Hmmmm, now I've got a character idea. Flashman in SR... <twitches slightly>

Ian Silvercat claims the above in the name of himself!
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security - Benjamin Franklin
That which does not exist has never been named - Mirumoto Nohito
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:silvercat@***********.org)

From:	Deirdre M. Brooks xenya@********.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Tue, 11 Apr 2000 23:57:05 -0700

Message no. 15 Jonathan Hurley wrote:
>
> Not from me. I've read both. Though I'd say that Flashman deserves that
> comparison more than Holmes...

Good point.

> Hmmmm, now I've got a character idea. Flashman in SR... <twitches slightly>

I created Holmes in Shadowrun once.

--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xenya@********.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
"If you loved me, you'd all kill yourselves today."
-- Spider Jerusalem | http://www.teleport.com/~xenya

From:	abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:55:47 -0400

Message no. 16 From: "Glenn Sprott" <wasntka44@*********.net>
> abortion_engine wrote:
> >This is not of which I speak. I am not attempting to evaluate these
> works on
> >a personal level - I read BattleTech, for gods' sake - but on an
> objective,
> >cultural level. And on this level, I say, science fiction contributes
> little
> >at this time.
>
> Isn't that kind of an impossibility: to not evaluate something on a
> personal level? Whether we admit it or not, we do it.

Okay, enough with the "no one can be objective" argument. Obviously, I am
influenced by my own biases. However, I am at least attempting to be
objective. The same cannot be said for those blindly defending what they
love [not that everyone defending sci-fi here is blind; there are some good
arguments here].

Keep in mind that I love science fiction. If you think I'm attacking it
because I don't like it, you're wrong. But science fiction is not high art,
by and large. [Please note this phrase; I have used it and versions of it
all along, and every single person has ignored them.]

> And to say
> that you are attempting to evaluate something on an objective and
> cultural level is just an extension of that personal level. You can
> be objective, but you can't attempt to tell society what is cultural
> and what isn't. It may be your opinion, but you may as well start an
> argument about the existence of God or maybe about abortion...

Well, I could start those arguments, but they have no objective standards.
Literature does; perhaps the line is not so finely drawn as mathematics or
physics, but there is a line. Clockwork Asylum is not Faust. See that line?
:)

> Couldn't agree with you more... in that sense. However, when I said
> the majority, I meant the majority of the people with power. These
> people decide what is important and "cultural." I once asked my
> professor why these books I was studying were considered great. He
> said, "because I told you so." He went on to explain that there is no
> reason why certain works are chosen over others except that someone
> said, "hey, this is really good!" And if you think about it, is
> society any better for having read "The Faerie Queen?" Or "The
> Aeneid?" Perhaps. What about "Roots?" or "All the President's
Men?"
> Maybe. The point is, what makes these any better than fiction today?
> Nothing, except they have stood the test of time. And we shall se
> what else stands with them.

Your professor was some sort of idiot. My apologies to you.

If you don't see the difference between the cultural role of the Aeneid and
the cultural role of Star Trek, you're getting a very poor education.

> And also, the majority does rule... your books in school are approved
> by your legislators and parents... and the votes that put these
> people in office...

Actually, I think you're labouring under a misperception, Glenn. I choose
the books I read, and I do not choose them from a "school library." And my
parents have little to do with my choices; although, you are correct, I
choose what books my child reads. In other words, I'm not in school, Glenn.

> And the majority didn't ask for Ricky Martin... He was handed to us.
> Just like the Spice Girls, and Korn, and Christina Aquillara (sp?),
> and Backstreet Boys. They were handed to us on a platter, and played
> on the radio a thousand times until you liked them! The Backstreet
> Boys didn't get to be #1 because your daughter cries everytime she
> sees them. They got big because the company MADE them big.

My daughter does cry every time she sees the Backstreet Boys; they irritate
her as much as they do me. *sigh* She has the roots of great genius, that
one. :)

Marketing creates a majority, but the majority still rules; marketing isn't
an absolute. It fails, frequently. Sales, on the other hand, do not fail.

> and Majority Rule gave us religion and christianity... You think they
> are "mediocre?" Have you been to a Pentecostle church?

I don't think this is an appropriate place for my opinion on the role the
Christian Church has played in maintaining the status quo of mediocrity
throughout the ages, and the continuing role of religion in perpetuating it.

> This is a silly point... We could go round and round about this for
> days. I see what you are saying. I just don't agree with it. I hope
> you understand that. Sorry if I seem a little over-argumentative.

I do understand. Believe me, I regularly engage in conversations a great
deal more heated than this one. Don't worry about me.

From:	abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:58:15 -0400

Message no. 17 From: "Iridios" <iridios@*****.com>
> abortion_engine wrote:
> > What my original statement said was that it was, in terms of literature,
> > currently a largely barren genre. Which is to say, in 500 years, very
few
> > will be looking to these books as "classics."
>
> IMO, in 500 years 99.99 percent of "modern literature" will be read.

I'm going to assume you mean "won't be read." If I'm wrong, correct me.

> But that doesn't mean that they aren't (will not be) considered
> classics. Sure there are 500+ year old classics, but those were
> different times. For the most part, the majority could not read. So
> there wasn't as much competition for attention. The same is not true
> today. The majority of people can read and write and many more try
> their hand at authorship. The signal to noise ratio is at an extreme,
> especially with the boom of the internet.

Which is why it is more significant than ever that the dross be filtered
out.

> > .... There is little that science
> > fiction written today does to add to the artistic and cultural level of
our
> > race.
>
> The same can be said for most ficition. But today's fiction may (IMO
> will) have an effect on tomorrow's culture. It's the people who grow
> up reading today's fiction that will shape tomorrow's world. Just as
> people who grew up in the 50's reading Asimov have shaped our current
> world to include robotics (although not yet to the degree that Asimov
> envisoned).

Asimov, by the way, I believe is considered literature. Not for his
incredible writing style - his writing was horrible - but for his
revolutionary ideas, and for his hard science. Fine man.

You're right, most fiction is, by definition, not fine literature.

From:	abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:16:07 -0400

Message no. 18 From: "Jonathan Hurley" <silvercat@***********.org>
> From: "abortion_engine" <abortion_engine@*******.com>
> > From: "Glenn Sprott" <wasntka44@*********.net>
> > > Sci-fi is being taught and studied on the collegiate level these days.
> > > A barren genre? hmmm... not likely.
> >
> > What my original statement said was that it was, in terms of literature,
> > currently a largely barren genre. Which is to say, in 500 years, very
few
> > will be looking to these books as "classics." There is little that
science
> > fiction written today does to add to the artistic and cultural level of
> our
> > race.
>
> Oh, please. I don't read them to read a "classic", I read sci-fi because
> it's entertaining. If your definition of "barren" means "is unlikely
to be
> considered a classic 500 years from now", then all current gernes are
> barren. And have been since the written word was developed.

