| Author |
|
Donald Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 February 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3601
|
| Posted: 29 August 2008 at 7:11am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Bubbles and Squeek...I love 'em!
Don
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Geoff Gibson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5743
|
| Posted: 29 August 2008 at 7:13am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Guinness...? In SCOTLAND?????
Guinness is good for you anywhere! And I always think of Bangers and Mash as being Irish as I first tasted it in Ireland.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Tom French
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 07 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4154
|
| Posted: 29 August 2008 at 7:14am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Thank you, Don, for this:
Mmmmm... bubbles and squeek.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tom French
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 07 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4154
|
| Posted: 29 August 2008 at 7:17am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Guinness is good for you anywhere! And I always think of Bangers and Mash as being Irish as I first tasted it in Ireland.
The first thing I learned in Scotland: when we asked the bartender for Scotch, he said, "You mean whiskey. This is Scotland; we call it whiskey here."
The second thing: don't mention being Irish. (Believe it or not, "French" is an Irish name.) Nationalism is still alive and well in Europe and the UK.
Edited by Tom French on 29 August 2008 at 7:17am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Al Cook
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 December 2004
Posts: 12735
|
| Posted: 29 August 2008 at 7:21am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
It's particularly healthy in Scotland, Tom!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Moyer Hall
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 09 August 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1135
|
| Posted: 29 August 2008 at 7:25am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Ugh... so I might have to evacuate this weekend and go my my Mom's in
Atoka TN (north of Memphis a lil' ways). Which royally sucks, because this
weekend is Southern Decadence in New Orleans. One of the biggest gay
weekends in the country.
A weekend of fun, drinking, costumes, raunchy antics, costumes, drinking,
southern humidity, drinking, raunchy antics, and more.
I frickin' hate hurricanes!!!!!!!
Edited by Moyer Hall on 29 August 2008 at 7:26am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tom French
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 07 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4154
|
| Posted: 29 August 2008 at 7:27am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
It's God's punishment, Moyer. Haven't you read that other thread?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Moyer Hall
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 09 August 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1135
|
| Posted: 29 August 2008 at 7:29am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
No...it's best I didn't. Didn't God punish us enough three years ago?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tom French
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 07 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4154
|
| Posted: 29 August 2008 at 7:32am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Apprently, God isn't as concerned with off-shore oil rigs, either. I've seen more speculation and worry about that than I have a concern for humanity.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Geoff Gibson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5743
|
| Posted: 29 August 2008 at 8:09am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Apprently, God isn't as concerned with off-shore oil rigs, either. I've seen more speculation and worry about that than I have a concern for humanity.
If it was hitting Montauk it would be social fucking crisis. Hope all our friends in the gulf stay safe. Posessions can be replaced, people cannot.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Tom French
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 07 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4154
|
| Posted: 29 August 2008 at 8:11am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Posessions can be replaced, people cannot.
Especially you, Moyer. Get the hell out of there. No party's worth it!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joakim Jahlmar
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 10 October 2005
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6080
|
| Posted: 29 August 2008 at 8:23am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Playing another round of catch up (this time from country of getting better)...
Geoff wrote:
"Aren't you already famous as 'The Mighty Wha-Keem?'"
Well, I wouldn't know about that... though if I am (in small way amongst a small circle of people), I very much hope that I've earned that particular "fame" any form of discussion skills or similar that I may have, rather than anything freakish in the way previously discussed.
Tom wrote:
"IN-famous -- which on the whole is better."
Being infamous is better? How and when?
Stephen Swan (a.k.a Steve Swanson) wrote:
"I don't write to become famous, though I do hope that I become a writer that is so popular that fame becomes an inevitability. I love it when people love my stuff and I love to reach audiences and as far as I'm concerned the bigger the audience the better. I've never understood the thought that if you become popular you must not be very good at what you do."
I totally agree with this, Steve. I certainly wouldn't mind writing something that became a bestseller. Not only because of the money, and they wouldn't be downside, but also because that'd mean more people would be reading what I wrote.
On some level, after, all forms of art (music, film, literature, visual arts, etc) are communicative acts that have a sender (or originator) and reciever audience. Which is not to say that the artist has full control of everything that's in a work of art (texts in particular seem to be sneaky that way, an open to valid interpretation never considered by the author while writing) or that the intended audience is either large or matches the actual audience.
