Another Synthol moron

http://www.brad-hollibaugh.com/index.php

Do these assholes think people don't know what they are doing? This is the
same kind of dolt who can't figure out why he can't place top 15 in the NPC
too.

--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

On Sep 21, 7:28 pm, "Hard Bop Drums" <nos...@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:
> http://www.brad-hollibaugh.com/index.php
>
> Do these assholes think <snip>

Well, do you?

http://www.brad-hollibaugh.com/personal.html

Ol' Brad may have a synthol jones, but he seems like far less an
asshole than you, 'bert.

--
Curt

On Sep 21, 9:48 pm, Curt <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Well, do you?
>
> http://www.brad-hollibaugh.com/personal.html
>
> Ol' Brad may have a synthol jones, but he seems like far less an
> asshole than you, 'bert.
>
> --
> Curt



I wonder if synthol injections will ever catch on...I can't imagine
it, but then again, I'm still mildly surprised that 'roid-addled
athletes are so celebrated...synthol seems to be the logical
progression of the "whatever's clever" mindset....

Bodybuilding is real funny, that's for sure...I was just starting to
get used to the idea of a woman with fake breasts -- and now I have to
imagine guys who inject themselves full of stuff, too!

On Sep 24, 11:11 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[...]

> I wonder if synthol injections will ever catch on...I can't imagine
> it, but then again, I'm still mildly surprised that 'roid-addled
> athletes are so celebrated...synthol seems to be the logical
> progression of the "whatever's clever" mindset....
>
> Bodybuilding is real funny, that's for sure...I was just starting to
> get used to the idea of a woman with fake breasts -- and now I have to
> imagine guys who inject themselves full of stuff, too!

There are a lot of ways for people to alter themselves to fit their
personal aesthetics. Welcome to planet Earth, PaW.

--
Curt

On Sep 24, 11:53 pm, Curt <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> There are a lot of ways for people to alter themselves to fit their
> personal aesthetics. Welcome to planet Earth, PaW.
>
> --
> Curt



Yeah, beam me up, Scotty; no sign of intelligent life here! On second
thought, I think it's just MFW-world....

There was this sci-fic novel, "Babel 17," by some Hugo Award winner --
the book's from like the '60s or '70s -- and in that future, people,
instead of getting a tattoo of a rose or a wolf's head on their
shoulder or arm, would actually have a rose growing out of their arm
or a living wolf's head on their shoulder!

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:

> On Sep 24, 11:53 pm, Curt <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There are a lot of ways for people to alter themselves to fit their
>> personal aesthetics. Welcome to planet Earth, PaW.
>
> There was this sci-fic novel, "Babel 17," by some Hugo Award winner --

Delany?

[googles]

Delany. Damn, i'm good.

I got halfway through it. Fucking tedious book if you ask me.

tom

--
Wikipedia topics: lists of trains, Mortal Kombat characters, one-time
villains from Mario games, road intersections, boring suburban schools,
garage bands, cats, webcomics, Digimon, Bionicle characters, webforums,
characters from English soap operas, and Mortal Kombat characters that
don't exist -- Uncyclopedia

Is that who it is? Wow...yeah, you're right, tedious book. But then
again, I find most sci-fic and fantasy tedious. As a matter of fact,
there hasn't been one sci-fic or fantasy book I've ever really
enjoyed. Not that I've read a lot -- but that's why not. Arthur C.
Clarke was boring, Issac Asimov was boring, J.R.R. Tolkien is boring
too. And C.S. Lewis. Just too boring. They make much better movies
-- I'm quite shocked these authors are regarded as real writers. They
might have good stories, but they tell them in very common, boring
ways.

I had to read "Babel 17" for class back in high school. Wow, to think
that Shakespeare could prove more interesting!



On Sep 25, 12:15 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>
> Delany?
>
> [googles]
>
> Delany. Damn, i'm good.
>
> I got halfway through it. Fucking tedious book if you ask me.
>
> tom
>
> --
> Wikipedia topics: lists of trains, Mortal Kombat characters, one-time
> villains from Mario games, road intersections, boring suburban schools,
> garage bands, cats, webcomics, Digimon, Bionicle characters, webforums,
> characters from English soap operas, and Mortal Kombat characters that
> don't exist -- Uncyclopedia

On Sep 26, 11:10 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Is that who it is? Wow...yeah, you're right, tedious book. But then
> again, I find most sci-fic and fantasy tedious. As a matter of fact,
> there hasn't been one sci-fic or fantasy book I've ever really
> enjoyed. Not that I've read a lot -- but that's why not. Arthur C.
> Clarke was boring, Issac Asimov was boring, J.R.R. Tolkien is boring
> too. And C.S. Lewis. Just too boring. They make much better movies
> -- I'm quite shocked these authors are regarded as real writers. They
> might have good stories, but they tell them in very common, boring
> ways.
>
> I had to read "Babel 17" for class back in high school. Wow, to think
> that Shakespeare could prove more interesting!
>
> On Sep 25, 12:15 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Delany?
>
> > [googles]
>
> > Delany. Damn, i'm good.
>
> > I got halfway through it. Fucking tedious book if you ask me.
>
> > tom
>
> > --
> > Wikipedia topics: lists of trains, Mortal Kombat characters, one-time
> > villains from Mario games, road intersections, boring suburban schools,
> > garage bands, cats, webcomics, Digimon, Bionicle characters, webforums,
> > characters from English soap operas, and Mortal Kombat characters that
> > don't exist -- Uncyclopedia- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The first Dune book wasn't too bad, in fact very good. And to the
extent that you can read Slaughterhouse 5 as SciFi, it,too, ain't too
shabby.

Pjk

Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1190819447.870554.54420@r29g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com:

> Is that who it is? Wow...yeah, you're right, tedious book. But then
> again, I find most sci-fic and fantasy tedious. As a matter of fact,
> there hasn't been one sci-fic or fantasy book I've ever really
> enjoyed. Not that I've read a lot -- but that's why not. Arthur C.
> Clarke was boring, Issac Asimov was boring, J.R.R. Tolkien is boring
> too. And C.S. Lewis. Just too boring.