Very good! You reach the correct conclusion. Like nearly all things, it is a
bell graph.

> How many of
> Shakespeare's contemporaries are read today? (And he had a *lot* of
> competition, if th ehistories I have read are at all accurate).

Well, Ben Jonson, Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Middleton...I just finished
John Ford's The Lover's Melancholy a week or so ago.

> > > Granted, there is some bad sci-fi out there, but then again, name one
> > > genre that doesn't have its bad seeds.
> >
> > "Some?" I would certainly go so far as to say "most," and
include most
> > popular fiction, including "fantasy."
>
> 90% of everything is crap - Sturgeon' law, and hardly anything to condemn
> *any* form of literature for.

On the contrary! I think it is something to condemn the 90% of everything
for! If it is crap, call it crap! Eliminate it where we may.

> > The majority rule should never come into play in artistic matters; the
> > majority of people are uneducated and unintelligent. You may not like
> these
> > truths, but truths they are. The "majority rule" comes into play only
with
> > sales figures, and gives us only mediocrity, by definition; the average.
> > "Majority rules" gives us Danielle Steel and Ricky Martin.
>
> Oh bollocks. I give up. Art is where you find it, and what you make of it.
> It can be popular. Go play White Wolf if that's your attitude.

That statement makes little sense.

> But don't tell me because most works of speculative fiction won't be
> considered classic 500 years from now there isn't worth in them. And go
read
> Isaac Asimov's Robots books and stories, and then come back to me about
art
> and classics.

I believe I've said this before, but let me say it again, the the next
person who doesn't listen gets the boot. I never said all of science fiction
was filth. I said that nearly all of modern science fiction is barren in
literary terms. As I said above, Asimov's work [some of it] will be spared;
though I don't much like Asimov's work on a personal level - it's hard to
make accurate characterisation when everyone talks exactly like the
author! - I believe his works are, particularly in their field, classics.

Listen to what I say, not what you'd like to hear. Everyone seems to be
making more of this than should be made of it. All I'm saying is the bulk of
science fiction is not literary. It's for money and entertainment. But
that's all in my reply to the next post. So.

From:	abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:20:39 -0400

Message no. 19 From: "Deirdre M. Brooks" <xenya@********.com>
> Glenn Sprott wrote:
> > >You mean Greg Egan? Charles Pellegrino? KW Jeter? S.M. Sterling? Harry
> > >Turtledove? Perhaps you're not widely read enough to see the good
stuff?
> >
> > Sci-fi is being taught and studied on the collegiate level these days.
> > A barren genre? hmmm... not likely.
>
> Yes, Science Fiction is quite active, with material running from really
> fantastic "hard" SF to particularly grandiose space opera to some unholy
> merging of the two.

Active, yes. [Maybe you're all misunderstanding the words "most" and
"barren" in this context?] But good in literary terms? No, not most of it.

> [Not aimed at you] I don't think it's possible to write "to last" as
> opposed to "writing for a modern audience." The former is
> nigh-impossible to predict or plan for and the latter is how you
> actually get royalties. There's no moral high ground in writing to some
> as-yet-unknown aesthetic that could possibly survive as long as
> Shakespeare's plays or what-have-you.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. I think you're not
terribly well-educated regarding art. I don't mean this as an insult, merely
an observation.

"The latter is how you get royalties." This is one of the thoughts that
dominates the field of writing today, and not merely in science fiction. And
art for money is not always good art. In fact, it seldom is. This is not to
say that getting paid for it makes art poor; it is merely to say that if a
book is written for popularity, it will not likely be objectively good in
literary terms.

I think the "moral high ground" of art is its own reward.

From:	abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:33:29 -0400

Message no. 20 From: "Deirdre M. Brooks" <xenya@********.com>
> abortion_engine wrote:
> > From: "Glenn Sprott" <wasntka44@*********.net>
> > > Sci-fi is being taught and studied on the collegiate level these days.
> > > A barren genre? hmmm... not likely.
> >
> > What my original statement said was that it was, in terms of literature,
> > currently a largely barren genre. Which is to say, in 500 years, very
few
> > will be looking to these books as "classics." There is little that
science
> > fiction written today does to add to the artistic and cultural level of
our
> > race.
>
> I sincerely doubt most literature that exists now ever set out to do
> that. Dracula's a racy novel by Victorian standards and titillated more
> than anything. The Three Musketeers was an adventure novel.

I'm not an enormous fan of Dracula, nor do I feel it's a classic in any way,
but given that it embodies its time, many others disagree. I will bow to
their superior knowledge of the literary field.

Most literature set out to be literary before, say, 1800, perhaps a bit
earlier. When all works were written for intellectuals, this was the goal of
literature; to add to Art. The idea of writing for entertainment was
completely alien until more than a few people could read the works. Then, as
with so many things, public accessibility led to a "dumbing down" of the
techniques, and since then, most of the words written have been written for
the large middle ground. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing; I'm
pleased each of you can buy Stephen King in your supermarket. But the field
of literature is not enriched by most of the work being released at this
point.

This is obvious, fellows. It's as simple as saying Kid Rock doesn't add to
the field of music in any quality way.

> In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is no aesthetic
> responsibility for novelists to write material that "improves the race."

I would go so far as to say that you are completely wrong and hope that you
never touch a typewriter as long as you live with that mindset. Art exists
for three reasons; for its own sake, for our sake, and now, for our
entertainment, now that that word has meaning. Used to be, there was no time
for such; people didn't feel that entertainment, happiness, was a right. But
we live now, spoiled by Industry. Made stupid and weak. Harrison Bergeron,
but de facto, and not de jure.

> That's a heavy responsibility to lay on anyone. Just let people write
> what they will and some will survive. Some will not. I guarantee that
> your predictions, mine or anyone else's about what is likely to survive
> 500 years is mired in our own prejudices and thus not likely to resemble
> the truth.

I think you are incorrect. Education is a tool for stemming predjudice.

> If I (for example) write a novel, I'm not going to write for some
> hypothetical society 500 years in the future, I'm writing for people who
> will read it now. It's hard to collect royalties from 500 years in the
> future.

Because your bloody god-damned paycheck is what's important, right? Gods,
thats the most rediculous thing I've ever read. Is this what we've come down
to? Entertainment and royalties? Is there no concern for art, for literature
for its own sake? If you cannot understand anything more than superficial
considerations like money and "fun," then you will never understand my
point.

> Who cares about art? No, really. I think people who set out to create
> "lasting works" are doomed to failure. Their works aren't guaranteed to
> succeed now, let alone in the future when some diligent scholar uncovers
> the lost works of this long-dead starving artist who toiled for 10 years
> to write the Great American Novel? Not likely. Just create what comes
> naturally and things will flow from that.