Stephen Swan also wrote:
"Would I take fame solely for its own sake? Yes, if I was famous for a terrible reason (reality show or some such) I'd hope to be able to turn that into being famous for a good reason (writing)."
There's a crux in that though. Some labels of fame (or perhaps infamy) sticks, and are not easily (or perhaps not at all) possible to turn. Some even sticks if you'd manage to turn it a bit into your advantage. I mean, even if somebody like Paris Hilton would manage to write a new literary master piece (and I'm NOT saying that's particularly likely) and managed to get it out there by help of her fame, I don't think it'd change what she was famous for much. If anything it'd be that heiress woman who was in an amateur porn video and who, oh, happened to write good book. Not to mention the many leaps that would have to be taken for that kind of fame to be applied to anything of real value.
Fame for its own sake, somehow, always seems to leave a taint... that will in many relevant circles and fields leave you standing at the door, even if you did do the "good" thing you wanted to be famous for.
One more Stephen Swan:
"Now, let's do something fun: What would be your pen/stage name and why? (and I'm sure there's gonna be some porn names as well)."
The more I've realised that my monicker "by birth" (ok, not quite) is more or less unique (never come across anyone else with the name anywhere, not even online) the more decided I am (and I was quite firm already beforehand) that I'll keep my name for usage when I'm doing something.
Only two exceptions would be,
1) if I was doing something for fun, where one of my nicknames would be appropriate to sign off with,
or 2) if I was doing something that I didn't want my own name connected to, and any such names I could think of would NOT be listed here.... for obvious reasons.
Al wrote:
"I likely won't publish under my full name then anyway. A.H.W.Cook will look so much more authoritative on a dust jacket..."
But I've already seen you listed as co-author on many books, Al. Especially academic stuff and anthologies, so many of the tend to include various author names and Al. ;)
(ok, that was my bad pun of the day out of the way)
Tom wrote:
"I had a writing teacher who once said to me, 'When the author's name is bigger than the title, that's when to start avoiding their books.' I found that very profound."
I think there's a danger in that line of reasoning. The look of any book is to a large degree the province of marketing. Any author who happen to sell VERY well, by definition will have his/her name transformed into a form of brand name. From a marketing perspective, putting the latest title of any famous author in BIG letter next to the author's name in small print makes little sense. The title is not the major sign that'll sell the book, it's the AUTHOR. Not saying I think it's particularly good, but unless we equate any author selling books to a very broad public with a bad author (and personally I'm not willing to make that leap), it seems like false logic to me.
Don't get me wrong, I've never been one to succumb to the argument that public appeal equates good art (and I certainly appreciate my share of things not perhaps appreciated by the broad public), but on the other hand I don't think the artistic quality is situated in the fact that a broader public doesn't like it either. Fame and public appreciation are certainly factors that artists have to co-exist with, but their relation with these matters have very little to do with the quality of their work, one way or another. In my humble opinion.
More Tom:
"Let me give a musical example. Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber, very famous with the masses, but his work is nothing more than crap for the ears. (My favorite music joke: 'He's the Tchaikovsky of Broadway.') Compare to Stephen Sondheim, perhaps the BEST American theatre composer/lyricist of this century, but only the snobs and elites "get" his work, because he's NOT easy to listen to. Who would you rather be?"
I don't think a general statement can be made about it. I think it comes down to what you want to achieve as an artist. If what you are after is to reach the general masses with something you feel you can be proud of, the Stephen Sonderheim approach would seem a failure (from what you've said, Tom, as I can't say I'm familar with his work or standing outside of your comment), whereas Webber's work (and I have to admit that I'm a fan of some of it, especially when he's co-operated with Rice on things like Jesus Christ Superstar) does hold a mass appeal, the only question being of course, if you as an artist would be proud of the work.
On the other hand, the opposite is also equally true, if you're writing something to be highly appreciated in a group of say 100 people and those 100 people totally get it (and you're proud of the work) while nobody else comes to close to understanding what it is about... you've still accomplished as an artist what you wanted to accomplish with said piece.
And that's not to say that there couldn't be something appealing to the snobs that the masses get and can adhere to the proud author criterium. Just saying it's definitely not always the case nor always the aim.
