Subject: Re: Clarke, the farout author .... far, farout.
> Ben, would you join the crew? We can talk about soccer
> during the trip!
Damnit! My second best reason to go out there is to escape
soccer! Umberto, I'm very disappointed at you! <G>
========================
Subject: Re: Several topics...
> Nicola, Thank you for the reply on H.P. But I think I
> failed to make my point about Lovecrafts racisim. What I
> intended to convey was that whatever he felt on whatever
> subject, shouldn't effect how I (or others) view the work in
> and of itself. Or is it wrong to judge a work in a vacume
> What do others think.
Exactly, my point.
> P.S. thanks for the spell check. :)
One of the nice things of studying english as a foreign language
is that you *do* learn how to spell... :)
========================
Subject: Re: Shakespeare & SF (it works!)
> (snip) This was a very novel idea in Victorian England and it caught the fancy of the English... (snip)
Ahem! Wasn't the Victorian era about 200 years later than
Shakespeare's?
========================
Subject: Re: Fantastic Voyage (was Several topics...)
>> (snip) Factors like surface tension, water density,
>> brownian movement, the normal-size-atoms:miniaturized-atoms
>> ratio and their effect on the submarine and the "bodynauts"
>> have not been dealt with at all. (snip)
> As a matter of fact, Asimov deals with them in his
> autobiography "I Asimov".
Not in "Fantastic Voyage", where it mattered.
> The book Fantastic Voyage (his only movie tie in) was
> written after a film manuscript. He managed to change some
> of the more obvious mistakes of the film, but his hands were
> tied as the film and the book should be released at about
> the same time, and the book should follow the manuscript to
> a high degree. So I think Asimov's genius was quite capable
> of dealing with these matters, he just weren't allowed to.
What you haven't to do when it comes to movies... :::sigh:::
> I higly recommend "I Asimov", by the way.
So do I. (Published in paperback by Bantam.)
========================
Subject: Re: Equating writers with their writing (was: ST Information me
>> Warning: the following message will be sure to insult
>> someone. Most of it is expressed more rabidly than the
>> emotion which spawned it, but my intent was to shake up the
>> list a little bit and move it onto new topics.
> Then I'm sure that you won't mind if I answer in kind.
> I'm always amused when people from other countries use
> American television and American books as "proof" to bolster
> an argument that Americans somehow have lower morals or
> intelligence.
> But, no. It always turns out that they saw the American-
> produced TV on their own set at home, and bought the
> American-written book at the shop down the street.
Touch�, Anny! Most of italian prime time TV shows are not that
good either. In the US there is the good and the bad, as everywhere.
If I can give my own experience as example, I spent two years in
Delaware for a master's program, and I received there a first class
education. Most of the best hard science fiction I've read is american.
However: #1) my adviser - an intelligent, conscientious man -
doesn't read anything outside outside the publications he needs for his
own work. #2) I had quite a lot of fun in telling waiters and waitresses
the exact amount of money I owed them. Whenever I engaged in this little
game - them with a pocket calculator, me without - I beat them on time
and when there was a mistake almost always *they* were in error, not me.
#3) I went quite often to watch movies (student discount...) The day when
I watched "The Postman" With Troisi and Depardieu, I felt it repaid me
for all the american movies I watched before. And after.
========================
Subject: bible as fantasy
In a message dated 97-01-13 13:04:35 EST, you write:
>>> << >The most interesting gist of [The Satanic Bible] to me
>>> was that the basic belief behind the Church of Satan is to
>>> be true to your instincts. In fact, LaVey merely wishes
>>> you to follow your own agenda, look out for number one and
>>> never worry about what others think--above all, be true to
>>> yourself.
>> As a matter of fact, the christian Satan is nothing
>> else than the old greek god Pan with the addition of
>> leathery wings. And Pan was the representation of the wild
>> side of the life (sex included), unbound by laws and
>> restraints. >>
> And to think that mentioning marilyn manson has something to
> do with this thread.
I apologize to the list for this blatant display of ignorance,
but who was Marilyn Manson?
> btw, I personally don't like pan villified-he represents the
> creative element in all of us.
Blame the Church, Jeff, and 2000 years of christianism.
========================
Subject: Re: Several topics...
>> (snip) and #4) the activity of those despicable and
>> puritanical human animals that are the protestant religious
>> fundamentalists. My own favorite explanation is the last
>> one, because there is no worse enemy to blind faith than a
>> questioning reason and critical thinking. And viceversa,
>> there is no worse enemy to reason and critical thinking
>> than a blind faith.
> My own favourite explanation is the last one. I wish I had
> the pill that cured funny-mentalism. Do you know of an
> antidote? I might need it if I ever decide to challenge
> Bill Clinton for his job. :-)
I wish I knew, Chas. Giving as many books to a child to read as
she/he/it wishes, and let him/her/it do the rest?
========================
> (snip) As for the world being "so much better" if I were in
> charge, I confess my guilt. I _do_ believe that the world
> would be a better place if I were in charge. Bill Clinton
> should step down immediately and install me as his
> successor. Seriously, would I be expressing an opinion if I
> _didn't_ think that my way was the best? Would you?
Then let's kick out both Clinton AND you!
Respectfully,
Nicola Gebendinger
|