I leave with this. I will speak no more on this topic with you, for the
moment. Perhaps by the time you get around to replying, I will be less
irritated, more likely to not say the simple truths that would get me
ejected from the list.

Your idea of success is garbage, dust. You speak of momentary success, of
money and happiness. As long as this is how you think, you will never
understand art.

From:	Iridios iridios@*****.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:50:58 -0400

Message no. 21 abortion_engine wrote:
>
> From: "Iridios" <iridios@*****.com>
> > abortion_engine wrote:

> > IMO, in 500 years 99.99 percent of "modern literature" will be read.
>
> I'm going to assume you mean "won't be read." If I'm wrong, correct me.

You are correct. I was a bit distracted at the time I wrote that.

>
> > But that doesn't mean that they aren't (will not be) considered
> > classics. Sure there are 500+ year old classics, but those were
> > different times. For the most part, the majority could not read. So
> > there wasn't as much competition for attention. The same is not true
> > today. The majority of people can read and write and many more try
> > their hand at authorship. The signal to noise ratio is at an extreme,
> > especially with the boom of the internet.
>
> Which is why it is more significant than ever that the dross be filtered
> out.

But who defines what the dross is? And does that depend on what the
definition of is, is? By what indicator should we judge published
works. By gross sales? By sales vs. time? Or perhaps by it's
acceptance among scholars?

Gross sales would be highly inaccurate, as hype can make a bad piece
appear good (Blair Witch Project).

Sales vs. time is better because you can watch the overall
performance. But how long should we track it?

Acceptance among scholars comes down to their own prejudices and
therefore may not be accurate.

All in all, you must remember, "One man's garbage, is another man's
treasure."

>
> > > .... There is little that science
> > > fiction written today does to add to the artistic and cultural level of
> our
> > > race.
> >
> > The same can be said for most ficition. But today's fiction may (IMO
> > will) have an effect on tomorrow's culture. It's the people who grow
> > up reading today's fiction that will shape tomorrow's world. Just as
> > people who grew up in the 50's reading Asimov have shaped our current
> > world to include robotics (although not yet to the degree that Asimov
> > envisoned).
>
> Asimov, by the way, I believe is considered literature. Not for his
> incredible writing style - his writing was horrible - but for his
> revolutionary ideas, and for his hard science. Fine man.

Asimov is considered as both literature and science fiction.

--
Iridios
--
Freedom defined is freedom denied. (Illuminatus)

Visit "The ShadowZone"
http://members.xoom.com/Iridios/ShadowZone

Sig by Kookie Jar 5.97d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
12:40:44 PM/125:02:03 (1) [no thud]

From:	Iridios iridios@*****.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:06:27 -0400

Message no. 22 abortion_engine wrote:

> > If I (for example) write a novel, I'm not going to write for some
> > hypothetical society 500 years in the future, I'm writing for people who
> > will read it now. It's hard to collect royalties from 500 years in the
> > future.
>
> Because your bloody god-damned paycheck is what's important, right? Gods,
> thats the most rediculous thing I've ever read. Is this what we've come down
> to? Entertainment and royalties? Is there no concern for art, for literature
> for its own sake? If you cannot understand anything more than superficial
> considerations like money and "fun," then you will never understand my
> point.

It's had to come down to this, for the most part. In the past artists
were sponsored by patrons. Well-to-do people or organizations would
supply the artist with a roof over their head and food to eat. In
exchange the artist produced works in their field. Because there was
so little competition (as compared to today), the artists could afford
to take time to produce what they felt was good art, masterpieces.

Today, it's different. Publishing companies could care less about how
the artists live, just as long as they get a piece of work from them.
The company pays the artist a percentage of every sale. The artist
still needs to eat and sleep, so the artist needs to be concerned
about collecting royalties.

And then consider people such as the SR freelancers on this list that
produce work in their spare time (at least that's the impression I
get). They obviously have regular jobs and can provide for
themselves. So why are they producing works? Because they enjoy the
game and want to contribute. The money just makes it worth the
effort.

> Your idea of success is garbage, dust. You speak of momentary success, of
> money and happiness. As long as this is how you think, you will never
> understand art.

Everyone's idea of success is different. To some living a long
healthy life is enough to qualify while others need a certain amount
of material wealth. Yet others will not feel successful until they
produce a child to carry on when they themselves have passed on.

So how do you find success, and by it's measure will you be considered
successful? (rehtorical question)

--
Iridios
--
God Is

Visit "The ShadowZone"
http://members.xoom.com/Iridios/ShadowZone

Sig by Kookie Jar 5.97d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
12:50:44 PM/127:02:03 (1) [no thud]

From:	abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:22:29 -0400

Message no. 23 From: "Iridios" <iridios@*****.com>
> abortion_engine wrote:
> > From: "Iridios" <iridios@*****.com>
> > > But that doesn't mean that they aren't (will not be) considered
> > > classics. Sure there are 500+ year old classics, but those were
> > > different times. For the most part, the majority could not read. So
> > > there wasn't as much competition for attention. The same is not true
> > > today. The majority of people can read and write and many more try
> > > their hand at authorship. The signal to noise ratio is at an extreme,
> > > especially with the boom of the internet.
> >
> > Which is why it is more significant than ever that the dross be filtered
> > out.
>
> But who defines what the dross is? And does that depend on what the
> definition of is, is? By what indicator should we judge published
> works. By gross sales? By sales vs. time? Or perhaps by it's
> acceptance among scholars?

Well, in my mind, it's acceptance by scholars, but I may be somewhat biased.
:)

> Gross sales would be highly inaccurate, as hype can make a bad piece
> appear good (Blair Witch Project).

Agreed.

> Sales vs. time is better because you can watch the overall
> performance. But how long should we track it?

Sales is nothing more than popularity and marketing. The average man will
like average work.

> Acceptance among scholars comes down to their own prejudices and
> therefore may not be accurate.

Truly, you must all think scholars foolish, that their opinions so easily
sway their assessments.

> All in all, you must remember, "One man's garbage, is another man's
> treasure."

Let me simplify this entire argument, my way. Most work is average, by its
definition. The bulk of work is created at a level below what we would
consider exceptional, objectively. The few works at the right of the bell
curve are radically outnumbered by the bulk in the center. This is only
logical. Very few works are exceptional.

> Asimov is considered as both literature and science fiction.

It is as you say.

From:	abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:28:06 -0400

Message no. 24 From: "Iridios" <iridios@*****.com>
> abortion_engine wrote:
> > Because your bloody god-damned paycheck is what's important, right?
Gods,
> > thats the most rediculous thing I've ever read. Is this what we've come
down
> > to? Entertainment and royalties? Is there no concern for art, for
literature
> > for its own sake? If you cannot understand anything more than
superficial
> > considerations like money and "fun," then you will never understand my
> > point.
>
> It's had to come down to this, for the most part. In the past artists
> were sponsored by patrons. Well-to-do people or organizations would
> supply the artist with a roof over their head and food to eat. In
> exchange the artist produced works in their field. Because there was
> so little competition (as compared to today), the artists could afford
> to take time to produce what they felt was good art, masterpieces.