So are you. Snore.

On Sep 26, 12:29 pm, Pjk <peter_kryni...@MSN.COM> wrote:
>
>
> The first Dune book wasn't too bad, in fact very good. And to the
> extent that you can read Slaughterhouse 5 as SciFi, it,too, ain't too
> shabby.
>
> Pjk



I tried reading that first Dune book, too, back then -- can't remember
anything, other than that I gave up somewhere in the first chapter.

To be fair, perhaps I just don't have the kind of imagination
necessary for reading sci-fic/fantasy. I find the descriptive
passages about technology, magic, or fantastic environments extremely
boring, and these seem to take up a lot of space in such genres,
naturally enough.

If it isn't my imagination at fault, then I can only fault, as I do,
the language, the artistic merits, of such works. They may have a
good story, but these writers can't really seem to tell them in an
interesting way. It's like having a good joke but falling flat on the
delivery. I dunno.

On Sep 26, 4:16 pm, Gene Ward Smith <ge...@chewbacca.org> wrote:
>
>
> So are you. Snore.



Are you a fan of theirs?

Judging by your uninspired put-down, you must be. I've always
wondered who they were writing for, exactly.

Their use of language is really mundane. Unfortunately, most people
can't discern between a good story and good storytelling.

Everyone has good stories.

Only good writers write good stories.

But I suppose with the intellectual level of most people, it's enough
that sentences make sense and paragraphs run along logically, never
mind being artistic or "linguistically" interesting....

Unfortunately, we're caught between the two extremes: Harry Potter and
Stephen King, and artsy-fartsy stuff like what "A Reader's Manifesto"
complained against.

Sigh...it's just like those famous lines: The best lack all
conviction, while the worst/are full of passionate intensity.

Dnia Wed, 26 Sep 2007 o 17:10 GMT Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
>
> Is that who it is? Wow...yeah, you're right, tedious book. But then
> again, I find most sci-fic and fantasy tedious. As a matter of fact,
> there hasn't been one sci-fic or fantasy book I've ever really
> enjoyed. Not that I've read a lot -- but that's why not. Arthur C.
> Clarke was boring, Issac Asimov was boring, J.R.R. Tolkien is boring
> too. And C.S. Lewis. Just too boring.

Philip K. Dick was good. I'm also a big fan of Lem (obvious, since I'm
Polish) and Kurt Vonnegut. Douglas Adams is brilliant, too.

I'm sure I forgot someone.

> They make much better movies
> -- I'm quite shocked these authors are regarded as real writers.

Well, more often than not, they aren't.

> They might have good stories, but they tell them in very common, boring
> ways.

You missed on the good ones, I think (bearing in mind, that I consider
Tolkien at least "not boring").

[...]
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Sep 26, 4:25 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]

> Are you a fan of theirs?
>
> Judging by your uninspired put-down, you must be. I've always
> wondered who they were writing for, exactly.
>
> Their use of language is really mundane. Unfortunately, most people
> can't discern between a good story and good storytelling.
>
> Everyone has good stories.
>
> Only good writers write good stories.
[...]

I just like to read. It's entertaining, informative, whatever.
Criticism and analysis is for the birds. As someone who's never been
published, how would I dare to slam on King, Rice, Grisham or some
frou-frou author?

--
Curt

On Sep 26, 5:26 pm, Curt <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I just like to read. It's entertaining, informative, whatever.
> Criticism and analysis is for the birds.

Oh God, that's like someone saying that judging muscles, comparing
striations, etc., is for the birds -- "they're all big, hey, I jutht
like to oogle men in thongth, ooohh...."

> As someone who's never been
> published, how would I dare to slam on King, Rice, Grisham or some
> frou-frou author?

Well, sure, if you're only standard is getting published, then of
course you have no grounds on which to slam published authors.

But that's like saying hey, you were never President, how could you
possibly slam any President....

> --
> Curt

On Sep 26, 5:17 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Philip K. Dick was good. I'm also a big fan of Lem (obvious, since I'm
> Polish) and Kurt Vonnegut. Douglas Adams is brilliant, too.

Adams is hilarious -- but that's comedy, and I'm not sure whether
comedy writing (as opposed to performance) requires artistic skills
related to language (aside from puns and such).

Kurt Vonnegut, I don't know. I actually haven't read him, though I
will sooner or later. I also have not read Philip Dick.

> I'm sure I forgot someone.

Just to reiterate: I'm not talking about the great ideas of sci-fic
and fantasy authors; I'm talking about the "linguistic mechanism" by
which they communicate their visions. Now it may be that sci-fic and
fantasy require more imagination power, as it were, than I have, but
their descriptive passages in particular have always just bored me,
and such passages often constitute a substantial bulk of such works,
naturally enough.

> Well, more often than not, they aren't.

Ah, quite right, that's true -- there's still a certain condescension
towards such genres, which it may appear I'm affecting here but which
I'm really not. I do find the genre "legitimate" literature; I only
marvel at the artistic merit and craftsmanship of some of their most
heralded examples. I read "Rendezvous with Rama" and "3001" and was
just bored. "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy was more
interesting but that's not saying much.

Again, the vision, the ideas, the story themselves, were great. But
the actual read, the words, were just boring, usually.

> You missed on the good ones, I think (bearing in mind, that I consider
> Tolkien at least "not boring").

I particularly remember that Tom Bombadil chapter as just plain
boring. I think there's just too much exposition, as they say in
creative writing classes, too much "tell" and not enough "show." But
Tolkien was full of such sins. Frankly, it got to be about as boring
as the Bible or Shakespeare. Again, the ideas, the vision, the story,
was great, but the mechanics, the language by which the story and its
ideas were conveyed were just so ho-hum. Imagine having the greatest
steak in the world served on a paper plate with plastic cutlery.

> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Thu, 27 Sep 2007 o 18:41 GMT Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
> On Sep 26, 5:17 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Philip K. Dick was good. I'm also a big fan of Lem (obvious, since I'm
>> Polish) and Kurt Vonnegut. Douglas Adams is brilliant, too.
>
> Adams is hilarious -- but that's comedy, and I'm not sure whether
> comedy writing (as opposed to performance) requires artistic skills
> related to language (aside from puns and such).

I'm rather convinced that comedy requires artistic skills. French
wouldn't be so proud of their Moliere otherwise. ;-)

> Kurt Vonnegut, I don't know. I actually haven't read him, though I
> will sooner or later. I also have not read Philip Dick.

I'm afraid, Kurt had some twisted sense of dark humor, so consider
yourself warned. ;-)

>> I'm sure I forgot someone.
>
> Just to reiterate: I'm not talking about the great ideas of sci-fic
> and fantasy authors; I'm talking about the "linguistic mechanism" by
> which they communicate their visions.

You read bad writers. Anyway, could you imagine writing a love poem,
lyrical, pastoral and expressed in the language of pure mathematics?
Tensor algebra mainly, with a little topology and higher calculus, if
need be?

Lem could, but it's so twisted that I've no idea about the quality of
translation. I can assure you, that it was very funny in original, so
beware ye who enter there.

http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jbuhler/cyberiad.html
[I just checked, and translation is rather all right than splendid.]

> Now it may be that sci-fic and
> fantasy require more imagination power, as it were, than I have, but
> their descriptive passages in particular have always just bored me,
> and such passages often constitute a substantial bulk of such works,
> naturally enough.

It depends who you are talking about. Some "classic" sci-fi writers are
simply not all that good, so I could possibly agree. If you never tried
better ones, it will be hard to tell if you just have no stomach for
this, or you have high standards.

>> Well, more often than not, they aren't.
>
> Ah, quite right, that's true -- there's still a certain condescension
> towards such genres, which it may appear I'm affecting here but which
> I'm really not. I do find the genre "legitimate" literature; I only
> marvel at the artistic merit and craftsmanship of some of their most
> heralded examples. I read "Rendezvous with Rama" and "3001" and was
> just bored. "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy was more
> interesting but that's not saying much.
>
> Again, the vision, the ideas, the story themselves, were great. But
> the actual read, the words, were just boring, usually.

Tolkien was a good writer, but so was Joseph Conrad, and I simply can't
read this guy at all. Nothing wrong in not liking somebody's writing.

>> You missed on the good ones, I think (bearing in mind, that I consider
>> Tolkien at least "not boring").
>
> I particularly remember that Tom Bombadil chapter as just plain
> boring. I think there's just too much exposition, as they say in
> creative writing classes, too much "tell" and not enough "show."

Tolkien did it his way, and he captured imagination of millions, so go
and tell your creative writing teacher to shut up. ;-)

> But Tolkien was full of such sins.

If I start finding too many faults in some book in most cases it simply
means that I don't like this kind of writing, and that's it. I checked
it by reading and rereading some books I liked. After third time, when
I was simply bored with them, I found more or less the same number of
faults as I do reading first time books I don't like.

It really works like that. If author can capture you tight enough with
his strong points you'll pay no attention to his faults. IOW, I doubt
that you'd like Tolkien even if he was less generous with words and more
compact.

> Frankly, it got to be about as boring
> as the Bible or Shakespeare. Again, the ideas, the vision, the story,
> was great, but the mechanics, the language by which the story and its
> ideas were conveyed were just so ho-hum. Imagine having the greatest
> steak in the world served on a paper plate with plastic cutlery.

I tried to reread Tolkien recently and it came to me, that the story
wasn't all that good either. ;-)

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Sep 27, 7:19 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'm rather convinced that comedy requires artistic skills. French
> wouldn't be so proud of their Moliere otherwise. ;-)

Wasn't Moliere the French Shakespeare? In which case, it was his
artistic skills, not his comedy, which anchors his work in the
literary canon.

Besides, I think "comedy" then was different than what Adams writes
with his "Hitchhiker" series. I do say, though, that I applaud the
"poetic vision" of his series, its story (and you understand that I
don't mean "plot" by the word "story")...I would agree to those books
being literature of the first order, I think....

> I'm afraid, Kurt had some twisted sense of dark humor, so consider
> yourself warned. ;-)

Hmm...so they say about that "Fight Club" author...oh God, "twisted
sense of dark humor" is so over-played....

> You read bad writers. Anyway, could you imagine writing a love poem,
> lyrical, pastoral and expressed in the language of pure mathematics?
> Tensor algebra mainly, with a little topology and higher calculus, if
> need be?
>
> Lem could, but it's so twisted that I've no idea about the quality of
> translation. I can assure you, that it was very funny in original, so
> beware ye who enter there.
>
> http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jbuhler/cyberiad.html
> [I just checked, and translation is rather all right than splendid.]

Dude, thanks for the ref!

My ambition is to write a mathematical poem -- dedicated to Turing, of
all people (great mathematician who just didn't get poetry at all,
despite being a manic depressive like many famous poets) -- but only
with *numbers!* Unfortunately, I don't really know mathematics...so
my poem using numbers (and no words at all) has been stalled at the
second stanza....

> Tolkien was a good writer, but so was Joseph Conrad, and I simply can't
> read this guy at all. Nothing wrong in not liking somebody's writing.

I actually haven't read Joseph Conrad, but maybe you ought to try him
in Polish? =) Just kidding -- I know that he only wrote in English,
though Polish-born or something.

Tolkien was a "good" writer in the same sense that most creative
writing teachers are also "good" writers -- Freshmen Composition 101
stuff. But in the sense of being creative, linguistically speaking,
he was not good. (In terms of "story" or "vision," his creativity was
great.)

It's like somebody who has muscles and striations and mass and
symmetry but just doesn't know how to pose, just doesn't have a good
posing routine to show it all off. That's Tolkien -- and Clarke, etc.
-- big muscles but no real "art."