Case in point... I'm collaborating with a musical friend of mine off and on (as time allows) contributing by writing lyrics for or with him. Now, mostly the music (read melody, not arrangement) is finished (at least more or less) when I get to work on the lyrics and it sets various limitations on my writing, add to that that I sometimes not write the piece alone, but as collaboration, or that he sometimes wants the piece to deal with certain things even though I've got a lot of freedom in how I want to handle these things.
Certainly, I'm prouder of certain pieces than others, and I most definitely enjoy some songs more than others, but there are lyrics that I've written (which wouldn't come close to what I'd write if I was writing poetry or fiction on my own) that I'm proud in the sense of them doing what they do. Say a set of happy go pop lyrics which probably isn't my most regular focus or theme as a writing person... but doing something simpler that works with the music both in spirit and singability. Ah well, you all get what I'm saying.
Geoff wrote:
"You are a wonderful person Al Cook!"
to which Al responded:
"Now there's a minority position!"
Hey, Al! Don't knock our position. Us minority groups have rights too. ;)
Al wrote:
"Re: Jodi's photo a couple of posts up there.
I had recently publicly gone on record on this very board about how sexy tan lines can be.
I take it back."
What? You scared by those luminous orbs? Bah! You wee man, can't handle nothing. Big bright orbs do not frighten Wha-keem. Wha-keem smash orbs. Make Al less afraid.
Geoff wrote (in response to Al):
"These Tan lines are sexy -- the lady Jodi showed -- Not so much. Its not just the lines -- its the one wearing the lines."
Couldn't get the link to work, but I agree with the comment, which, yet again, proves that context is crucial!!!
Al wrote:
"Could be. And where did all this hair on my hands come from?"
Well, you're Candian, right? Could be some Sasquatch blood in your lineage, right? I'm just saying. We shouldn't just leap to conclusions.
Stephen Swan wrote:
"True, there is a difference in that as an actor he is an important part of the art but is not the creator of the piece and thus while he may be selling the use of his abilities he is not selling a piece of his soul. However, if an editor asked me to simplify some things (in terms of character's backstory and motivation, overall plot, and word usage and sentence structure) in order to help sell the work then I would do that happily. The point of writing is to communicate an idea and I enjoy the challenge of being able to be understood by a lot of people. It is actually very difficult to write like that without 'dumbing it down' but making it more accessible and consequently more marketable would be worth the extra effort to me."
I agree to most of what you say, Steve, even though I'd once more refer to what I wrote above regarding Tom's musical example. I'd certainly listen to an editor's request, but depending on what the piece was, what it was intended to be, etc, and how I felt the editor understood these things.
In fact, I have re-written the ending on a short story once in order to get it published. But at the end of the day, I wouldn't have re-written it JUST to get it published. The editor in question made a good point and got me thinking how I could fix that, and I realised I could fix it in a way that would make the piece better. By which I mean to say that there are probably oodles of good to great editors out there with whose help any author's work will not just be "changed" but improved. It'䳠just a question of coming the good ones, getting a good constructive communication of sorts going, and also having the integrity to put one's foot down in cases were it matters (unless the idea is publication before anything else)
To return to your example, as stated previously I agree that writing is about communication, the one question one needs to consider is who are you communicating with (or at least attempting to communicate with). While I certainly can see the appeal of being read by many, I'm not sure I'd by definition would try to make every single idea I have ever had or will have equally appealling to the same multitudes (a sort of lowest common denominator). If I had an idea that would have a much more limited appeal (and I found the idea, as such, appealing), I certainly wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak, just to get it published. There could certainly be cases where, depending on HOW the editor was reasoning about his own requests (and what they were), where I'd happily say, "sorry, we're not at all on the same page here. What you're talking about might certainly have its merits, but it doesn't have anything to do with my idea, and nor will it, thank you very much."
Moyer wrote:
"I frickin' hate hurricanes!!!!!!!"
And I feel I have to kinda apologise a wee bit.... as I noticed the other day that it seems like they've picked "second" name (I added quotation marks as it's literally (or perhaps that should be numerically) my first name, even though it's the one I go by).
Seriously though, take care of yourself and do keep out of harms way.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