You speak only of the most-known masters, and even they were known to starve
ocassionally for their art.

I know a number of artists, here in Chicago, back in Britain, in Grand
Rapids and Louisville. And those that are exceptional, the few, are willing
to starve, to forgo money and royalties and fame, for their art.

> Today, it's different. Publishing companies could care less about how
> the artists live, just as long as they get a piece of work from them.
> The company pays the artist a percentage of every sale. The artist
> still needs to eat and sleep, so the artist needs to be concerned
> about collecting royalties.

To hell with eating and sleeping! To hell with publishing companies and
distribution!

> And then consider people such as the SR freelancers on this list that
> produce work in their spare time (at least that's the impression I
> get). They obviously have regular jobs and can provide for
> themselves. So why are they producing works? Because they enjoy the
> game and want to contribute. The money just makes it worth the
> effort.

That, then, is admirable; they toil for the sake of their art. Still,
they're not sacrificing on a level of the true "starving artist," but they
work for it because they want to, not for money or fame. And that is
admirable.

> > Your idea of success is garbage, dust. You speak of momentary success,
of
> > money and happiness. As long as this is how you think, you will never
> > understand art.
>
> Everyone's idea of success is different. To some living a long
> healthy life is enough to qualify while others need a certain amount
> of material wealth. Yet others will not feel successful until they
> produce a child to carry on when they themselves have passed on.
>
> So how do you find success, and by it's measure will you be considered
> successful? (rehtorical question)

I found success by being happy, mastering - to a degree - my chosen field,
by learning to never stop learning, by making enough money to never worry
about it, and by having a raising a child who is healthy, happy, and, in
turn, will hopefully be successful. But I do not claim to be a successful
artist. Art is very different from science or mathematics.

From:	Strago strago@***.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:05:24 -0400

Message no. 25 Iridios wrote:

> abortion_engine wrote:
>
> > > If I (for example) write a novel, I'm not going to write for some
> > > hypothetical society 500 years in the future, I'm writing for people who
> > > will read it now. It's hard to collect royalties from 500 years in the
> > > future.
> >
> > Because your bloody god-damned paycheck is what's important, right? Gods,
> > thats the most rediculous thing I've ever read. Is this what we've come down
> > to? Entertainment and royalties? Is there no concern for art, for literature
> > for its own sake? If you cannot understand anything more than superficial
> > considerations like money and "fun," then you will never understand my
> > point.
>

For some reason now I'm getting a mental picture of a_e as that "starving
artist"
guy with the long goatee who always wears black and goes around uttering such
nonsense as "life is pain" and "life is death" and so one and so
forth. Who never
smiles. And who thinks that as soon as something is made mainstream, it's
"tainted". Because those are the kinds of people who labour for 10 years writing
"the Great American Novel" while I spend five writing a good story.

> It's had to come down to this, for the most part. In the past artists
> were sponsored by patrons. Well-to-do people or organizations would
> supply the artist with a roof over their head and food to eat. In
> exchange the artist produced works in their field. Because there was
> so little competition (as compared to today), the artists could afford
> to take time to produce what they felt was good art, masterpieces.
>

Of course, you're ignoring the fact that these same artists were also forced to
create every day. They weren't all able to create master works all the time. Even
they had some "dross" (as a_e put it earlier).
<SNIP>

From:	Deirdre M. Brooks xenya@********.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:37:22 -0700

Message no. 26 Strago wrote:
>
> Of course, you're ignoring the fact that these same artists were also forced to
> create every day. They weren't all able to create master works all the time. Even
> they had some "dross" (as a_e put it earlier).

In fact, for some "artists," the dross is what's survived (Three
Musketeers, Sherlock Holmes, etc) and the "art" is what no one's
noticed.

--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xenya@********.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
"If you loved me, you'd all kill yourselves today."
-- Spider Jerusalem | http://www.teleport.com/~xenya

From:	abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:42:16 -0400

Message no. 27 From: "Strago" <strago@***.com>
> Iridios wrote:
> > abortion_engine wrote:
> > > > If I (for example) write a novel, I'm not going to write for some
> > > > hypothetical society 500 years in the future, I'm writing for people
who
> > > > will read it now. It's hard to collect royalties from 500 years in
the
> > > > future.
> > >
> > > Because your bloody god-damned paycheck is what's important, right?
Gods,
> > > thats the most rediculous thing I've ever read. Is this what we've
come down
> > > to? Entertainment and royalties? Is there no concern for art, for
literature
> > > for its own sake? If you cannot understand anything more than
superficial
> > > considerations like money and "fun," then you will never
understand my
> > > point.
>
> For some reason now I'm getting a mental picture of a_e as that "starving
artist"
> guy with the long goatee who always wears black and goes around uttering
such
> nonsense as "life is pain" and "life is death" and so one and so
forth.
Who never
> smiles. And who thinks that as soon as something is made mainstream, it's
> "tainted". Because those are the kinds of people who labour for 10 years
writing
> "the Great American Novel" while I spend five writing a good story.

<g> On the contrary, I'm smiling right now! I cannot be as Bohemian as you
describe, having laughed at this description. Your image would have simply
scowled, pulled his beret low over his face, and returned to his Sartre. :)

This is amusing, though. You're right about one thing; I'm not a smiley
fellow, by and large. Comes with the nationality, my mother says. But as for
the rest? I'm no artist, not really. I'm an applied mathematician, and
that's a very different animal. My mind isn't set up for art. Often-times, I
wish it were. Perhaps it is for this reason that I spend so much time with
artists. But anything that goes mainstream isn't "tainted," no, not
necessarily. I always hate the screams of "sell-out" when something good
happens to sell a large number of copies.

You're right about something else, too, come to think of it; I haven't worn
any other color than black for about a decade; no teen angst, I simply look
stupid in colors, and finally realised it. :)

"Life is pain. Life is death." LOL! Ah, Strago.

> > It's had to come down to this, for the most part. In the past artists
> > were sponsored by patrons. Well-to-do people or organizations would
> > supply the artist with a roof over their head and food to eat. In
> > exchange the artist produced works in their field. Because there was
> > so little competition (as compared to today), the artists could afford
> > to take time to produce what they felt was good art, masterpieces.
> >
> Of course, you're ignoring the fact that these same artists were also
forced to
> create every day. They weren't all able to create master works all the
time. Even
> they had some "dross" (as a_e put it earlier).

Very true. Everyone has their bad days. Again, by definition, very few
works, even by exceptional artists, are going to be exceptional. That's one
reason I'm always amazed when someone regularly turns out incredible work,
over and over; it's so improbable. Improbability is beautiful.