> Tolkien did it his way, and he captured imagination of millions, so go
> and tell your creative writing teacher to shut up. ;-)

Hey, tramp-stamp tattoos over the butt-crack has captured the
imagination of millions, too...same goes for nose-rings, George W.
Bush, monotheism, and venereal disease.

> If I start finding too many faults in some book in most cases it simply
> means that I don't like this kind of writing, and that's it. I checked
> it by reading and rereading some books I liked. After third time, when
> I was simply bored with them, I found more or less the same number of
> faults as I do reading first time books I don't like.

Well, when I say "bored" by Tolkien, Clarke, et al., I mean it like
how a great girl, smart, intelligent, creative, funny, great
smile...has no tits and no ass.

> It really works like that. If author can capture you tight enough with
> his strong points you'll pay no attention to his faults.

Hmmm, reminds me of Hitler's observation that no one asks the victor
whether he was right or not.

>IOW, I doubt
> that you'd like Tolkien even if he was less generous with words and more
> compact.

I don't know why you doubt it. I've expressed my admiration for the
vision of these authors whose storytelling mechanics are only just
serviceable.

> I tried to reread Tolkien recently and it came to me, that the story
> wasn't all that good either. ;-)

What? Unless you're just pulling my chain here, I'd have to disagree
there. What a unique vision it was -- not that the guy was conscious
of it, mind you: an epic tale of heroism where the point of the quest
was not to achieve power and glory but *to give it up.* Surely a
parable for our modern age of technological wonders and intellectual
and spiritual poverty.

Unfortunately, as I said, the vision at its core is surrounded by a
lot of mundane storytelling. It's like chauffeuring a high-born elven
princess in...a farmer's wheel-barrow.

> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Sep 27, 9:27 am, mstem...@siemens-emis.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>
> That's fine. SF isn't for everybody. It's not a moral failing on your
> part. However, since you're not interested in SF, maybe you should stop
> posting to an SF newsgroup.

I didn't say I wasn't interested in SF. I merely found the few
examples I read to be pretty ordinary in terms of storytelling
mechanics: serviceable, but not artistic.

That is different, however, from the "vision" or "story" behind the
storytelling which I find rather mundane.

Please learn to read properly. Or maybe that's why SF is so lacking
in linguistic quality? The same level of literary merit as newspaper
articles...serviceable. I guess that's to be expected considering the
majority of the audience, evidently!

> --
> Michael F. Stemper
> #include <Standard_Disclaimer>
> The name of the story is "A Sound of Thunder".
> It was written by Ray Bradbury. You're welcome.

Dnia Fri, 28 Sep 2007 o 15:34 GMT Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
> On Sep 27, 7:19 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm rather convinced that comedy requires artistic skills. French
>> wouldn't be so proud of their Moliere otherwise. ;-)
>
> Wasn't Moliere the French Shakespeare? In which case, it was his
> artistic skills, not his comedy, which anchors his work in the
> literary canon.

Why can't you simply accept, that making people laugh is an art form?
Shakespeare wrote comedies too.

[...]
>> I'm afraid, Kurt had some twisted sense of dark humor, so consider
>> yourself warned. ;-)
>
> Hmm...so they say about that "Fight Club" author...oh God, "twisted
> sense of dark humor" is so over-played....

I had no idea. I don't read American critics.

>> http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jbuhler/cyberiad.html
>> [I just checked, and translation is rather all right than splendid.]
>
> Dude, thanks for the ref!
>
> My ambition is to write a mathematical poem -- dedicated to Turing, of
> all people (great mathematician who just didn't get poetry at all,
> despite being a manic depressive like many famous poets)

It happens. I'm maniacally depressive myself and I don't get poetry
too. ;-)

> -- but only
> with *numbers!* Unfortunately, I don't really know mathematics...so
> my poem using numbers (and no words at all) has been stalled at the
> second stanza....

Mathematicians call that kind of poem an equation or a proof.

>> Tolkien was a good writer, but so was Joseph Conrad, and I simply can't
>> read this guy at all. Nothing wrong in not liking somebody's writing.
>
> I actually haven't read Joseph Conrad, but maybe you ought to try him
> in Polish? =) Just kidding -- I know that he only wrote in English,
> though Polish-born or something.
>
> Tolkien was a "good" writer in the same sense that most creative
> writing teachers are also "good" writers -- Freshmen Composition 101
> stuff. But in the sense of being creative, linguistically speaking,
> he was not good.

Do you know, that he invented languages on his spare time?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien#Language_builder

Language and grammar for Tolkien was a matter of aesthetics and euphony,
and Quenya in particular was designed from "phonaesthetic" considerations;

Wouldn't you be inclined to reconsider your stance on Tolkien's lack of
linguistic creativity?

[...]
>> If I start finding too many faults in some book in most cases it simply
>> means that I don't like this kind of writing, and that's it. I checked
>> it by reading and rereading some books I liked. After third time, when
>> I was simply bored with them, I found more or less the same number of
>> faults as I do reading first time books I don't like.
>
> Well, when I say "bored" by Tolkien, Clarke, et al., I mean it like
> how a great girl, smart, intelligent, creative, funny, great
> smile...has no tits and no ass.

If you really liked her instead of being able to merely admit some of her
good points, you wouldn't bother about her shortcomings all that much.
Nobody's perfect, after all.

>> It really works like that. If author can capture you tight enough with
>> his strong points you'll pay no attention to his faults.
>
> Hmmm, reminds me of Hitler's observation that no one asks the victor
> whether he was right or not.

True.

>>IOW, I doubt
>> that you'd like Tolkien even if he was less generous with words and more
>> compact.
>
> I don't know why you doubt it. I've expressed my admiration for the
> vision of these authors whose storytelling mechanics are only just
> serviceable.

I doubt it, because I happen to believe that writing _is_ storytelling.
If you don't like somebody's storytelling you don't like this author,
and that's it.