From:	abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:51:14 -0400

Message no. 28 From: "Deirdre M. Brooks" <xenya@********.com>
> Strago wrote:
> > Of course, you're ignoring the fact that these same artists were also
forced to
> > create every day. They weren't all able to create master works all the
time. Even
> > they had some "dross" (as a_e put it earlier).
>
> In fact, for some "artists," the dross is what's survived (Three
> Musketeers, Sherlock Holmes, etc) and the "art" is what no one's
> noticed.

Someone noticed; the exceptional. After all, you know of their art, correct?
You see?

From:	Deirdre M. Brooks xenya@********.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:04:05 -0700

Message no. 29 Note to GRIDSEC: This is my final post on this topic.

abortion_engine wrote:
>
> I don't think you know what you're talking about. I think you're not
> terribly well-educated regarding art. I don't mean this as an insult, merely
> an observation.

As an observation, it's insulting. It's also inaccurate.

> "The latter is how you get royalties." This is one of the thoughts that
> dominates the field of writing today, and not merely in science fiction. And
> art for money is not always good art. In fact, it seldom is. This is not to
> say that getting paid for it makes art poor; it is merely to say that if a
> book is written for popularity, it will not likely be objectively good in
> literary terms.

You mean it's wrong to want to make a living?

There's no such thing as *objectively good in literary terms*. Many
people agree that The Three Musketeers is a classic, yet it has plot
holes you could drive a truck through. Why is it popular? Because it's
entertaining to read *despite those plot holes*. It wasn't written to be
great literature, it was written to entertain the reader - and to pay
Dumas' bills.

Works written to "improve the human race" are more commonly called
"philosophy," (although some may be considered literature) and largely
fails at what it sets out to do.

> I think the "moral high ground" of art is its own reward.

If you're starving for your art, then odds are good that no one likes
it. If no one likes it now, then no one will like it in 500 years.

> > I sincerely doubt most literature that exists now ever set out to do
> > that. Dracula's a racy novel by Victorian standards and titillated more
> > than anything. The Three Musketeers was an adventure novel.
>
> I'm not an enormous fan of Dracula, nor do I feel it's a classic in any way,
> but given that it embodies its time, many others disagree. I will bow to
> their superior knowledge of the literary field.

It's widely considered a literary classic (for the bodice ripper that it
is).

> Most literature set out to be literary before, say, 1800, perhaps a bit
> earlier. When all works were written for intellectuals, this was the goal of
> literature; to add to Art. The idea of writing for entertainment was
> completely alien until more than a few people could read the works.

It's particularly ironic that you'd say I'm ignorant about art, and turn
around and say something like this. Le Morte d'Arthur is about sex,
murder, betrayal, heroic quests and a terrible war. Then there's the
Song of Roland. Or the Epic of Beowulf. Or the Eddas. The Iliad, the
Odyssey, Jason and the Argonauts. Lysistrata. Some of these are meant to
be spoken, some are meant to be performed, some are meant to be read -
but they're all entertainment. THey've all survived to the modern day
for whatever reason and people *still* find them entertaining.

> Then, as
> with so many things, public accessibility led to a "dumbing down" of the
> techniques, and since then, most of the words written have been written for
> the large middle ground. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing; I'm
> pleased each of you can buy Stephen King in your supermarket. But the field
> of literature is not enriched by most of the work being released at this
> point.

The field of literature has *never* been enriched by most of the work
released at any time, going back as far as you care to look. Even
Shakespeare had a number of professional rivals - anyone who's studied
the topic should know that.

> This is obvious, fellows. It's as simple as saying Kid Rock doesn't add to
> the field of music in any quality way.

Do you enjoy listening to Kid Rock? Do other people? If so, then,
well... Yes.

By the way, you realize that people said about Bach, Beethoven, Mozart
is what you just said about Kid Rock?

> > In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is no aesthetic
> > responsibility for novelists to write material that "improves the
race."
>
> I would go so far as to say that you are completely wrong and hope that you
> never touch a typewriter as long as you live with that mindset.

I write for a living. It sort of breaks any illusions about the "moral
superiority of starving for your art." Writing takes time. Writing for
an audience takes time. So, if the audience benefits from my work, then
I'd like to see some recompense for that.

> Art exists
> for three reasons; for its own sake, for our sake, and now, for our
> entertainment, now that that word has meaning. Used to be, there was no time
> for such; people didn't feel that entertainment, happiness, was a right. But
> we live now, spoiled by Industry. Made stupid and weak. Harrison Bergeron,
> but de facto, and not de jure.

This is why troubadours, courtly love and the like were a major part of
Chivalry. This is why Shakespeare wrote plays. This is why
*Aristophanes* wrote plays. in 410 BC. This is why the Epic of Gilgamesh
has survived for thousands of years - and elements have been distilled
through the ages into the modern bible. Entertainment has existed for
*millennia* and "art for entertainment" has been there along with it.

> I think you are incorrect. Education is a tool for stemming predjudice.

Ha! Education is a tool, but for what? Depends on the instructor.
Usually, it's a tool for giving people marketable skills so they can
make a living in the modern world (not that it helps).

> > If I (for example) write a novel, I'm not going to write for some
> > hypothetical society 500 years in the future, I'm writing for people who
> > will read it now. It's hard to collect royalties from 500 years in the
> > future.
>
> Because your bloody god-damned paycheck is what's important, right?

Yes. I have no intention to demonstrate any moral fortitude by giving
away my work for free and "starving" for it. You do know that Dickens
was paid by the word, yes?

> Gods,
> thats the most rediculous thing I've ever read.

Pure hyperbole - and a flame. That's "ridiculous," btw.

> Is this what we've come down
> to? Entertainment and royalties? Is there no concern for art, for literature
> for its own sake? If you cannot understand anything more than superficial
> considerations like money and "fun," then you will never understand my
> point.

Have you ever worked for a living? Have you ever had to worry about
paying rent? About buying food? About keeping the electricity on? About
keeping the water running? About having transportation? Have you? If
not, you know not whereof you speak. If so, then I can't imagine what
contortion of prejudice brought you to this conclusion.

> I leave with this. I will speak no more on this topic with you, for the
> moment. Perhaps by the time you get around to replying, I will be less
> irritated, more likely to not say the simple truths that would get me
> ejected from the list.

"Simple," perhaps. "Truths," I would not think. And don't bother
replying. This is my final post on the thread, which I'm killfiling now.

> Your idea of success is garbage, dust. You speak of momentary success, of
> money and happiness. As long as this is how you think, you will never
> understand art.

Actually, I speak of buying food, paying rent, clothes, etc. As noted
above. There's no such thing as "true art." That's a pretension used by
people such as yourself to flagellate others for earning money. It's
hard to be creative on an empty stomach.

By the way, "ad hominem" arguments only make you look bad. You might
consider another way to debate that doesn't antagonize whomever you're
trying to convince.

--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xenya@********.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
"If you loved me, you'd all kill yourselves today."
-- Spider Jerusalem | http://www.teleport.com/~xenya

From:	abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 15:51:24 -0400

Message no. 30 From: "Deirdre M. Brooks" <xenya@********.com>
> Note to GRIDSEC: This is my final post on this topic.

In which case, it's somewhat silly for me to reply, so I'll keep this brief.

> abortion_engine wrote:
> > I don't think you know what you're talking about. I think you're not
> > terribly well-educated regarding art. I don't mean this as an insult,
merely
> > an observation.
>
> As an observation, it's insulting. It's also inaccurate.

If it is inaccurate, I cannot imagine how it can be insulting. If I am
wrong, how does that negatively effect you?

> > "The latter is how you get royalties." This is one of the thoughts
that
> > dominates the field of writing today, and not merely in science fiction.
And
> > art for money is not always good art. In fact, it seldom is. This is not
to
> > say that getting paid for it makes art poor; it is merely to say that if
a
> > book is written for popularity, it will not likely be objectively good
in
> > literary terms.
>
> You mean it's wrong to want to make a living?

It is wrong to sacrifice art for money. If you want to make money as an
artist, you're in the wrong field.

> There's no such thing as *objectively good in literary terms*. Many
> people agree that The Three Musketeers is a classic, yet it has plot
> holes you could drive a truck through. Why is it popular? Because it's
> entertaining to read *despite those plot holes*. It wasn't written to be
> great literature, it was written to entertain the reader - and to pay
> Dumas' bills.

I disagree, and we shall move on.

> Works written to "improve the human race" are more commonly called
> "philosophy," (although some may be considered literature) and largely
> fails at what it sets out to do.

To reject the influence of philosophy on the human race is rediculous; of
all things, it is one that most embodies and most effects a culture. Not
directly, no. But if you're looking only at direct effect, you're seeking in
too narrow a scope.

> > I think the "moral high ground" of art is its own reward.
>
> If you're starving for your art, then odds are good that no one likes
> it. If no one likes it now, then no one will like it in 500 years.

Both of those statements are false, in different ways. For one, you equate
"quality" with "popularity," two terms that are, in general, largely
contradictory. And in the second, you attempt to say that unpopularity now
equates with unpopularity in the future, ignoring the posthumous "discovery"
that is so common in exceptional artwork. And you again mistake sales for
quality.

> > I'm not an enormous fan of Dracula, nor do I feel it's a classic in any
way,
> > but given that it embodies its time, many others disagree. I will bow to
> > their superior knowledge of the literary field.
>
> It's widely considered a literary classic (for the bodice ripper that it
> is).

I know. :( Sadly, this shows my lack of objectivity in regards to this
particular work. However, I am at least wise enough to realise when I am
unfairly judging something, so that I may bow to those who *can* maintain
objectivity. *sigh* I just wish everyone hated this book with the passion I
do. :)

> > Most literature set out to be literary before, say, 1800, perhaps a bit
> > earlier. When all works were written for intellectuals, this was the
goal of
> > literature; to add to Art. The idea of writing for entertainment was
> > completely alien until more than a few people could read the works.
>
> It's particularly ironic that you'd say I'm ignorant about art, and turn
> around and say something like this. Le Morte d'Arthur is about sex,
> murder, betrayal, heroic quests and a terrible war. Then there's the
> Song of Roland. Or the Epic of Beowulf. Or the Eddas. The Iliad, the
> Odyssey, Jason and the Argonauts. Lysistrata. Some of these are meant to
> be spoken, some are meant to be performed, some are meant to be read -
> but they're all entertainment. THey've all survived to the modern day
> for whatever reason and people *still* find them entertaining.

You speak of a very few works, comparatively, and you omit that nearly all
of those works were intended to be historical or "religious" in their times.
These are sagas not for entertainment but for history.

> The field of literature has *never* been enriched by most of the work
> released at any time, going back as far as you care to look. Even
> Shakespeare had a number of professional rivals - anyone who's studied
> the topic should know that.

Very good! That is exactly my point. Well, one of them, at any rate. Most
things are mediocre.

> > This is obvious, fellows. It's as simple as saying Kid Rock doesn't add
to
> > the field of music in any quality way.
>
> Do you enjoy listening to Kid Rock? Do other people? If so, then,
> well... Yes.

"Quality." Quality is not popularity. To judge it as such is to judge
mediocrity as quality. Most people are mediocre, and their judgement
reflects this.

And, for the record, I *hate* Kid Rock.

> By the way, you realize that people said about Bach, Beethoven, Mozart
> is what you just said about Kid Rock?

Please tell me you're not attempting to compare multi-layered music with
hundreds of instruments to a band of a few men and their simple three-chord
music. And while certain composers were indeed held as not masters in their
own time - aren't you contradicting your above point here? - their music,
objectively, is still much better than Kid Rock, on nearly any real scale
one can name, unless one likes simplicity and repetition. And then one is
silly. :)

> > > In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is no aesthetic
> > > responsibility for novelists to write material that "improves the
race."
> >
> > I would go so far as to say that you are completely wrong and hope that
you
> > never touch a typewriter as long as you live with that mindset.
>
> I write for a living. It sort of breaks any illusions about the "moral
> superiority of starving for your art." Writing takes time. Writing for
> an audience takes time. So, if the audience benefits from my work, then
> I'd like to see some recompense for that.

Then my wishes go unanswered. I would enjoy reading some of your material,
and seeing to what degree you improve the race.

By the way, I know a number of artists who do what they do for a living who
feel that you are quite, quite wrong. But they are willing to sacrifice for
what they do, and you, evidently, are not. You are probably also more
concerned about your audience than they are; these are selfish people, who
live for themselves and for art. I'm not certain which is worse, in this
case.

You want recompense; they feel that the act of creating is its own
recompense. They are unable to *not* create; they figure getting this stuff
out of their minds is reward enough. If someone pays for it, fine. But the
art is what matters.

> > Art exists
> > for three reasons; for its own sake, for our sake, and now, for our
> > entertainment, now that that word has meaning. Used to be, there was no
time
> > for such; people didn't feel that entertainment, happiness, was a right.
But
> > we live now, spoiled by Industry. Made stupid and weak. Harrison
Bergeron,
> > but de facto, and not de jure.
>
> This is why troubadours, courtly love and the like were a major part of
> Chivalry. This is why Shakespeare wrote plays. This is why
> *Aristophanes* wrote plays. in 410 BC. This is why the Epic of Gilgamesh
> has survived for thousands of years - and elements have been distilled
> through the ages into the modern bible. Entertainment has existed for
> *millennia* and "art for entertainment" has been there along with it.