But I believe that things could work well the other way around. For
example I could like Steven King if he actually spend minimal effort in
building his stories, instead of just writing them.

>> I tried to reread Tolkien recently and it came to me, that the story
>> wasn't all that good either. ;-)
>
> What? Unless you're just pulling my chain here, I'd have to disagree
> there.

Frodo gets to Rivendell and they have this council. They decide, that
they have to destroy the ring. Fine. Let's build several copies of The
Ring and give them to several hobbits, just to confuse Sauron. Let's
send some hobbits west, like we would want to drop the ring to the see.
Let's give them guards of tough elves. Let's send some other hobbit
secretly, the same way, just to make Sauron think. While the dark
forces are utterly confused Frodo could get to Mordor with much less
trouble.

> What a unique vision it was -- not that the guy was conscious
> of it,

He was rather conscious, that nobody before him did anything of similar
scope. He simply new it.

> mind you: an epic tale of heroism where the point of the quest
> was not to achieve power and glory but *to give it up.* Surely a
> parable for our modern age of technological wonders and intellectual
> and spiritual poverty.

Sure enough, Middle Ages were so intellectually rich. ;-)

> Unfortunately, as I said, the vision at its core is surrounded by a
> lot of mundane storytelling. It's like chauffeuring a high-born elven
> princess in...a farmer's wheel-barrow.

That's how elves traveled, if they could get a barrow. Normally they
pranced around chanting to kill their hunger, because they obviously
didn't produce any food.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Sep 28, 3:09 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Why can't you simply accept, that making people laugh is an art form?
> Shakespeare wrote comedies too.

Yes, but as I noted somewhere, "comedies" back then weren't exactly
like our comedies...I'm not saying that comedies can't be literary or
literature -- I just can't think of one which uses language in an
"artistic" way, aside from puns I guess.

> I had no idea. I don't read American critics.

I heard the guy reading a passage from his latest work over the
radio...a part involving cannibalism...and its grotesqueness was
supposed to be "dark humor" or something, I think the guy was eating a
piece of his ass that got shot off or whatever...so I'm skeptical of
so-called dark humor...I find highly heralded examples of it pretty
sophomoric....

> It happens. I'm maniacally depressive myself and I don't get poetry
> too. ;-)

You jest -- but Turing was serious.

Besides, who ever heard of a homosexual who didn't get poetry??

> Mathematicians call that kind of poem an equation or a proof.

Indeed! And I wanted to do a poem which could "make sense" to
mathematicians, if not impressive them somewhat, while somehow
expressing the poetic beauty of numbers to English majors -- but using
numbers....

> Do you know, that he invented languages on his spare time?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien#Language_builder

Yes -- but there's a difference between someone who invents a language
-- say, a programming language -- and someone who is able to express
that language artistically -- or, in the case of programming
languages, exploit it "elegantly" (as mathematicians would say).

> Language and grammar for Tolkien was a matter of aesthetics and euphony,
> and Quenya in particular was designed from "phonaesthetic" considerations;
>
> Wouldn't you be inclined to reconsider your stance on Tolkien's lack of
> linguistic creativity?

Well, we are obviously having semantic difficulties here (indeed, many
semanticists claim that disagreements by definition are over semantics
-- over terms and definitions).

By "linguistic creativity" in the context of literary merit and
aesthetic value I am not speaking of engineering languages, creative
as that project is in general.

I refer to something like the difference between "he's a piece of
shit" and "he looks like something rejected by the digestive
system"...not that the latter is "creative" or "artistic," but the
former is certainly plain and boring, which is how these authors
generally write.

Now that's fine -- what I've called serviceable writing -- where most
exposition is concerned. But the nature of SF is such (I would even
say of so-called literary fiction, but in a slightly different way)
that descriptive passages of fantastic technology or environments need
an especially creative use of language. I have not found such soaring
language, which I think would need to be almost akin to poetry -- for
poetry says more, more quickly and poignantly, than prose often
can....

> If you really liked her instead of being able to merely admit some of her
> good points, you wouldn't bother about her shortcomings all that much.
> Nobody's perfect, after all.

We're not talking "perfection" here -- a girl NEEDS to have tits and
ass...otherwise it's just like fucking a board with a hole in it....

Or, as some Medieval poem stated to the same effect, only God could
love you as fiercely without your blond hair and your red smile....

> True.

Yeah, weirdly cynical, actually.

> I doubt it, because I happen to believe that writing _is_ storytelling.

Then you confuse story with storytelling, and maybe even story with
plot.

Again, I am speaking of the distinction between style and substance.
The substance is great in Tolkien, but the style is rather bland: a
great steak on a paper plate with a plastic knife and fork.

> If you don't like somebody's storytelling you don't like this author,
> and that's it.

No, that shouldn't be it, though unfortunately it's often what
creative writing workshops boil down to, mutual ass-kissing.

The first half of the film "Storytelling" is great and spot-on in that
regard.

> But I believe that things could work well the other way around. For
> example I could like Steven King if he actually spend minimal effort in
> building his stories, instead of just writing them.

Hmm, "building his stories"...sounds like you don't disagree with me,
then...after all, my complaint is that a lot of these authors write
stories as if they were newspaper reporters writing news stories --
"just writing them"....

> Frodo gets to Rivendell and they have this council. They decide, that
> they have to destroy the ring. Fine. Let's build several copies of The
> Ring and give them to several hobbits, just to confuse Sauron. Let's
> send some hobbits west, like we would want to drop the ring to the see.
> Let's give them guards of tough elves. Let's send some other hobbit
> secretly, the same way, just to make Sauron think. While the dark
> forces are utterly confused Frodo could get to Mordor with much less
> trouble.

So Tolkien wasn't Polish and couldn't have imagined something so
clever. Hey, I think there's a future for you in fan fiction!

It's a fair complaint -- but then you're questioning the logic of the
story, as opposed to judging its aesthetic merit. Different things,
again. That's like complaining about "Star Trek" that transporters
couldn't possibly work, given the laws of physics (unless essentially
the transported person is totally destroyed at the point of departure
while perfectly cloned at the destination). Says nothing about the
"vision" or "artistic worth" of the stories.

> He was rather conscious, that nobody before him did anything of similar
> scope. He simply new it.

No, I'm talking about the theme of the hero giving up power, instead
of seeking power and glory -- which is the usual quest of such epics.
It's what made Christianity (and late Judaism) so revolutionary: not
to seek power, but to give it up.

Tolkien doesn't seem to register any consciousness of the momentous
import of such a theme. Frodo is not merely the anti-hero in being
short and chubby and wanting nothing more than a good smoke; he goes
through all that bother to *give up* power. Absolutely ridiculous,
from an "Old Testament" sort of perspective.

Kinda like weight lifting to get thinner or something...actually,
hmmm, now that I think about it...it's pretty much part of what
exercise does for me -- keeps me away from the girls, who are
generally trouble...I'm too "tired" to bother with girls, even though
exercise has me in great shape and really attractive to them!

> Sure enough, Middle Ages were so intellectually rich. ;-)

Well, they certainly knew how to keep women in their proper places,
didn't they? What does it matter that men can send men to the moon
when men are at the mercy of women who are dependent on the moon
cycles....

> That's how elves traveled, if they could get a barrow. Normally they
> pranced around chanting to kill their hunger, because they obviously
> didn't produce any food.

So where did that magical bread come from?

Damn, the ultimate nutritional supplement, elven bread from
Lothlorien!

> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191010248.843699.18220@y42g2000hsy.googlegro ups.com:

>> Why can't you simply accept, that making people laugh is an art form?
>> Shakespeare wrote comedies too.
>
> Yes, but as I noted somewhere, "comedies" back then weren't exactly
> like our comedies...I'm not saying that comedies can't be literary or
> literature -- I just can't think of one which uses language in an
> "artistic" way, aside from puns I guess.
>

I have had a most rare vision. I have had a dream, past the wit of man to
say what dream it was: man is but an ass, if he go about to expound this
dream. Methought I was--there is no man can tell what. Methought I was,--
and methought I had,--but man is but a patched fool, if he will offer to
say what methought I had. The eye of man hath not heard, the ear of man
hath not seen, man's hand is not able to taste, his tongue to conceive,
nor his heart to report, what my dream was. I will get Peter Quince to
write a ballad of this dream: it shall be called Bottom's Dream, because
it hath no bottom; and I will sing it in the latter end of a play, before
the duke: peradventure, to make it the more gracious, I shall sing it at
her death.

Dnia Fri, 28 Sep 2007 o 22:10 GMT Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
> On Sep 28, 3:09 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Why can't you simply accept, that making people laugh is an art form?
>> Shakespeare wrote comedies too.
>
> Yes, but as I noted somewhere, "comedies" back then weren't exactly
> like our comedies...I'm not saying that comedies can't be literary or
> literature -- I just can't think of one which uses language in an
> "artistic" way, aside from puns I guess.

I absolutely can't grasp your idea of "artistic" ways, so I'll give up
on that.

[...]
>> It happens. I'm maniacally depressive myself and I don't get poetry
>> too. ;-)
>
> You jest -- but Turing was serious.

A little. I can be moved by poetry at times, so I at least exaggerate.
But I've got a manic depression just like Turing and bunch of other
greats with all sincere honesty.

> Besides, who ever heard of a homosexual who didn't get poetry??

That's more convincing. ;-)

>> Mathematicians call that kind of poem an equation or a proof.
>
> Indeed! And I wanted to do a poem which could "make sense" to
> mathematicians, if not impressive them somewhat, while somehow
> expressing the poetic beauty of numbers to English majors -- but using
> numbers....

Pitagoras would be so totally moved by your idea! ;-)

>> Do you know, that he invented languages on his spare time?
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien#Language_builder
>
> Yes -- but there's a difference between someone who invents a language
> -- say, a programming language -- and someone who is able to express
> that language artistically -- or, in the case of programming
> languages, exploit it "elegantly" (as mathematicians would say).

Not much of a difference. Programing language is a program itself. You
write compilers just like bunch of other soft.

>> Language and grammar for Tolkien was a matter of aesthetics and euphony,
>> and Quenya in particular was designed from "phonaesthetic" considerations;
>>
>> Wouldn't you be inclined to reconsider your stance on Tolkien's lack of
>> linguistic creativity?
>
> Well, we are obviously having semantic difficulties here (indeed, many
> semanticists claim that disagreements by definition are over semantics
> -- over terms and definitions).
>
> By "linguistic creativity" in the context of literary merit and
> aesthetic value I am not speaking of engineering languages, creative
> as that project is in general.
>
> I refer to something like the difference between "he's a piece of
> shit" and "he looks like something rejected by the digestive
> system"...not that the latter is "creative" or "artistic," but the
> former is certainly plain and boring, which is how these authors
> generally write.

Hemingway wrote the same way, just without profanities. He remains my
favorite author mainly because his writing is so compact and "dry", or
something. Anyway, flowery phrased do not make a writer (IMO, of
course).

[...]
>> If you don't like somebody's storytelling you don't like this author,
>> and that's it.
>
> No, that shouldn't be it, though unfortunately it's often what
> creative writing workshops boil down to, mutual ass-kissing.

I've never seen such a workshop, but I still stand by my point. The
ability to "storytell" is the single most important trait of a writer.
The rest is an icing on the cake. Everybody has stories to tell, most
cant tell them.

[...]
>> But I believe that things could work well the other way around. For
>> example I could like Steven King if he actually spend minimal effort in
>> building his stories, instead of just writing them.
>
> Hmm, "building his stories"...sounds like you don't disagree with me,
> then...after all, my complaint is that a lot of these authors write
> stories as if they were newspaper reporters writing news stories --
> "just writing them"....

No, I don't mean his writing style. Actually I think that it's his
strong point. It just seems like he sits in front of a computer and
starts writing stuff. He goes with the wave and has not much of an idea
where will he end. And it shows if you read some bigger works of his.
Every chapter taken in isolation from previous ones is good to splendid,
but they often don't stick together all that well. There are cracks in
his picture of the world which spoil the fun for me. But he's good
writer despite that.

>> Frodo gets to Rivendell and they have this council. They decide, that
>> they have to destroy the ring. Fine. Let's build several copies of The
>> Ring and give them to several hobbits, just to confuse Sauron. Let's
>> send some hobbits west, like we would want to drop the ring to the see.
>> Let's give them guards of tough elves. Let's send some other hobbit
>> secretly, the same way, just to make Sauron think. While the dark
>> forces are utterly confused Frodo could get to Mordor with much less
>> trouble.
>
> So Tolkien wasn't Polish and couldn't have imagined something so
> clever. Hey, I think there's a future for you in fan fiction!
>
> It's a fair complaint -- but then you're questioning the logic of the
> story, as opposed to judging its aesthetic merit. Different things,
> again.

Maybe, but they spoil some fun for me. Not by much, mind you.

> That's like complaining about "Star Trek" that transporters
> couldn't possibly work, given the laws of physics (unless essentially
> the transported person is totally destroyed at the point of departure
> while perfectly cloned at the destination).

It could work like that, so it doesn't violate physics.

> Says nothing about the
> "vision" or "artistic worth" of the stories.

You are essentially right. Tolkien had pretty good stories (just
not spotless).

>> He was rather conscious, that nobody before him did anything of similar
>> scope. He simply new it.
>
> No, I'm talking about the theme of the hero giving up power, instead
> of seeking power and glory -- which is the usual quest of such epics.
> It's what made Christianity (and late Judaism) so revolutionary: not
> to seek power, but to give it up.

Tolkien was piously Christian, I seem to recall.

> Tolkien doesn't seem to register any consciousness of the momentous
> import of such a theme. Frodo is not merely the anti-hero in being
> short and chubby and wanting nothing more than a good smoke; he goes
> through all that bother to *give up* power. Absolutely ridiculous,
> from an "Old Testament" sort of perspective.

I don't think that Tolkien "registered" anything special, because I
happen to think it wasn't all that special. The idea that if you get
too much power it will eat you from within wasn't new even in the last
century. The idea that if you create a very powerful device it will
turn against you also wasn't new. Rabbi had to destroy his Golem and
dr. Frankenstein his creation before "Lord of the rings".

[...]
>> That's how elves traveled, if they could get a barrow. Normally they
>> pranced around chanting to kill their hunger, because they obviously
>> didn't produce any food.
>
> So where did that magical bread come from?

Definitely not from fields. They lived in a forest (but they didn't
seem to hunt or eat meat too).

> Damn, the ultimate nutritional supplement, elven bread from
> Lothlorien!

3K calories per serving isn't all that difficult to achieve without
magic. ;-)

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Sep 28, 10:17 pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> I absolutely can't grasp your idea of "artistic" ways, so I'll give up
> on that.

I'll admit that it's much more difficult to explain with regards to
comedy, but overall the difference is akin to what mathematicians and
computer programmers who call "elegant." There are usually any number
of solutions to a problem, but only few are elegant. Likewise, the
same scene can be related any number of ways by a writer, but only a
few would be artistic.

> A little. I can be moved by poetry at times, so I at least exaggerate.
> But I've got a manic depression just like Turing and bunch of other
> greats with all sincere honesty.

Could just be existential angst. I think that's just how things are
supposed to be -- like some of us are just meant to be short, or fat,
or of a sunny disposition, or fated to swing between emotional
extremes...though I think something like weightlifting and jogging
helps greatly in that regard.

> That's more convincing. ;-)

I'm shocked Turing doesn't get poetry at all. Why, the height of
poetry is mathematical elegance, the most direct way of arriving
somewhere, zen-like in its penetration to the core of the situation,
quite like a mathematically elegant solution to a problem (cf.
Alexander and the Gordian Knot -- it's both elegant and poetic...I'd
love to write a poem with numbers which has the same zen-like
"zinger")....

> Pitagoras would be so totally moved by your idea! ;-)

I was looking into Pythagoras' life, but I haven't been able to come
up with any inspiration to help me so far....

> Not much of a difference. Programing language is a program itself. You
> write compilers just like bunch of other soft.

Yes, but the difference I'm pointing to is between the "engineering
department," as it were, and the "marketing department"...one has to
make sure it works, the other has to make sure it's sexy (so that it
sells).

Again, the difference between "I love you" and "you are the wind
beneath my wings"....

> Hemingway wrote the same way, just without profanities. He remains my
> favorite author mainly because his writing is so compact and "dry", or
> something. Anyway, flowery phrased do not make a writer (IMO, of
> course).

True -- but in terms of SF, I can't imagine any other way to best
convey the novelty of the alien technology, say, or fantastic
environment...because it's so new, it demands a new use of language,
an original application of familiar terms...obviously, it's sufficient
for the legions of fans out there that these authors merely "report"
their visions...but I do not really smell or taste or even see -- much
less *feel* with a shudder like I would if I were really in those
amazing worlds -- the great things they are pointing to with their
words because they are so ham-fisted with their words and the banality
of their use of language blocks from sight what they would show....

I mean, to write that "the dragon was ancient and scaly" is lazy paint-
by-numbers description...it's just uninspired, something I could get
from a children's book..."the spacecraft alighted on soft purple
Xentorian muck"...yawn....

> I've never seen such a workshop, but I still stand by my point.

You needn't have actually attended such workshops to imagine the
terrible results of such a viewpoint: you like the writing if you like
the author, and vice-versa. That's precisely the Number One problem
of creative writing workshops, which often degenerate into mutual ass-
kissing. It's kind of like what happens in newsgroups...or any other
social situation, for that matter: cliques form, alliances form, based
on personality and not on ideas and any real merit....

> The
> ability to "storytell" is the single most important trait of a writer.

Um, I agree with that. It's been precisely the implication of all my
statements so far that the first job of a writer is to write well.

That's not what you were saying, however, in reference to liking
authors and their writing. Or perhaps I took your statement "if you
don't like somebody's storytelling you don't like this author, and
that's it" the wrong way...yes, perhaps I took it too "literally,"
reading "you don't like this author" as being a personal dislike, when
what you'd meant was something tautologous: you don't like it because
you don't like it -- "and that's it."

> The rest is an icing on the cake. Everybody has stories to tell, most
> cant tell them.

Which is what I'd said a few posts ago. So you see, we do not
disagree, except that your standards are not as "strict" as mine --
you're impressed by flowers, whereas I want tropical orchids,
specifically, so to speak.

> No, I don't mean his writing style. Actually I think that it's his
> strong point. It just seems like he sits in front of a computer and
> starts writing stuff. He goes with the wave and has not much of an idea
> where will he end. And it shows if you read some bigger works of his.

I believe he says as much in his book and many articles on how to
write. Interestingly, he does not get into this "literary merit"
debate at all...he knows he's writing for money, and giving his
audience what they want; he's not concerned with art, but
entertainment: if it turns out to be art, great, but that's not his
concern.

And that's what I'm saying. That's why these guys write so simply.
Which is okay, but it seems that their vision demands a better
linguistic packaging than just okay.

> Every chapter taken in isolation from previous ones is good to splendid,
> but they often don't stick together all that well. There are cracks in
> his picture of the world which spoil the fun for me. But he's good
> writer despite that.

And by "good" you probably mean "get the job done" which in turn
probably means for you "keep me turning the page."

By "good" I would mean "unusual, interesting, and appropriate
application of creativity"...by "great" I would mean "timeless
'lessons' for any age [time-period]"....

> Maybe, but they spoil some fun for me. Not by much, mind you.

Yeah, I know what you mean. But you see, that's why creative use of
language is so important -- a more creative use of language, such as
what I expound, would likely dazzle you so much that you don't notice,
or notice much, these oddities of logic in a story...it's like a whore
stealing your wallet: she was so good, you don't notice, or mind if
you do....

> It could work like that, so it doesn't violate physics.

Indeed, but then we're in Philip K. Dick's "Buddhist" territory: who
am I, who are you, what is a self...even if there's only one of "you"
at any given moment, the very fact that for a Star Trek transporter to
work means destruction of one body while perfectly cloning it in
another location (namely, memories of undergoing transporter use
intact at the destination) raises the Buddhist -- and in particular
Zen Buddhist -- existential issue of what is a self...we are just
patterns in spacetime, that's all!

> You are essentially right. Tolkien had pretty good stories (just
> not spotless).

It's too bad those movies only saw the special effects potential of
his stories, whereas the dramatic aspects were TOTALLY missed
(otherwise they would have engaged Shakespearean actors like Kenneth
Branaugh and Liem Nielson for such psychologically rich roles, 'cause
aside from the dude playing Gandalf, the leads were really out of
their element, especially the hobbits).

> Tolkien was piously Christian, I seem to recall.

Well, after the customs of his class, yes, though not a religious
thinker by any means -- hence this bit of "Christianity" (the hero-as-
humble-carpenter-nailed-to-a-tree sensibility) influenced him
unwittingly.

> I don't think that Tolkien "registered" anything special, because I
> happen to think it wasn't all that special. The idea that if you get
> too much power it will eat you from within wasn't new even in the last
> century.

Indeed, it's the very tale of the Buddha, or Christ -- born of kings
(or of God Himself!), able to conqueror with power, yet seeks
spiritual solace, eschewing the illusions of worldly glories. What's
"new," however, in terms of mass market fiction, is that the
protagonist of a fantasy genre is deliberately to lose power, not gain
it.

Unfortunately, most of the books are cluttered -- yes, cluttered --
with claptrap about orcs and goblins and dragons and other things that
go bump in the night...and told in language reminiscent of one's
Sunday newspapers.

> The idea that if you create a very powerful device it will
> turn against you also wasn't new. Rabbi had to destroy his Golem and
> dr. Frankenstein his creation before "Lord of the rings".

Of course, there are no new ideas or themes in literature. However,
Tolkien unwittingly scored a "poetic" triumph with the theme of
ambition itself. It's not just that this object or that object is
bad...it's that power itself is bad -- or it would have been that, had
he recognized the full implications of his theme. For all his
learning, he did "mine deeper," as the writer and teacher John C.
Gardner admonishes; Tolkien did not fully consider the philosophical
implications of the drama he envisioned: power corrupts, and absolute
power corrupts absolutely. Now there's an epic for our democratic
age! No great king or prince for a hero, as in past epics -- Aragon
is a supporting character -- but some country bumpkin who, though
without a native courage and intelligence, wants nothing than a good
smoke (the equivalent of beer and Sunday night football), and yet is
called upon to the greatest task of all. And what's that task? To
get rid of power, absolute power, a mission impossible for those who
are ambitious, for all the kings and princes and elves and leading
citizens of great cities and glorious realms.

Interestingly, such a mission, while ultimately impossible for those
people, requires their help -- it takes power to give up power! Oh,
the explorations would have been a great philosophical revelry, had he
not been so taken with all that faery tale claptrap...he mistook the
tits and ass for the soul of the girl -- you need it all, to be sure,
but the old don became mesmerized by the equivalent of the graphics
and forgot all about gameplay....

> Definitely not from fields. They lived in a forest (but they didn't
> seem to hunt or eat meat too).

So are elves runners and dwarves weightlifters? How about people who
only sit in front of the TV?

> 3K calories per serving isn't all that difficult to achieve without
> magic. ;-)

But they were filling and tasted good. That's not been achieved yet!
Imagine, all you need in a handy form, requiring no preparation and
apparently no real storage care, that not only tastes good but is
fully satisfying. I wonder what's in it?

> --
> Andrzej Rosa 1127R