You mistake history for entertainment, yet again. And Shakespeare, I might
add, is no more exempt from my judgement than anyone else.

> > I think you are incorrect. Education is a tool for stemming predjudice.
>
> Ha! Education is a tool, but for what? Depends on the instructor.
> Usually, it's a tool for giving people marketable skills so they can
> make a living in the modern world (not that it helps).

I think you misjudge education, or that your educators misjudged in your
education. This, perhaps, explains your comments in the beginning. Education
is not simply a tool for money.

What is your obsession with money, anyway?

> > > If I (for example) write a novel, I'm not going to write for some
> > > hypothetical society 500 years in the future, I'm writing for people
who
> > > will read it now. It's hard to collect royalties from 500 years in the
> > > future.
> >
> > Because your bloody god-damned paycheck is what's important, right?
>
> Yes. I have no intention to demonstrate any moral fortitude by giving
> away my work for free and "starving" for it. You do know that Dickens
> was paid by the word, yes?

The term, I think, is "mercenary." Willing to do whatever for money. I,
personally, find little honor in such. You may feel differently.

> > Gods,
> > thats the most rediculous thing I've ever read.
>
> Pure hyperbole - and a flame. That's "ridiculous," btw.

Oh, goodness, I made a spelling error. Your arguments have grown weak when
you need to point to a single spelling error to criticise me.

Hyperbole, yes. Flame, no. I do not insult you; I say your words are - let
me get this right this time - ridiculous.

> > Is this what we've come down
> > to? Entertainment and royalties? Is there no concern for art, for
literature
> > for its own sake? If you cannot understand anything more than
superficial
> > considerations like money and "fun," then you will never understand my
> > point.
>
> Have you ever worked for a living? Have you ever had to worry about
> paying rent? About buying food? About keeping the electricity on? About
> keeping the water running? About having transportation? Have you? If
> not, you know not whereof you speak. If so, then I can't imagine what
> contortion of prejudice brought you to this conclusion.

I do indeed work for a living. And, when I was younger, I struggled for a
living, and have even been homeless for a time. Now, no, I do not worry
about mortgage payments or utilities or transport. These things have been
taken care of, because I hate worrying about them. Yet another reason I
could not be an artist; because I am not enough of an idealist. So I know
whereof I speak, and yet I cannot imagine why you would worry about these
things in comparison to art. Those I know do not; they could care less about
food, or housing, in comparison to their art. But I, personally, am no
artist, as I say, and therefore I speak only in the second-hand.

> > I leave with this. I will speak no more on this topic with you, for the
> > moment. Perhaps by the time you get around to replying, I will be less
> > irritated, more likely to not say the simple truths that would get me
> > ejected from the list.
>
> "Simple," perhaps. "Truths," I would not think. And don't bother
> replying. This is my final post on the thread, which I'm killfiling now.

"I would not think?" It think you've attempted to contort the language a bit
much, there, and overextended yourself. [And no, once you so decend, I have
no difficulty with being petty. :) ]

I am sorry you are so...whatever it is that you are, that you will not
reply. If it is anger, my apologies; I seem to cause it. If it is
irritation, likewise.

> > Your idea of success is garbage, dust. You speak of momentary success,
of
> > money and happiness. As long as this is how you think, you will never
> > understand art.
>
> Actually, I speak of buying food, paying rent, clothes, etc. As noted
> above. There's no such thing as "true art." That's a pretension used by
> people such as yourself to flagellate others for earning money. It's
> hard to be creative on an empty stomach.

Actually, it's a pretension used by the artists I know to justify their own
obsession. But they are brilliant in their fields, and I will not gainsay
them their due. Sometimes, they say, the empty stomach is more inspiration
than the full one.

> By the way, "ad hominem" arguments only make you look bad. You might
> consider another way to debate that doesn't antagonize whomever you're
> trying to convince.

I might, but I won't. Debate over issues is fine, and when I see a flaw in
an issue, I attack it. But when I see a flaw in a person, I am not so
overweeningly polite as to not point out that flaw. I do not do so to
anger - which is the true ad hominem - but to show flaw where I see it. And
I do not mind when others do so in return. I find the honesty refreshing.
This does not, you would be correct to note, make me popular. But it does
make me honest.

Again, my intent is not to inflame, but to point out error where I see it.
And if there is none, how could I offend? My incorrectness does not reflect
on you, but on me. And if I am correct, would you not want to know? I would.

From:	Yiannakos Yiannako@*******.edu
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:08:17 -0400

Message no. 31 ----- Original Message -----
From: "abortion_engine" <abortion_engine@*******.com>

> Oh, goodness, I made a spelling error. Your arguments have grown weak when
> you need to point to a single spelling error to criticise me.

Actually, (because my arguments would be weak from the beginning), you've
made this same mistake four times today, including the post this came from.

---D('snhm)
*who WASN'T going to get involved, I swear!*

From:	abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:27:33 -0400

Message no. 32 From: "Yiannakos" <Yiannako@*******.edu>
> From: "abortion_engine" <abortion_engine@*******.com>
> > Oh, goodness, I made a spelling error. Your arguments have grown weak
when
> > you need to point to a single spelling error to criticise me.
>
> Actually, (because my arguments would be weak from the beginning), you've
> made this same mistake four times today, including the post this came
from.

What! That's rediculous. I couldn't possibly misspell rediculous four times
in the same day. That would be asburd. :)

That's one of the words I never spell correctly, and, unfortunately, one I
use a great deal. Also, I cannot seem to manage "occasionally," which I
spell about five different ways in any given day. *sigh* Still, if these few
spelling errors - there are several more - are the greatest weaknesses of my
writing, which I'm generally fairly proud of, I don't feel too bad. I mean,
let's face it; by and large, my writing's pretty decent. A couple of
spelling errors don't make me feel too bad. A little rediculous, though. ;)

From:	BrotherJustice50@*.com BrotherJustice50@*.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:43:02 EDT

Message no. 33 << Please tell me you're not attempting to compare multi-layered music with
hundreds of instruments to a band of a few men and their simple three-chord
music. And while certain composers were indeed held as not masters in their
own time - aren't you contradicting your above point here? - their music,
objectively, is still much better than Kid Rock, on nearly any real scale
one can name, unless one likes simplicity and repetition. And then one is
silly. :) >>

A_E, I like simplicity and repetition. I like a good deal of rap, which generally is
simplistic repitition of words to a strong backbeat. Guess what? I'm not silly. Or wrong.
And yes, I can easily compare Kid Rock with Beethoven. And yes, I can say that I think his
music has more quality to it than Beethoven. There are a good deal of Kid Rock songs I
like, and many that I think suck. Just like Beethoven's and NIN songs and many others out
there. My musical tastes are extremely diverse.

But your belief that a certain artist produces "quality" music means nothing to
me. Your belief of what is "quality" music is not the be all and end all
defintion. And never will be. Quality is a subjective term. To a 15 year old teeny-bopper,
the Backstreet Boys produce "quality" music. It shows the emotion and feelings
that they may miss in their own life. That unattainable romantic perfection. To a
metalhead, Metallica speaks about life and the darkness that exists in everyone. To an
urban youth, Kid Rock may speak of all the struggles of day to day life in the urban
culture. To a concert maestro, Beethoven may speak of the pure beauty of life and
overcoming adversity. To each person, it means something else. "Quality" is in
the ear of the beholder. These group/artists are impossible to compare. Trying to cross
genre lines, historical lines, and cultural lines, gives such a flawed comparison. Just
remember that your opinions are not the final word and law. As logical and we!
ll thought out as they may be, you are just as right about Kid Rock (to yourself and
others) as I am right about Kid Rock (to myself and others).

From:	abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 17:04:23 -0400

Message no. 34 From: <BrotherJustice50@***.com>
> A_E, I like simplicity and repetition. I like a good deal of rap, which
generally is simplistic repitition of words to a strong backbeat. Guess
what? I'm not silly. Or wrong. And yes, I can easily compare Kid Rock with
Beethoven. And yes, I can say that I think his music has more quality to it
than Beethoven. There are a good deal of Kid Rock songs I like, and many
that I think suck. Just like Beethoven's and NIN songs and many others out
there. My musical tastes are extremely diverse.

Taste has nothing to do with it. Liking has nothing to do with it.

I like some repetitious music. Do I think it is "good," objectively? No.
Anyone can do it. By the same token, I dislike Satriani, but acknowledge his
talent at what he does.

> But your belief that a certain artist produces "quality" music means
nothing to me. Your belief of what is "quality" music is not the be all and
end all defintion. And never will be. Quality is a subjective term. To a 15
year old teeny-bopper, the Backstreet Boys produce "quality" music.

When your judgement is made by 15-year-olds, you're not going to find
objective judgements of artistic quality. They are a target market, nothing
more.

Nevermind. Think what you will. You are a target market.

From:	Even even@***********.fr
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:02:36 +0200

Message no. 35 abortion_engine wrote:

> What my original statement said was that it was, in terms of literature,
> currently a largely barren genre. Which is to say, in 500 years, very few
> will be looking to these books as "classics." There is little that science
> fiction written today does to add to the artistic and cultural level of our
> race.

Very few will be looking to the majority of books from *any* genre as 'classics'. Classics
are the exception, not the rule - that why they bevome classics, isn't it?

But certain science-fiction classics exists even today. What about George Orwell's
"1984", for example, or several of Jules Verne's novels?

> The majority rule should never come into play in artistic matters; the
> majority of people are uneducated and unintelligent. You may not like these
> truths, but truths they are. The "majority rule" comes into play only with
> sales figures, and gives us only mediocrity, by definition; the average.
> "Majority rules" gives us Danielle Steel and Ricky Martin.

Who shall decide what is art and what isn't, then? And don't say "the educated".
When have they ever agreed on anything? And how many masterpieces have not been condemned
by the "established" intelligentsia?

(The Eiffel Tower, modernist poetry, lots of brilliant women and/or controversial authors
from the last centuries, the music of Dimitrij Shostakovich and many others were all
dismissed as being 'not art' by contemporary critics because it challenged the dominant
ideas at the time.)
--
(>) Alleycat [even.tomte@*********.com]

From:	BrotherJustice50@*.com BrotherJustice50@*.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:12:01 EDT

Message no. 36 In a message dated 4/12/2000 5:02:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
abortion_engine@*******.com writes:

> Nevermind. Think what you will. You are a target market.
>

As are you and everyone else living in this world. Don't throw things around
like an insult when they hold no heat behind them. And don't dismiss me. You
can still disagree and be respectful. Yes, I am young. Yes, you are old. We
are both target markets. What is your point?

From:	abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:47:20 -0400

Message no. 37 From: "Even" <even@***********.fr>
> abortion_engine wrote:
> > What my original statement said was that it was, in terms of literature,
> > currently a largely barren genre. Which is to say, in 500 years, very
few
> > will be looking to these books as "classics." There is little that
science
> > fiction written today does to add to the artistic and cultural level of
our
> > race.
>
> Very few will be looking to the majority of books from *any* genre as
> 'classics'. Classics are the exception, not the rule - that why they
bevome
> classics, isn't it?

Didn't I agree with this once or twice before? Yes, you're right; that's
exactly what I was saying.

> But certain science-fiction classics exists even today. What about George
> Orwell's "1984", for example, or several of Jules Verne's novels?

Yes, those are classics. They are the exceptions of which I was speaking
when I said "very few."

Didn't GridSec ask us to shut up about this?

From:	abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:50:24 -0400

Message no. 38 From: <BrotherJustice50@***.com>
> abortion_engine@*******.com writes:
> > Nevermind. Think what you will. You are a target market.
>
> As are you and everyone else living in this world. Don't throw things
around
> like an insult when they hold no heat behind them. And don't dismiss me.
You
> can still disagree and be respectful. Yes, I am young. Yes, you are old.
We
> are both target markets. What is your point?

That I am a very small target market. And that you are not. It isn't an
insult, it's an observation. It has nothing to do with your age or mine.

From:	Grey metis76@*****.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 15:57:47 -0700 (PDT)

Message no. 39 --- abortion_engine <abortion_engine@*******.com>
wrote:

<snip>

> Didn't GridSec ask us to shut up about this?

Yes. That is exactly what was said.

Grey

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com

From:	abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 19:12:38 -0400

Message no. 40 From: "Grey" <metis76@*****.com>
> --- abortion_engine <abortion_engine@*******.com>
> > Didn't GridSec ask us to shut up about this?
>
> Yes. That is exactly what was said.

Thank you, Grey. I *did* realise the irony of my saying that *after* I'd
made my reply. But your subtle rebuke is appreciated.

From:	vocenoctum@**.com vocenoctum@**.com
Subject:	[OT]-REVIEW- Cannon Companion
Date:	Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:31:21 -0400

Message no. 41 On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 20:04:57 -0700 "Deirdre M. Brooks"
<xenya@********.com> writes:
>
>
> Jonathan Hurley wrote:
> >
> > Oh bollocks. I give up. Art is where you find it, and what you
> make of it.
> > It can be popular. Go play White Wolf if that's your attitude.
>
> Uhgm, no. WW's not interested in artistic pretension either. I
> suggest
> World of Synnibar (An Evolution in Gaming!)
>
> White Wolf? It's not 1993 anymore.

Why not? I liked 1993, it was fun.
Can I go back there, but keep my current computer?

Vocenoctum
<http://members.xoom.com/vocenoctum>;

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer