Discussion:
Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology
(too old to reply)
David Johnston
2018-04-28 19:01:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Bradbury used to complain that people took Fahrenheit 451 as being about
censorship when really it was about people abandoning reading for
television. The government can only start destroying the written word
because the the public at large has already abandoned recreational
reading. The minority who still hang on to their love of reading are
too small to stop it.

There were two other Bradbury stories I can recall which had the same
thing of the government trying to limit the human mind by limiting the
written word. In Pillar of Fire in a bright shiny (ie. cold and
soulless) science fiction future for reasons of "mental health" horror
stories have all been banned and burned and cemeteries are being given
the same treatment. A reanimated corpse tries and fails to save his
resting place and is burned while quoting Poe. Note that the pillar of
fire is both book and corpse burning and spaceflight.

Then there's The Exiles, where the characters of fantastic fiction who
now exist on Mars because their books have once again been destroyed by
a future culture that thinks that fantasy even as fiction can't co-exist
with spaceships. They vainly try to resist the arrival of the first
astronauts who merely by setting foot on Mars will dispel the mystery of
the planet and eradicate the fantasy entities living there.

Then there was the Ghostly Passenger where a "ghost" is dying because
people don't believe in ghosts now.

And then there was The Murderer which was about addiction to
communications technology...an update to F 451's "television is evil"
them.
D B Davis
2018-04-29 12:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
David Johnston <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bradbury used to complain that people took Fahrenheit 451 as being about
> censorship when really it was about people abandoning reading for
> television. The government can only start destroying the written word
> because the the public at large has already abandoned recreational
> reading. The minority who still hang on to their love of reading are
> too small to stop it.
>
> There were two other Bradbury stories I can recall which had the same
> thing of the government trying to limit the human mind by limiting the
> written word. In Pillar of Fire in a bright shiny (ie. cold and
> soulless) science fiction future for reasons of "mental health" horror
> stories have all been banned and burned and cemeteries are being given
> the same treatment. A reanimated corpse tries and fails to save his
> resting place and is burned while quoting Poe. Note that the pillar of
> fire is both book and corpse burning and spaceflight.
>
> Then there's The Exiles, where the characters of fantastic fiction who
> now exist on Mars because their books have once again been destroyed by
> a future culture that thinks that fantasy even as fiction can't co-exist
> with spaceships. They vainly try to resist the arrival of the first
> astronauts who merely by setting foot on Mars will dispel the mystery of
> the planet and eradicate the fantasy entities living there.
>
> Then there was the Ghostly Passenger where a "ghost" is dying because
> people don't believe in ghosts now.
>
> And then there was The Murderer which was about addiction to
> communications technology...an update to F 451's "television is evil"
> them.

You have an excellent memory for stories. It took a re-read for me to
remember the book burning aspect to "The Exiles." That's the only story
that you mention, besides _Fahrenheit 451_, that's previously known to
me.
"The Exile" enumerates some fantasy titles soon after it begins.
Some were read by me, a few more were experienced as Hollywood
treatments, and the remainder are unknown to me.

_Tales of Mystery and Imagination_ (Poe) unknown
_Dracula_ (Stoker) treatment
_Frankenstein_ (Shelley) known
_The Turn of the Screw_ (James) unknown
_The Legend of Sleepy Hollow_ (Irving) treatment
_Rappaccini's Daughter_ (Hawthorne) unknown
_An Occurrence at Owl Bridge_ (Bierce) known
_Alice in Wonderland_ (Carroll) known
_The Willows_ (Blackwood) unknown
_The Wizard of Oz_ (Baum) treatment
_The Weird Shadow Over Innsmouth_ (Lovecraft) unknown

Bradbury's one of my favorite authors, for good reason. He paints
pictures in my mind's eye. For instance, this sentence appears in
"The Exile:"

The captain watched the planet Mars grow very large in space.

Now, planets don't grow in the biological sense. Instead they
accrete at a geological pace. It's far too slow for one human to witness
planetary growth in a period of hours. Anyhow, Bradbury's sentence
paints a vivid picture in my mind.
Orwell likes language that uses an active voice to paint a clear
picture and leave a vivid impression behind. On the other hand, he
believes that political speech and writing use lifeless, colorless,
vague, third person passive language to try to defend the indefensible.
[1] Orwell also encourages the use of new metaphor.
"De Motu" (Berkeley) [2] discourages the use of metaphor in
philosophic writing. Watching Mars grow has no place in philosophic
argument because it leads readers to erroneously biomorphize the planet.

Note.

1. http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/
2.



Thank you,

--
Don
Robert Carnegie
2018-04-29 13:21:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, 29 April 2018 13:19:41 UTC+1, D B Davis wrote:
> David Johnston <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Bradbury used to complain that people took Fahrenheit 451 as being about
> > censorship when really it was about people abandoning reading for
> > television. The government can only start destroying the written word
> > because the the public at large has already abandoned recreational
> > reading. The minority who still hang on to their love of reading are
> > too small to stop it.
> >
> > There were two other Bradbury stories I can recall which had the same
> > thing of the government trying to limit the human mind by limiting the
> > written word. In Pillar of Fire in a bright shiny (ie. cold and
> > soulless) science fiction future for reasons of "mental health" horror
> > stories have all been banned and burned and cemeteries are being given
> > the same treatment. A reanimated corpse tries and fails to save his
> > resting place and is burned while quoting Poe. Note that the pillar of
> > fire is both book and corpse burning and spaceflight.
> >
> > Then there's The Exiles, where the characters of fantastic fiction who
> > now exist on Mars because their books have once again been destroyed by
> > a future culture that thinks that fantasy even as fiction can't co-exist
> > with spaceships. They vainly try to resist the arrival of the first
> > astronauts who merely by setting foot on Mars will dispel the mystery of
> > the planet and eradicate the fantasy entities living there.
> >
> > Then there was the Ghostly Passenger where a "ghost" is dying because
> > people don't believe in ghosts now.
> >
> > And then there was The Murderer which was about addiction to
> > communications technology...an update to F 451's "television is evil"
> > them.
>
> You have an excellent memory for stories. It took a re-read for me to
> remember the book burning aspect to "The Exiles." That's the only story
> that you mention, besides _Fahrenheit 451_, that's previously known to
> me.
> "The Exile" enumerates some fantasy titles soon after it begins.
> Some were read by me, a few more were experienced as Hollywood
> treatments, and the remainder are unknown to me.
>
> _Tales of Mystery and Imagination_ (Poe) unknown
> _Dracula_ (Stoker) treatment
> _Frankenstein_ (Shelley) known
> _The Turn of the Screw_ (James) unknown
> _The Legend of Sleepy Hollow_ (Irving) treatment
> _Rappaccini's Daughter_ (Hawthorne) unknown
> _An Occurrence at Owl Bridge_ (Bierce) known
> _Alice in Wonderland_ (Carroll) known
> _The Willows_ (Blackwood) unknown
> _The Wizard of Oz_ (Baum) treatment
> _The Weird Shadow Over Innsmouth_ (Lovecraft) unknown
>
> Bradbury's one of my favorite authors, for good reason. He paints
> pictures in my mind's eye. For instance, this sentence appears in
> "The Exile:"
>
> The captain watched the planet Mars grow very large in space.
>
> Now, planets don't grow in the biological sense. Instead they
> accrete at a geological pace. It's far too slow for one human to witness
> planetary growth in a period of hours. Anyhow, Bradbury's sentence
> paints a vivid picture in my mind.

What it really means - _Doctor Who_ (the first ten seconds of
several episodes; Matt Smith then appears in this one):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5685vhoOx8

_Father Ted_ explains a similar phenomenon to Father Dougal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMiKyfd6hA0

And back in _Doctor Who_, Leela catches on quicker than
Dougal did:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvnKXOGYKM8

I do not know if the last two episodes are related?
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-04-29 15:24:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <56674cb0-cbc2-4e71-a40d-***@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <***@excite.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, 29 April 2018 13:19:41 UTC+1, D B Davis wrote:
>> Bradbury's one of my favorite authors, for good reason. He paints
>> pictures in my mind's eye. For instance, this sentence appears in
>> "The Exile:"
>>
>> The captain watched the planet Mars grow very large in space.
>>
>> Now, planets don't grow in the biological sense. Instead they
>> accrete at a geological pace. It's far too slow for one human to witness
>> planetary growth in a period of hours. Anyhow, Bradbury's sentence
>> paints a vivid picture in my mind.
>
>What it really means - _Doctor Who_ (the first ten seconds of
>several episodes; Matt Smith then appears in this one):
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5685vhoOx8
>
>_Father Ted_ explains a similar phenomenon to Father Dougal:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMiKyfd6hA0
>
>And back in _Doctor Who_, Leela catches on quicker than
>Dougal did:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvnKXOGYKM8
>
>I do not know if the last two episodes are related?

Also in _Doctor Who_, in "The Runaway Bride," the Doctor takes
the Tardis back 4.5 billion years or so and he and Donna *watch*
the Earth accreting, one planetesimal at a time, around the
Racnoss ship. My Google-fu is not adequate to find a video of
it.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Quadibloc
2018-04-29 21:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 6:19:41 AM UTC-6, D B Davis wrote:

> The captain watched the planet Mars grow very large in space.

> Now, planets don't grow in the biological sense. Instead they
> accrete at a geological pace.

Usually, when I read such a sentence in a science-fiction story, I think of
perspective, and presume the spaceship is coming in for a landing on Mars, and so
Mars appears bigger because it is getting closer.

John Savard
D B Davis
2018-04-29 12:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
David Johnston <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bradbury used to complain that people took Fahrenheit 451 as being about
> censorship when really it was about people abandoning reading for
> television. The government can only start destroying the written word
> because the the public at large has already abandoned recreational
> reading. The minority who still hang on to their love of reading are
> too small to stop it.
>
> There were two other Bradbury stories I can recall which had the same
> thing of the government trying to limit the human mind by limiting the
> written word. In Pillar of Fire in a bright shiny (ie. cold and
> soulless) science fiction future for reasons of "mental health" horror
> stories have all been banned and burned and cemeteries are being given
> the same treatment. A reanimated corpse tries and fails to save his
> resting place and is burned while quoting Poe. Note that the pillar of
> fire is both book and corpse burning and spaceflight.
>
> Then there's The Exiles, where the characters of fantastic fiction who
> now exist on Mars because their books have once again been destroyed by
> a future culture that thinks that fantasy even as fiction can't co-exist
> with spaceships. They vainly try to resist the arrival of the first
> astronauts who merely by setting foot on Mars will dispel the mystery of
> the planet and eradicate the fantasy entities living there.
>
> Then there was the Ghostly Passenger where a "ghost" is dying because
> people don't believe in ghosts now.
>
> And then there was The Murderer which was about addiction to
> communications technology...an update to F 451's "television is evil"
> them.

You have an excellent memory for stories. It took a re-read for me to
remember the book burning aspect to "The Exiles." That's the only story
that you mention, besides _Fahrenheit 451_, that's previously known to
me.
"The Exile" enumerates some fantasy titles soon after it begins.
Some were read by me, a few more were experienced as Hollywood
treatments, and the remainder are unknown to me.

_Tales of Mystery and Imagination_ (Poe) unknown
_Dracula_ (Stoker) treatment
_Frankenstein_ (Shelley) known
_The Turn of the Screw_ (James) unknown
_The Legend of Sleepy Hollow_ (Irving) treatment
_Rappaccini's Daughter_ (Hawthorne) unknown
_An Occurrence at Owl Bridge_ (Bierce) known
_Alice in Wonderland_ (Carroll) known
_The Willows_ (Blackwood) unknown
_The Wizard of Oz_ (Baum) treatment
_The Weird Shadow Over Innsmouth_ (Lovecraft) unknown

Bradbury's one of my favorite authors, for good reason. He paints
pictures in my mind's eye. For instance, this sentence appears in
"The Exile:"

The captain watched the planet Mars grow very large in space.

Now, planets don't grow in the biological sense. Instead they
accrete at a geological pace. It's far too slow for one human to witness
planetary growth in a period of hours. Anyhow, Bradbury's sentence
paints a vivid picture in my mind.
Orwell likes language that uses an active voice to paint a clear
picture and leave a vivid impression behind. On the other hand, he
believes that political speech and writing use lifeless, colorless,
vague, third person passive language to try to defend the indefensible.
[1] Orwell also encourages the use of new metaphor.
"De Motu" (Berkeley) [2] discourages the use of metaphor in
philosophic writing. Watching Mars grow has no place in philosophic
argument because it leads readers to erroneously biomorphize the planet.

Note.

1. http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/
2. ISBN 0460873431



Thank you,

--
Don
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2018-04-29 18:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:24:03 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <***@crcomp.net>
wrote:

> "The Exile" enumerates some fantasy titles soon after it begins.
>Some were read by me, a few more were experienced as Hollywood
>treatments, and the remainder are unknown to me.
>
> _Tales of Mystery and Imagination_ (Poe) unknown

Collection that includes most of his most famous short stories.
Definitely worth a read, especially if you like Bradbury.

> _Dracula_ (Stoker) treatment

Doesn't much resemble the novel.

> _Frankenstein_ (Shelley) known
> _The Turn of the Screw_ (James) unknown

Short novel, a ghost story where it's not clear whether the ghosts are
real or the nursemaid is nuts. Doesn't suck.

> _The Legend of Sleepy Hollow_ (Irving) treatment

Again, doesn't much resemble the original story.

> _Rappaccini's Daughter_ (Hawthorne) unknown

Short story. I loved it, but not everyone does.

> _An Occurrence at Owl Bridge_ (Bierce) known

Overrated, in my opinion. "Twilight Zone" did a surprisingly faithful
adaptation way back when.

> _Alice in Wonderland_ (Carroll) known
> _The Willows_ (Blackwood) unknown

Okay, finally one I haven't read.

> _The Wizard of Oz_ (Baum) treatment

Some of the movie is faithful to the book, some isn't -- and the movie
completely skips roughly one-third of the story.

> _The Weird Shadow Over Innsmouth_ (Lovecraft) unknown

I think it's just "The Shadow Over Innsmouth," no "Weird" in the
title. I read it, but a long time ago when bingeing on Lovecraft so
I'm not sure whether I'm confusing it with other HPL stories.




--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
David Johnston
2018-04-29 18:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-29 12:35 PM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:24:03 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <***@crcomp.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "The Exile" enumerates some fantasy titles soon after it begins.
>> Some were read by me, a few more were experienced as Hollywood
>> treatments, and the remainder are unknown to me.
>>
>> _Tales of Mystery and Imagination_ (Poe) unknown
>
> Collection that includes most of his most famous short stories.
> Definitely worth a read, especially if you like Bradbury.
>
>> _Dracula_ (Stoker) treatment
>
> Doesn't much resemble the novel.
>
>> _Frankenstein_ (Shelley) known
>> _The Turn of the Screw_ (James) unknown
>
> Short novel, a ghost story where it's not clear whether the ghosts are
> real or the nursemaid is nuts. Doesn't suck.
>
>> _The Legend of Sleepy Hollow_ (Irving) treatment
>
> Again, doesn't much resemble the original story.
>
>> _Rappaccini's Daughter_ (Hawthorne) unknown
>
> Short story. I loved it, but not everyone does.
>
>> _An Occurrence at Owl Bridge_ (Bierce) known
>
> Overrated, in my opinion. "Twilight Zone" did a surprisingly faithful
> adaptation way back when.
>
>> _Alice in Wonderland_ (Carroll) known
>> _The Willows_ (Blackwood) unknown
>
> Okay, finally one I haven't read.
>
>> _The Wizard of Oz_ (Baum) treatment
>
> Some of the movie is faithful to the book, some isn't -- and the movie
> completely skips roughly one-third of the story.
>
>> _The Weird Shadow Over Innsmouth_ (Lovecraft) unknown
>
> I think it's just "The Shadow Over Innsmouth," no "Weird" in the
> title. I read it, but a long time ago when bingeing on Lovecraft so
> I'm not sure whether I'm confusing it with other HPL stories.

The Shadow Over Innsmouth is the one where because there's a small town
full of people of mixed ancestry, the United States government decides
to do some ethnic cleansing. Poor Kermit.


>
>
>
>
Quadibloc
2018-04-29 20:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Indeed, although it was no doubt published in Weird Tales. But if
we're going around correcting titles, what about 'An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge'?

Immortalized by Tom Jones as "The Green, Green Grass of Home", of course.
Quadibloc
2018-04-29 21:08:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 12:35:03 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:

> I think it's just "The Shadow Over Innsmouth," no "Weird" in the
> title. I read it, but a long time ago when bingeing on Lovecraft so
> I'm not sure whether I'm confusing it with other HPL stories.

You're quite correct, but you missed "An Occurrence at Owl _Creek_ Bridge".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u81CTfbc99c

John Savard
Robert Carnegie
2018-04-29 21:28:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, 29 April 2018 22:08:46 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 12:35:03 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>
> > I think it's just "The Shadow Over Innsmouth," no "Weird" in the
> > title. I read it, but a long time ago when bingeing on Lovecraft so
> > I'm not sure whether I'm confusing it with other HPL stories.
>
> You're quite correct, but you missed "An Occurrence at Owl _Creek_ Bridge".
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u81CTfbc99c
>
> John Savard

_Alice's Adventures in Wonderland_ and
_The Wonderful Wizard of Oz_ are the respctive
book titles.
D B Davis
2018-04-29 21:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Robert Carnegie <***@excite.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 April 2018 22:08:46 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 12:35:03 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>>
>> > I think it's just "The Shadow Over Innsmouth," no "Weird" in the
>> > title. I read it, but a long time ago when bingeing on Lovecraft so
>> > I'm not sure whether I'm confusing it with other HPL stories.
>>
>> You're quite correct, but you missed "An Occurrence at Owl _Creek_ Bridge".
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u81CTfbc99c
>>
>> John Savard
>
> _Alice's Adventures in Wonderland_ and
> _The Wonderful Wizard of Oz_ are the respctive
> book titles.

_An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge_ is a typo on my part. It's hard to
transcribe a paperback in fine condition when it keeps wanting to close
on you and you won't put a spine breaker weight on it.
The other three titles, _Alice in Wonderland_, _The Wizard of Oz_,
and _The Weird Shadow Over Innsmouth_, were accurately transcribed from
page 96-97 of my MMPB Bradbury. Unfortunately, it's a little late to ask
Bradbury WTF? ♡♢♤♧

Thank you,

--
Don
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-04-29 20:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:24:03 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <***@crcomp.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>> _The Turn of the Screw_ (James) unknown
>
>Short novel, a ghost story where it's not clear whether the ghosts are
>real or the nursemaid is nuts. Doesn't suck.

No, but I was seriously disappointed by the introduction (which I
read first) to the edition I got hold of. The introducer went on
and on about how terrifying it was, how he had lain awake night
after night thinking about it and shivering, till finally it
dawned on him -- he said -- that he was *not* alone, that
hundreds of other people had been just as terrified by it as he
had been.

Well ... with an introduction like that, almost anything is going
to fall flat. And I had been reading science fiction since I was
a young child. I was not impressed.

Benjamin Britten made an opera out of it, which is ... well, I
judge it better than the book, though it's not the best opera I
ever heard. It's full of schoolboy rhymes designed for
memorizing Latin grammar.
>
>> _An Occurrence at Owl Bridge_ (Bierce) known
>
>Overrated, in my opinion. "Twilight Zone" did a surprisingly faithful
>adaptation way back when.

I wonder if that's the one I saw, not on the tube but in a
theater. Black and white, about half an hour long?

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Quadibloc
2018-04-29 21:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 3:15:07 PM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> Well ... with an introduction like that, almost anything is going
> to fall flat.

I remember holding off on reading my first Lovecraft work, "At the Mountains of
Madness" because of warnings I was putting my sanity at risk. In fact, of course,
Lovecraft telegraphs his punches far too much to be successful at terrifying his
readers - his strengths, which have made him a cult favorite, lie elsewhere;
specifically, in the breadth of his imagination.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-04-29 21:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 14:23:33 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 3:15:07 PM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
>> Well ... with an introduction like that, almost anything is going
>> to fall flat.
>
>I remember holding off on reading my first Lovecraft work, "At the Mountains of
>Madness" because of warnings I was putting my sanity at risk. In fact, of course,
>Lovecraft telegraphs his punches far too much to be successful at terrifying his
>readers - his strengths, which have made him a cult favorite, lie elsewhere;
>specifically, in the breadth of his imagination.

A lot of lit-her-a-tour that is supposed to scare me falls pretty
flat. I suspect that watching a bunch of '50s schlock horror in the
wee hours of Saturday morning had a lot to do with that, and the film
industry has upped the ante considerably since then. Not to mention
gaming.
David Johnston
2018-04-29 22:08:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-29 3:23 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 3:15:07 PM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
>> Well ... with an introduction like that, almost anything is going
>> to fall flat.
>
> I remember holding off on reading my first Lovecraft work, "At the Mountains of
> Madness" because of warnings I was putting my sanity at risk.

...that's absurd. Even when dealing with one of the actually somewhat
disturbing Lovecraft stories...which that one wasn't since it was a late
Lovecraft story where he was drifting out of horror and into science
fiction. In fact no story could be more didactic and detached than At
The Mountains of Madness.
Titus G
2018-04-30 02:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 30/04/18 10:08, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2018-04-29 3:23 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
snip

>> I remember holding off on reading my first Lovecraft work, "At the
>> Mountains of
>> Madness" because of warnings I was putting my sanity at risk.

> ...that's absurd.

No it is not.
I can not comment on his sanity prior to his reading it.
snip
David DeLaney
2018-04-30 08:46:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-29, Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> I remember holding off on reading my first Lovecraft work, "At the Mountains
of
> Madness" because of warnings I was putting my sanity at risk. In fact, of
course,
> Lovecraft telegraphs his punches far too much to be successful at terrifying
his
> readers - his strengths, which have made him a cult favorite, lie elsewhere;
> specifically, in the breadth of his imagination.

Plus which, a lot of his tropes and twists have entered the general archetype
pool, so are now seen coming a ways off, like Conan's or Tolkien's, through
repetition in hundreds (if not thousands) of other stories.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Quadibloc
2018-04-30 13:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I know that happened to Shakespeare. But Tolkien? Didn't he raid old literature for his tropes?
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-04-30 14:12:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <99235b1c-2e8a-4c39-a039-***@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>I know that happened to Shakespeare. But Tolkien? Didn't he raid old
>literature for his tropes?

1. Please quote a short passage of what you're replying to! I
had to go back along the thread to see what you were talking about.
(Fortunately, trn does that easily.)

2. Yes, he did. But in doing so, Tolkien brought many old story
elements back into the modern world, where they've been used by
fantasists good and not-so-good ever since.

I recommend to you Tolkien's essay "Tree and Leaf," in which he
introduces the metaphor of the Story Pot, into which all sorts of
elements, factual and otherwise, have fallen, mixed with
others, and become richer and more rewarding, so that any "cook"
can pull out what he likes to compound his chosen "stew."

(And in the introduction to the essay, he notes that when he
wrote it he was also writing _The Lord of the Rings,_ and "we had
just got to Bree, and I had no more idea than the hobbits of
where Gandalf had got to or who Strider was, and had begun to
despair of ever finding out.")

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Quadibloc
2018-04-30 17:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 8:30:08 AM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> 1. Please quote a short passage of what you're replying to!

I'd like to. But it's very awkward when I reply to something with my smartphone.

John Savard
David Johnston
2018-04-30 16:10:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-30 7:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> I know that happened to Shakespeare. But Tolkien? Didn't he raid old literature for his tropes?
>

Doesn't everyone. But can you think of an example of a Sauron-like Dark
Lord with a horde of monster soldiers before Tolkien?
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2018-04-30 16:24:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <pc7f5o$7nl$***@gioia.aioe.org>,
David Johnston <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2018-04-30 7:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> I know that happened to Shakespeare. But Tolkien? Didn't he raid old
>literature for his tropes?
>>
>
>Doesn't everyone. But can you think of an example of a Sauron-like Dark
>Lord with a horde of monster soldiers before Tolkien?

Could it be.. SATAN?
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Kevrob
2018-04-30 17:41:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 12:24:47 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <pc7f5o$7nl$***@gioia.aioe.org>,
> David Johnston <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On 2018-04-30 7:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> I know that happened to Shakespeare. But Tolkien? Didn't he raid old
> >literature for his tropes?
> >>
> >
> >Doesn't everyone. But can you think of an example of a Sauron-like Dark
> >Lord with a horde of monster soldiers before Tolkien?
>
> Could it be.. SATAN?
>

On level down from The Big Bad, since that position is filled by
Melkor/Morgoth. Mairon/Sauron would be whoever Lucifer/Satan's
top lieutenant "fallen angel" was. Somebody like Beelzebul,
perhaps.

But JRRR said LoTR isn't an allegory, so there doesn't have to
be one-to-one correspondence with the Christian legendarium,
not with any other muthological system.

Kevin R
David Johnston
2018-04-30 18:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-30 11:41 AM, Kevrob wrote:
> On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 12:24:47 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <pc7f5o$7nl$***@gioia.aioe.org>,
>> David Johnston <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 2018-04-30 7:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> I know that happened to Shakespeare. But Tolkien? Didn't he raid old
>>> literature for his tropes?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't everyone. But can you think of an example of a Sauron-like Dark
>>> Lord with a horde of monster soldiers before Tolkien?
>>
>> Could it be.. SATAN?
>>
>
> On level down from The Big Bad, since that position is filled by
> Melkor/Morgoth. Mairon/Sauron would be whoever Lucifer/Satan's
> top lieutenant "fallen angel" was. Somebody like Beelzebul,
> perhaps.
>
> But JRRR said LoTR isn't an allegory, so there doesn't have to
> be one-to-one correspondence with the Christian legendarium,
> not with any other muthological system.

He said it wasn't an allegory about 20th century politics. But I'm
pretty sure that Eru is God and Melkor is Satan. That's not allegory
any more than Numenor being Atlantis is allegory.
Kevrob
2018-04-30 20:03:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 2:27:59 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2018-04-30 11:41 AM, Kevrob wrote:
> > On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 12:24:47 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >> In article <pc7f5o$7nl$***@gioia.aioe.org>,
> >> David Johnston <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On 2018-04-30 7:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> >>>> I know that happened to Shakespeare. But Tolkien? Didn't he raid old
> >>> literature for his tropes?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Doesn't everyone. But can you think of an example of a Sauron-like Dark
> >>> Lord with a horde of monster soldiers before Tolkien?
> >>
> >> Could it be.. SATAN?
> >>
> >
> > On level down from The Big Bad, since that position is filled by
> > Melkor/Morgoth. Mairon/Sauron would be whoever Lucifer/Satan's
> > top lieutenant "fallen angel" was. Somebody like Beelzebul,
> > perhaps.
> >
> > But JRRR said LoTR isn't an allegory, so there doesn't have to
> > be one-to-one correspondence with the Christian legendarium,
> > not with any other muthological system.
>
> He said it wasn't an allegory about 20th century politics. But I'm
> pretty sure that Eru is God and Melkor is Satan. That's not allegory
> any more than Numenor being Atlantis is allegory.

"The devil's lieutenant" position in pre-20th century politics
was often described as a particular human who was usually accused
of being the Antichrist: Nero, Caligula, Muhammad, Suleiman,
Napoleon, and of course Lenin, Stalin and Hitler. I suppose
ordinary folk feared these threats were demon-possessed, or
witches or sorcerers in league with the devil. Approximately,
they'd be on the level of the Witch-king of Angmar, who was a
corrupted man, as were all the Nazgul.

Other "Dark Lords" with lieutenants and troops at their beck and call?

Fu Manchu and his many knock-offs? Count Dracula? Professor Moriarty?
John Sunlight appeared in DOC SAVAGE while JRRT was writing LoTR.
Ming the Merciless is "Fu Manchu......IN SPACE," at least visually.
King John in the tales of Robin Hood?

Kevin R
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-04-30 22:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
David Johnston <***@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:pc7n7a$mbd$***@gioia.aioe.org:

> On 2018-04-30 11:41 AM, Kevrob wrote:
>> On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 12:24:47 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan
>> <tednolan> wrote:
>>> In article <pc7f5o$7nl$***@gioia.aioe.org>,
>>> David Johnston <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-04-30 7:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> I know that happened to Shakespeare. But Tolkien? Didn't he
>>>>> raid old
>>>> literature for his tropes?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't everyone. But can you think of an example of a
>>>> Sauron-like Dark Lord with a horde of monster soldiers before
>>>> Tolkien?
>>>
>>> Could it be.. SATAN?
>>>
>>
>> On level down from The Big Bad, since that position is filled
>> by Melkor/Morgoth. Mairon/Sauron would be whoever
>> Lucifer/Satan's top lieutenant "fallen angel" was. Somebody
>> like Beelzebul, perhaps.
>>
>> But JRRR said LoTR isn't an allegory, so there doesn't have to
>> be one-to-one correspondence with the Christian legendarium,
>> not with any other muthological system.
>
> He said it wasn't an allegory about 20th century politics. But
> I'm pretty sure that Eru is God and Melkor is Satan. That's not
> allegory any more than Numenor being Atlantis is allegory.
>
Tolkein drew heavily on anglo-saxon mythology, including pre-
Christian mythology. And he mixed it all up pretty well.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Moriarty
2018-05-01 01:17:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 2:24:47 AM UTC+10, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <pc7f5o$7nl$***@gioia.aioe.org>,
> David Johnston <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On 2018-04-30 7:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> I know that happened to Shakespeare. But Tolkien? Didn't he raid old
> >literature for his tropes?
> >>
> >
> >Doesn't everyone. But can you think of an example of a Sauron-like Dark
> >Lord with a horde of monster soldiers before Tolkien?
>
> Could it be.. SATAN?

Or Surtur?

-Moriarty
Dimensional Traveler
2018-05-01 04:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4/30/2018 6:17 PM, Moriarty wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 2:24:47 AM UTC+10, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <pc7f5o$7nl$***@gioia.aioe.org>,
>> David Johnston <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 2018-04-30 7:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> I know that happened to Shakespeare. But Tolkien? Didn't he raid old
>>> literature for his tropes?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't everyone. But can you think of an example of a Sauron-like Dark
>>> Lord with a horde of monster soldiers before Tolkien?
>>
>> Could it be.. SATAN?
>
> Or Surtur?
>
Ghengis Khan!


--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Greg Goss
2018-05-02 01:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
David Johnston <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2018-04-30 7:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> I know that happened to Shakespeare. But Tolkien? Didn't he raid old literature for his tropes?
>>
>
>Doesn't everyone. But can you think of an example of a Sauron-like Dark
>Lord with a horde of monster soldiers before Tolkien?

The witch's flying monkeys?
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
J. Clarke
2018-05-02 02:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 01 May 2018 19:18:15 -0600, Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:

>David Johnston <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2018-04-30 7:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> I know that happened to Shakespeare. But Tolkien? Didn't he raid old literature for his tropes?
>>>
>>
>>Doesn't everyone. But can you think of an example of a Sauron-like Dark
>>Lord with a horde of monster soldiers before Tolkien?
>
>The witch's flying monkeys?

I'm pretty sure there was something like that somewhere in Burroughs,
but can't recall exactly where off the top of my head.

In Oz, the Nome King comes closer I think.
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-05-02 02:01:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
>David Johnston <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2018-04-30 7:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> I know that happened to Shakespeare. But Tolkien? Didn't he raid old
>literature for his tropes?
>>>
>>
>>Doesn't everyone. But can you think of an example of a Sauron-like Dark
>>Lord with a horde of monster soldiers before Tolkien?
>
>The witch's flying monkeys?

The question would then arise, whether Tolkien ever *read* _The
Wizard of Oz._

I probably need to reread the Eddas, before I attempt to answer
David's question.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2018-05-02 07:07:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 2 May 2018 02:01:58 GMT, ***@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:

>In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
>Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
>>David Johnston <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2018-04-30 7:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> I know that happened to Shakespeare. But Tolkien? Didn't he raid old
>>literature for his tropes?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Doesn't everyone. But can you think of an example of a Sauron-like Dark
>>>Lord with a horde of monster soldiers before Tolkien?
>>
>>The witch's flying monkeys?
>
>The question would then arise, whether Tolkien ever *read* _The
>Wizard of Oz._

Probably. He read a lot, including American fiction.

He apparently took an interest in American culture, partly because he
discovered there were Anglo-Saxon family names surviving in Appalachia
that had gone extinct in England (e.g., Brinegar -- I knew several
Brinegars when we lived in the Kentucky hills).

And speaking of the Inklings, let us not forget that C.S. Lewis said
that he swiped some of the ideas in "The Great Divorce" from an
American SF pulp magazine. Not something I'd expect him to have read.




--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-05-02 13:28:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 2 May 2018 02:01:58 GMT, ***@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
>>Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>David Johnston <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2018-04-30 7:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> I know that happened to Shakespeare. But Tolkien? Didn't he raid old
>>>literature for his tropes?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Doesn't everyone. But can you think of an example of a Sauron-like Dark
>>>>Lord with a horde of monster soldiers before Tolkien?
>>>
>>>The witch's flying monkeys?
>>
>>The question would then arise, whether Tolkien ever *read* _The
>>Wizard of Oz._
>
>Probably. He read a lot, including American fiction.
>
>He apparently took an interest in American culture, partly because he
>discovered there were Anglo-Saxon family names surviving in Appalachia
>that had gone extinct in England (e.g., Brinegar -- I knew several
>Brinegars when we lived in the Kentucky hills).
>
>And speaking of the Inklings, let us not forget that C.S. Lewis said
>that he swiped some of the ideas in "The Great Divorce" from an
>American SF pulp magazine. Not something I'd expect him to have read.
>
He and Tolkien both read some SF. At one point they got together
and said, "Okay, let's us write some SF/F," and Lewis wrote the
Ransom trilogy and Tolkien wrote, IIRC, _Autrou and Itroun,_
which didn't sell until after he'd died.

But note that Lewis could write more quickly than Tolkien, who
was always going back and revising.

Somewhere on disk, I believe, I still have the post where
somebody identified the SF story Lewis referenced (~"His hero
traveled into the past, and there found grass that wounded the
feet and apples that couldn't be bitten into, because the past
can't be changed."~) I'll see if I can find it.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Quadibloc
2018-05-02 14:45:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 7:45:09 AM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:


> Somewhere on disk, I believe, I still have the post where
> somebody identified the SF story Lewis referenced (~"His hero
> traveled into the past, and there found grass that wounded the
> feet and apples that couldn't be bitten into, because the past
> can't be changed."~) I'll see if I can find it.

Those science-fiction authors and their sloppy science!

In a past that really can't be changed, the air would trap a time traveller like amber!

Actually, it would be even worse, and I can't really blame an author for not
letting scientific accuracy get in the way of a scenario this poetic.
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-05-02 14:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@kithrup.com>,
Dorothy J Heydt <***@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <***@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 2 May 2018 02:01:58 GMT, ***@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
>>>Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>>David Johnston <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2018-04-30 7:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>> I know that happened to Shakespeare. But Tolkien? Didn't he raid old
>>>>literature for his tropes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Doesn't everyone. But can you think of an example of a Sauron-like Dark
>>>>>Lord with a horde of monster soldiers before Tolkien?
>>>>
>>>>The witch's flying monkeys?
>>>
>>>The question would then arise, whether Tolkien ever *read* _The
>>>Wizard of Oz._
>>
>>Probably. He read a lot, including American fiction.
>>
>>He apparently took an interest in American culture, partly because he
>>discovered there were Anglo-Saxon family names surviving in Appalachia
>>that had gone extinct in England (e.g., Brinegar -- I knew several
>>Brinegars when we lived in the Kentucky hills).
>>
>>And speaking of the Inklings, let us not forget that C.S. Lewis said
>>that he swiped some of the ideas in "The Great Divorce" from an
>>American SF pulp magazine. Not something I'd expect him to have read.
>>
>He and Tolkien both read some SF. At one point they got together
>and said, "Okay, let's us write some SF/F," and Lewis wrote the
>Ransom trilogy and Tolkien wrote, IIRC, _Autrou and Itroun,_
>which didn't sell until after he'd died.
>
>But note that Lewis could write more quickly than Tolkien, who
>was always going back and revising.
>
>Somewhere on disk, I believe, I still have the post where
>somebody identified the SF story Lewis referenced (~"His hero
>traveled into the past, and there found grass that wounded the
>feet and apples that couldn't be bitten into, because the past
>can't be changed."~) I'll see if I can find it.

Update: Found it.

In 2002, Fred Galvin posted as follows:

>I think this may be it: Charles F. Hall, "The Man Who Lived
>Backwards", Tales of Wonder [British], Summer, 1938. I haven't seen it
>myself; I'm going by the review on p. 217 of Paul J. Nahin, Time
>Machines, Second Edition, Springer, 1999, ISBN 0-387-98571-9. Quoting
>from Nahin's book:
>
>
> The tale tells of a young physics teacher who is "twisted into a
> reversed Time Stream" by an electrical discharge. As he lives
> backward in time, he observes everybody about him appearing to
> run in reverse, but even more puzzling is that they have developed
> a "dreadful, granite-like hardness." We soon learn why:
>
> For a while he could not understand the inpenetrable hardness
> of external objects which he had experienced; it seemed
> they ought rather to be of intangible transience, much as a
> dream, since he was re-viewing the Past. But a moment's
> thought gave him the logical answer. The Past is definite,
> shaped, unalterable, as nothing else in Creation is. Therefore,
> to argue that he could move or alter any object here [the
> past] was to argue that he could change the whole history of
> the world or cosmos. Everything he saw about him had happened,
> and could not be changed in any way. On the other hand he was
> fluid, movable, alterable, since _his_ future still lay before
> him, even if it had been reversed; he was the intruder, the
> anomaly. In any clash between himself and the Past, the Past
> would prove irresistible every time.
>
> This is, I believe, a unique presentation of the unchangeability
> of the past. Why Hall's young teacher could displace the molecules
> of the Past's air, however, is left unanswered.


--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Joy Beeson
2018-05-09 03:04:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 2 May 2018 14:51:59 GMT, ***@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:

> > This is, I believe, a unique presentation of the unchangeability
> > of the past. Why Hall's young teacher could displace the molecules
> > of the Past's air, however, is left unanswered.

This question was also left unanswered when Super Goof went into the
past hoping to reform the Beagle Boys.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2018-05-09 04:09:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>,
Joy Beeson <***@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 2 May 2018 14:51:59 GMT, ***@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>wrote:
>
>> > This is, I believe, a unique presentation of the unchangeability
>> > of the past. Why Hall's young teacher could displace the molecules
>> > of the Past's air, however, is left unanswered.
>
>This question was also left unanswered when Super Goof went into the
>past hoping to reform the Beagle Boys.
>

But, do they have names before the first time they go to jail?
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
D B Davis
2018-06-04 00:06:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dorothy J Heydt <***@kithrup.com> wrote:
> In article <***@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <***@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>In article <***@reader80.eternal-september.org>

<snip>

>>Somewhere on disk, I believe, I still have the post where
>>somebody identified the SF story Lewis referenced (~"His hero
>>traveled into the past, and there found grass that wounded the
>>feet and apples that couldn't be bitten into, because the past
>>can't be changed."~) I'll see if I can find it.
>
> Update: Found it.
>
> In 2002, Fred Galvin posted as follows:
>
>>I think this may be it: Charles F. Hall, "The Man Who Lived
>>Backwards", Tales of Wonder [British], Summer, 1938. I haven't seen it
>>myself; I'm going by the review on p. 217 of Paul J. Nahin, Time
>>Machines, Second Edition, Springer, 1999, ISBN 0-387-98571-9. Quoting
>>from Nahin's book:
>>
>>
>> The tale tells of a young physics teacher who is "twisted into a
>> reversed Time Stream" by an electrical discharge. As he lives
>> backward in time, he observes everybody about him appearing to
>> run in reverse, but even more puzzling is that they have developed
>> a "dreadful, granite-like hardness." We soon learn why:
>>
>> For a while he could not understand the inpenetrable hardness
>> of external objects which he had experienced; it seemed
>> they ought rather to be of intangible transience, much as a
>> dream, since he was re-viewing the Past. But a moment's
>> thought gave him the logical answer. The Past is definite,
>> shaped, unalterable, as nothing else in Creation is. Therefore,
>> to argue that he could move or alter any object here [the
>> past] was to argue that he could change the whole history of
>> the world or cosmos. Everything he saw about him had happened,
>> and could not be changed in any way. On the other hand he was
>> fluid, movable, alterable, since _his_ future still lay before
>> him, even if it had been reversed; he was the intruder, the
>> anomaly. In any clash between himself and the Past, the Past
>> would prove irresistible every time.
>>
>> This is, I believe, a unique presentation of the unchangeability
>> of the past. Why Hall's young teacher could displace the molecules
>> of the Past's air, however, is left unanswered.

_Oxford Dictionary_ defines an object as "a material thing that can be
seen and touched." Presumably a material thing seen with the naked eye
and tactilely touched.
Hall knows about atoms. He mentions them in "The Time-Drug."
Molecules are matter waves. [1] That's why Rostof, the man who lived
backwards, is able to breathe molecules.
Hall's entire opus consists of three short stories available as a
collection in _The Man Who Lived Backwards and Other Stories_. [2] You
can read my review of Hall's collection at:

http://crcomp.net/review/manwholivedbackwards/index.html

Noden Books published the collection in 2017. The back side of the
title page declares "This edition copyright © Nodens Books, L.L.C." That
wording seems a little off to me. What are the legal ramifications of
"this edition?" Does it imply that the stories themselves are in the
public domain?

Note.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave#Molecules
2. ISBN 9781976499418



Thank you,

--
Don
Robert Carnegie
2018-06-05 09:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, 4 June 2018 01:06:58 UTC+1, D B Davis wrote:
> Dorothy J Heydt <***@kithrup.com> wrote:
> > In article <***@kithrup.com>,
> > Dorothy J Heydt <***@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >>In article <***@reader80.eternal-september.org>
>
> <snip>
>
> >>Somewhere on disk, I believe, I still have the post where
> >>somebody identified the SF story Lewis referenced (~"His hero
> >>traveled into the past, and there found grass that wounded the
> >>feet and apples that couldn't be bitten into, because the past
> >>can't be changed."~) I'll see if I can find it.
> >
> > Update: Found it.
> >
> > In 2002, Fred Galvin posted as follows:
> >
> >>I think this may be it: Charles F. Hall, "The Man Who Lived
> >>Backwards", Tales of Wonder [British], Summer, 1938. I haven't seen it
> >>myself; I'm going by the review on p. 217 of Paul J. Nahin, Time
> >>Machines, Second Edition, Springer, 1999, ISBN 0-387-98571-9. Quoting
> >>from Nahin's book:
> >>
> >>
> >> The tale tells of a young physics teacher who is "twisted into a
> >> reversed Time Stream" by an electrical discharge. As he lives
> >> backward in time, he observes everybody about him appearing to
> >> run in reverse, but even more puzzling is that they have developed
> >> a "dreadful, granite-like hardness." We soon learn why:
> >>
> >> For a while he could not understand the inpenetrable hardness
> >> of external objects which he had experienced; it seemed
> >> they ought rather to be of intangible transience, much as a
> >> dream, since he was re-viewing the Past. But a moment's
> >> thought gave him the logical answer. The Past is definite,
> >> shaped, unalterable, as nothing else in Creation is. Therefore,
> >> to argue that he could move or alter any object here [the
> >> past] was to argue that he could change the whole history of
> >> the world or cosmos. Everything he saw about him had happened,
> >> and could not be changed in any way. On the other hand he was
> >> fluid, movable, alterable, since _his_ future still lay before
> >> him, even if it had been reversed; he was the intruder, the
> >> anomaly. In any clash between himself and the Past, the Past
> >> would prove irresistible every time.
> >>
> >> This is, I believe, a unique presentation of the unchangeability
> >> of the past. Why Hall's young teacher could displace the molecules
> >> of the Past's air, however, is left unanswered.
>
> _Oxford Dictionary_ defines an object as "a material thing that can be
> seen and touched." Presumably a material thing seen with the naked eye
> and tactilely touched.
> Hall knows about atoms. He mentions them in "The Time-Drug."
> Molecules are matter waves. [1] That's why Rostof, the man who lived
> backwards, is able to breathe molecules.
> Hall's entire opus consists of three short stories available as a
> collection in _The Man Who Lived Backwards and Other Stories_. [2] You
> can read my review of Hall's collection at:
>
> http://crcomp.net/review/manwholivedbackwards/index.html
>
> Noden Books published the collection in 2017. The back side of the
> title page declares "This edition copyright © Nodens Books, L.L.C." That
> wording seems a little off to me. What are the legal ramifications of
> "this edition?" Does it imply that the stories themselves are in the
> public domain?
>
> Note.
>
> 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave#Molecules
> 2. ISBN 9781976499418

This isn't my field but I guess that the stories are
public domain in the U.S. but not in Europe. Your book
is from a U.S. chapbook publisher, and copyright may be
claimed on the text-editing work to produce it, and maybe
the typesetting, perhaps art. So you shouldn't just
Xerox it, for instance.
D B Davis
2018-06-05 12:50:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Robert Carnegie <***@excite.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 4 June 2018 01:06:58 UTC+1, D B Davis wrote:

<snip>

>> Hall's entire opus consists of three short stories available as a
>> collection in _The Man Who Lived Backwards and Other Stories_. [2] You
>> can read my review of Hall's collection at:
>>
>> http://crcomp.net/review/manwholivedbackwards/index.html
>>
>> Noden Books published the collection in 2017. The back side of the
>> title page declares "This edition copyright © Nodens Books, L.L.C." That
>> wording seems a little off to me. What are the legal ramifications of
>> "this edition?" Does it imply that the stories themselves are in the
>> public domain?
>>
>> Note.
>>
>> 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave#Molecules
>> 2. ISBN 9781976499418
>
> This isn't my field but I guess that the stories are
> public domain in the U.S. but not in Europe. Your book
> is from a U.S. chapbook publisher, and copyright may be
> claimed on the text-editing work to produce it, and maybe
> the typesetting, perhaps art. So you shouldn't just
> Xerox it, for instance.

You confirm my suspicions of an oh-so-carefully-worded copyright "tell"
that tries to avoid any mention of "public domain." It's a shame. The
publisher earns his keep by making it convenient for me to acquire a
hard copy of the Halls, whether they're in the public domain or not.
AFAIK none of Hall's stories made it to the cover of the magazines
that they originally appeared in. So the chapbook cover [1] probably
comes from the interior artwork of "The Time Drug."
Who knows? The publisher may feel that their distinctive image crop,
which cuts off the bottom third of the original artwork, is also
copyrightable. So that's why the oh-so-carefully-acquired artwork shown
at the top-right corner of my review uses the original, full-size
artwork. Besides, the original artwork looks better.
Allow me to ask the group yet another question. When a story's in
the public domain that includes its interior artwork too, right?

Note.

1. https://www.amazon.ca/Man-Lived-Backwards-Other-Stories/dp/1976499410



Thank you,

--
Don
Quadibloc
2018-06-05 13:53:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 6:50:24 AM UTC-6, D B Davis wrote:
> When a story's in
> the public domain that includes its interior artwork too, right?

Why? They don't necessarily have the same author.

The author of the artwork, of course, is the artist.

John Savard
D B Davis
2018-06-05 14:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 6:50:24 AM UTC-6, D B Davis wrote:
>> When a story's in
>> the public domain that includes its interior artwork too, right?
>
> Why? They don't necessarily have the same author.
>
> The author of the artwork, of course, is the artist.

Indeed. Regardless, it's my suspicion that my magazine publishers own
the copyright on the articles that they paid me to write. When you "will
hack for food" it pays to ignore the fine print. Besides, most, if not
all, of the stories in the public domain published on sites such as
archive.org and gutenberg.org, include the artwork.



Thank you,

--
Don
Quadibloc
2018-06-05 16:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 8:52:55 AM UTC-6, D B Davis wrote:

> Indeed. Regardless, it's my suspicion that my magazine publishers own
> the copyright on the articles that they paid me to write.

Usually, they do. It does depend on the author's contract terms; some of the
more popular ones could obtain more favorable terms.

However, for copyright purposes, it doesn't matter who owns the copyright, it
matters who the author is. Copyright is either the life of the author + X years,
or Y years for *institutional* works, where there is no single author. A story
doesn't become an institutional work simply because the entire copyright, rather
than just first serial rights, was sold to a magazine.

John Savard
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-06-05 16:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:2e9eb3e3-638d-4bec-8b1e-***@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 8:52:55 AM UTC-6, D B Davis wrote:
>
>> Indeed. Regardless, it's my suspicion that my magazine
>> publishers own the copyright on the articles that they paid me
>> to write.
>
> Usually, they do. It does depend on the author's contract terms;
> some of the more popular ones could obtain more favorable terms.
>
> However, for copyright purposes, it doesn't matter who owns the
> copyright, it matters who the author is. Copyright is either the
> life of the author + X years, or Y years for *institutional*
> works, where there is no single author. A story doesn't become
> an institutional work simply because the entire copyright,
> rather than just first serial rights, was sold to a magazine.
>
I have doubt about that in Canada, but you're certainly wrong (as
usual) for the United States. Institutional copyright under work for
hire belongs to the company, regardless of how many authors there
were, and the term is determined as such, not based on author's life.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2018-06-05 17:07:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 09:16:54 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>news:2e9eb3e3-638d-4bec-8b1e-***@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 8:52:55 AM UTC-6, D B Davis wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed. Regardless, it's my suspicion that my magazine
>>> publishers own the copyright on the articles that they paid me
>>> to write.
>>
>> Usually, they do. It does depend on the author's contract terms;
>> some of the more popular ones could obtain more favorable terms.

That part's more or less correct, amazingly enough. In the U.S. there
are two categories of publishing contract: standard and
work-made-for-hire. With the former, the author owns the copyright;
with the latter, the publisher does.

Popularity is irrelevant, though, and it's an either/or situation --
it's work-made-for-hire or it isn't, full stop. There are actually
several rules about what can be WMFH (e.g., the contract must be
signed before the final version is written), but they're often
ignored.

(I know it's usually called "work for hire," but the law calls it
"work-made-for-hire.")

>> However, for copyright purposes, it doesn't matter who owns the
>> copyright, it matters who the author is. Copyright is either the
>> life of the author + X years, or Y years for *institutional*
>> works, where there is no single author. A story doesn't become
>> an institutional work simply because the entire copyright,
>> rather than just first serial rights, was sold to a magazine.
>>
>I have doubt about that in Canada, but you're certainly wrong (as
>usual) for the United States. Institutional copyright under work for
>hire belongs to the company, regardless of how many authors there
>were, and the term is determined as such, not based on author's life.

He may have somehow muddled droit morale with copyright. In the U.S.
droit morale has no legal existence, but in Canada it gives the author
certain rights regardless of who owns the copyright -- mostly the
right to refuse to allow changes the author finds unacceptable, or
publication in a venue the author finds morally offensive.

Or possibly he thinks you can sell a copyright outright after the
fact. You can't. You can sell all existing rights, but not the
copyright itself. If the author sells all rights, then the magazine
has complete control of the work, but the copyright still belongs to
the author and still expires seventy years after his death.

But generally, most magazines don't buy all rights, because why should
they? They either commission the piece as work for hire, in which
case the copyright (assuming a corporation owns the mag) is 95 years,
or they just buy the rights they intend to use -- which is often more
than just first rights, by the way. I recently signed an ASIMOV'S
contract where they buy a bunch of reprint rights (anthologies,
foreign editions, etc.), but they're all non-exclusive and pay me
additional money. And they certainly have no claim on the copyright.




--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-06-05 18:13:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote in
news:***@reader80.eternal-september.
org:

> On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 09:16:54 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>news:2e9eb3e3-638d-4bec-8b1e-***@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 8:52:55 AM UTC-6, D B Davis wrote:
>>>
>>>> Indeed. Regardless, it's my suspicion that my magazine
>>>> publishers own the copyright on the articles that they paid
>>>> me to write.
>>>
>>> Usually, they do. It does depend on the author's contract
>>> terms; some of the more popular ones could obtain more
>>> favorable terms.
>
> That part's more or less correct, amazingly enough. In the U.S.
> there are two categories of publishing contract: standard and
> work-made-for-hire. With the former, the author owns the
> copyright; with the latter, the publisher does.
>
> Popularity is irrelevant, though, and it's an either/or
> situation -- it's work-made-for-hire or it isn't, full stop.
> There are actually several rules about what can be WMFH (e.g.,
> the contract must be signed before the final version is
> written), but they're often ignored.

Popularity (of the author, and, I suppose, of the publication) will
only affect the odds of which contract gets signed. And the size of
the check, of course.
>
> (I know it's usually called "work for hire," but the law calls
> it "work-made-for-hire.")

Noted.
>
>>> However, for copyright purposes, it doesn't matter who owns
>>> the copyright, it matters who the author is. Copyright is
>>> either the life of the author + X years, or Y years for
>>> *institutional* works, where there is no single author. A
>>> story doesn't become an institutional work simply because the
>>> entire copyright, rather than just first serial rights, was
>>> sold to a magazine.
>>>
>>I have doubt about that in Canada, but you're certainly wrong
>>(as usual) for the United States. Institutional copyright under
>>work for hire belongs to the company, regardless of how many
>>authors there were, and the term is determined as such, not
>>based on author's life.
>
> He may have somehow muddled droit morale with copyright. In the
> U.S. droit morale has no legal existence, but in Canada it gives
> the author certain rights regardless of who owns the copyright
> -- mostly the right to refuse to allow changes the author finds
> unacceptable, or publication in a venue the author finds morally
> offensive.

It's also possible he's correct about Canadian law, no matter how
unlikely it seems. (I mean, just because it never *has* happened
doesn't mean it never *could*. It's not like he's Shawn Wilson or
something.)
>
> Or possibly he thinks you can sell a copyright outright after
> the fact. You can't. You can sell all existing rights, but not
> the copyright itself. If the author sells all rights, then the
> magazine has complete control of the work, but the copyright
> still belongs to the author and still expires seventy years
> after his death.
>
> But generally, most magazines don't buy all rights, because why
> should they?

I think it's rather more a matter of "most authors don't *sell* all
the right, because why should they?" Most magazines would
cheerfully buy the author's children as organ donors if they could
get them for the same price. (And many feel they *have* bought the
authors' souls, as I'm sure you are aware.)

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2018-06-05 19:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 11:13:20 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:***@reader80.eternal-september.
>org:
>>
>> But generally, most magazines don't buy all rights, because why
>> should they?
>
>I think it's rather more a matter of "most authors don't *sell* all
>the right, because why should they?" Most magazines would
>cheerfully buy the author's children as organ donors if they could
>get them for the same price.

Good point.



--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
Quadibloc
2018-06-06 02:05:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 11:07:57 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:

> Or possibly he thinks you can sell a copyright outright after the
> fact. You can't. You can sell all existing rights, but not the
> copyright itself.

Basically, my error was that I thought that the "after the fact" situation
basicaly applied even in the beginning. That one could in the beginning sell not
only all rights, but the copyright itself - so it's "Copyright 1994 Publishing
Co.", but the _term_ of the copyright was still the same as if it was Copyright
1994 Joe Author, because... it _wasn't_ a work-for-hire.

A work for hire usually involves multiple authors, making it an institutional
work; such as a comic book, with a writer, a letterer, a penciller, an inker.

Now, there are legitimate situations where a work ought to be a work-for-hire
even if there's only one author. For example, someone writes a movie script
using characters originated by another author. Thus, it's a pity Ian Fleming
didn't write the Thunderball contract correctly.

So I wasn't thinking of moral rights, except that I had thought that the
identity of the author determines copyright term - and that authorship and
ownership of the copyright itself, not just rights, were separable.

John Savard
Ninapenda Jibini
2018-06-06 02:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:dbe54141-2b42-424b-931f-***@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 11:07:57 AM UTC-6, Lawrence
> Watt-Evans wrote:
>
>> Or possibly he thinks you can sell a copyright outright after
>> the fact. You can't. You can sell all existing rights, but
>> not the copyright itself.
>
> Basically, my error was that I thought that the "after the fact"
> situation basicaly applied even in the beginning. That one could
> in the beginning sell not only all rights, but the copyright
> itself - so it's "Copyright 1994 Publishing Co.", but the _term_
> of the copyright was still the same as if it was Copyright 1994
> Joe Author, because... it _wasn't_ a work-for-hire.
>
> A work for hire usually involves multiple authors, making it an
> institutional work;

Again, you are, as usual, full of shit, at least for the US (and
likely Canada, too). There is an entire section of Title 17 on
shared copyrights. They are *not* corporate copyrights by nature.

Multiple authors and work (made) for hire are completely
independent of each other.

> Now, there are legitimate situations where a work ought to be a
> work-for-hire even if there's only one author. For example,
> someone writes a movie script using characters originated by
> another author.

While it is arguable that *ought* to be work (made) for hire,
again, there's nothing inherent to it that makes it so. What is
inherent is that it is a derivative copyright, with separate and
discinct rights belonging to both the author of the derivative work
and to the creator of the original (assuming that copyright applies
to what is used).

Again, you're full of shit.

So far, you have been wrong on every. single. statement. you have
made about copyright.

> Thus, it's a pity Ian Fleming didn't write the
> Thunderball contract correctly.

Completely irrelevant to this discussion.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2018-06-06 06:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 02:39:46 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>Quadibloc <***@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>news:dbe54141-2b42-424b-931f-***@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 11:07:57 AM UTC-6, Lawrence
>> Watt-Evans wrote:
>>
>>> Or possibly he thinks you can sell a copyright outright after
>>> the fact. You can't. You can sell all existing rights, but
>>> not the copyright itself.
>>
>> Basically, my error was that I thought that the "after the fact"
>> situation basicaly applied even in the beginning. That one could
>> in the beginning sell not only all rights, but the copyright
>> itself - so it's "Copyright 1994 Publishing Co.", but the _term_
>> of the copyright was still the same as if it was Copyright 1994
>> Joe Author, because... it _wasn't_ a work-for-hire.
>>
>> A work for hire usually involves multiple authors, making it an
>> institutional work;
>
>Again, you are, as usual, full of shit, at least for the US (and
>likely Canada, too). There is an entire section of Title 17 on
>shared copyrights. They are *not* corporate copyrights by nature.
>
>Multiple authors and work (made) for hire are completely
>independent of each other.
>
>> Now, there are legitimate situations where a work ought to be a
>> work-for-hire even if there's only one author. For example,
>> someone writes a movie script using characters originated by
>> another author.
>
>While it is arguable that *ought* to be work (made) for hire,
>again, there's nothing inherent to it that makes it so. What is
>inherent is that it is a derivative copyright, with separate and
>discinct rights belonging to both the author of the derivative work
>and to the creator of the original (assuming that copyright applies
>to what is used).
>
>Again, you're full of shit.
>
>So far, you have been wrong on every. single. statement. you have
>made about copyright.

To the point I'm not going to try to correct any of it, I'll just
throw up my hands and second you: He's wrong on every single
statement.





--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
Jack Bohn
2018-05-02 16:06:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <***@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
> Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> >Probably. He read a lot, including American fiction.
...
> >And speaking of the Inklings, let us not forget that C.S. Lewis said
> >that he swiped some of the ideas in "The Great Divorce" from an
> >American SF pulp magazine. Not something I'd expect him to have read.
> >
> He and Tolkien both read some SF. At one point they got together
> and said, "Okay, let's us write some SF/F,"

Lewis was published in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, which, for all the taste of the editor, was a pulp. "Ministering Angels" and "The Shoddy Lands" look to have their first publication there, so, whether he submitted them or the editor approached him, it doesn't seem to be the case of Verne and Wells "appearing in" Amazing Storied via reprints.

(I must have run across him in "The Best from..." the sixth series, my mind would have already been blown by Shirley ("The Lottery") Jackson having made the jump from schoolbook to pulps in the fifth series.)

--
-Jack
Quadibloc
2018-05-02 16:30:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Ministering Angels" appeared in the January 1958 issue of F&SF, and
according to a site about Lewis, its first book publication was in "Of
Other Worlds" from 1966, so, astonishing as it is to me, you
appear to be right.
William Hyde
2018-05-02 19:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 3:07:45 AM UTC-4, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2018 02:01:58 GMT, ***@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
> >Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
> >>David Johnston <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 2018-04-30 7:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> >>>> I know that happened to Shakespeare. But Tolkien? Didn't he raid old
> >>literature for his tropes?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Doesn't everyone. But can you think of an example of a Sauron-like Dark
> >>>Lord with a horde of monster soldiers before Tolkien?
> >>
> >>The witch's flying monkeys?
> >
> >The question would then arise, whether Tolkien ever *read* _The
> >Wizard of Oz._
>
> Probably. He read a lot, including American fiction.

We know from his letters that he'd read Asimov, for example.

William Hyde
James Nicoll
2018-05-02 20:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <349ef50a-0ad8-48cc-87cb-***@googlegroups.com>,
William Hyde <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 3:07:45 AM UTC-4, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 May 2018 02:01:58 GMT, ***@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
>> >Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
>> >>David Johnston <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On 2018-04-30 7:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> >>>> I know that happened to Shakespeare. But Tolkien? Didn't he raid old
>> >>literature for his tropes?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Doesn't everyone. But can you think of an example of a Sauron-like Dark
>> >>>Lord with a horde of monster soldiers before Tolkien?
>> >>
>> >>The witch's flying monkeys?
>> >
>> >The question would then arise, whether Tolkien ever *read* _The
>> >Wizard of Oz._
>>
>> Probably. He read a lot, including American fiction.
>
>We know from his letters that he'd read Asimov, for example.

Images of Saruman trying his hand at Seldoning back the lost golden age....
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Johnny1A
2018-05-17 05:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 3:33:12 PM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <349ef50a-0ad8-48cc-87cb-***@googlegroups.com>,
> William Hyde <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 3:07:45 AM UTC-4, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2 May 2018 02:01:58 GMT, ***@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
> >> >Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
> >> >>David Johnston <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>On 2018-04-30 7:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> >>>> I know that happened to Shakespeare. But Tolkien? Didn't he raid old
> >> >>literature for his tropes?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Doesn't everyone. But can you think of an example of a Sauron-like Dark
> >> >>>Lord with a horde of monster soldiers before Tolkien?
> >> >>
> >> >>The witch's flying monkeys?
> >> >
> >> >The question would then arise, whether Tolkien ever *read* _The
> >> >Wizard of Oz._
> >>
> >> Probably. He read a lot, including American fiction.
> >
> >We know from his letters that he'd read Asimov, for example.
>
> Images of Saruman trying his hand at Seldoning back the lost golden age....
> --

It's interesting if he did read that, because Seldon looks almost like a central casting example of one of Tolkien's classes of villain, the Reformer. He would be in the same general class as Sauron. Saruman is also a Reformer, of course, he'd be less likely to try to bring back a past age than to rush forward to a hypothetical new one, regardless of the cost to bystanders.

The decision of the Second Foundation to sacrifice a world to take down the Mule, or Seldon's willingness to trick 100,000 people into moving out to the Marches with the intention of trapping them there, would fit right into that mindset.

Tolkien's other class of villainous motivation is the Embalmer, the one who keeps trying to freeze change, or force things backward against their natural tendency. That's the category who would sacrifice the living to regain the Golden Age.

Tolkien-esque embalmers included the Elves of Eregion of who made the Rings, or Denethor, they're less likely to be master villains and more likely to be used by villains, though they can become nasty as Denethor does at the end. The initial government on Terminus, that Salvor Hardin overthrows, are Embalmers.
Default User
2018-05-03 00:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:

> On Wed, 2 May 2018 02:01:58 GMT, ***@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> wrote:

> > The question would then arise, whether Tolkien ever read _The
> > Wizard of Oz._
>
> Probably. He read a lot, including American fiction.
>
> He apparently took an interest in American culture, partly because he
> discovered there were Anglo-Saxon family names surviving in Appalachia
> that had gone extinct in England (e.g., Brinegar -- I knew several
> Brinegars when we lived in the Kentucky hills).

Not relevant to the discussion really, but Paul Brinegar was a
character actor known for his portrayal of "Wishbone" in "Rawhide".


Brian
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2018-04-30 06:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 20:51:25 GMT, ***@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>In article <***@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:24:03 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <***@crcomp.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>> _An Occurrence at Owl Bridge_ (Bierce) known
>>
>>Overrated, in my opinion. "Twilight Zone" did a surprisingly faithful
>>adaptation way back when.
>
>I wonder if that's the one I saw, not on the tube but in a
>theater. Black and white, about half an hour long?

Yup, that's probably it; I know it was shown other places besides TZ,
and it's B&W and about half an hour.




--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
Jack Bohn
2018-04-30 12:36:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 20:51:25 GMT, ***@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
> >In article <***@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
> >Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:24:03 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <***@crcomp.net>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> _An Occurrence at Owl Bridge_ (Bierce) known
> >>
> >>Overrated, in my opinion. "Twilight Zone" did a surprisingly faithful
> >>adaptation way back when.
> >
> >I wonder if that's the one I saw, not on the tube but in a
> >theater. Black and white, about half an hour long?
>
> Yup, that's probably it; I know it was shown other places besides TZ,
> and it's B&W and about half an hour.

In some Twilight Zone episode guide it's said "Owl Creek Bridge" was a foreign film acquired and used to fill out the last season of the show.

--
-Jack
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-04-30 13:47:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <254f908f-0bbb-40d5-9648-***@googlegroups.com>,
Jack Bohn <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 20:51:25 GMT, ***@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>> Heydt) wrote:
>>
>> >In article
><***@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
>> >Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:24:03 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <***@crcomp.net>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> _An Occurrence at Owl Bridge_ (Bierce) known
>> >>
>> >>Overrated, in my opinion. "Twilight Zone" did a surprisingly faithful
>> >>adaptation way back when.
>> >
>> >I wonder if that's the one I saw, not on the tube but in a
>> >theater. Black and white, about half an hour long?
>>
>> Yup, that's probably it; I know it was shown other places besides TZ,
>> and it's B&W and about half an hour.
>
>In some Twilight Zone episode guide it's said "Owl Creek Bridge" was a
>foreign film acquired and used to fill out the last season of the show.

Okay, I looked at ISDB and here's the one I saw, made in 1962:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056300/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Which was not long before I saw it in Berkeley as a student.

IMDG also lists a 1959 episode of _Alfred Hitchcock Presents_,
and a 1964 episode of _The Twilight Zone_.

And looking at the listing for each episode (checking the name of
the director, chiefly), I learn that the Hitchcock episode was
not the same as the 1962 film, but the Twilight Sone episode
*was*. Same director, same cast.

(IMDB also lists a 2005 version and a 2007 version.)

Getting back to the theater/Twilight Zone version, it won an
Oscar, a BAFTA Award, and a Cannes award. French cast and crew;
here's the Wikipedia entry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Occurrence_at_Owl_Creek_Bridge_(film)

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2018-04-30 16:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 05:36:06 -0700 (PDT), Jack Bohn
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 20:51:25 GMT, ***@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>> Heydt) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <***@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
>> >Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:24:03 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <***@crcomp.net>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> _An Occurrence at Owl Bridge_ (Bierce) known
>> >>
>> >>Overrated, in my opinion. "Twilight Zone" did a surprisingly faithful
>> >>adaptation way back when.
>> >
>> >I wonder if that's the one I saw, not on the tube but in a
>> >theater. Black and white, about half an hour long?
>>
>> Yup, that's probably it; I know it was shown other places besides TZ,
>> and it's B&W and about half an hour.
>
>In some Twilight Zone episode guide it's said "Owl Creek Bridge" was a foreign film acquired and used to fill out the last season of the show.

Now that you mention it, that sounds right. Thanks.



--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-04-30 13:30:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 20:51:25 GMT, ***@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>In article <***@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
>>Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:24:03 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <***@crcomp.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> _An Occurrence at Owl Bridge_ (Bierce) known
>>>
>>>Overrated, in my opinion. "Twilight Zone" did a surprisingly faithful
>>>adaptation way back when.
>>
>>I wonder if that's the one I saw, not on the tube but in a
>>theater. Black and white, about half an hour long?
>
>Yup, that's probably it; I know it was shown other places besides TZ,
>and it's B&W and about half an hour.
>
Interesting to know.

I had never read the story before I saw the film, which thus had
maximum effect.

I wonder if it had any influence on Wilils's _Passages._

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
D B Davis
2018-04-30 16:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dorothy J Heydt <***@kithrup.com> wrote:
> In article <***@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
> Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 20:51:25 GMT, ***@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>>Heydt) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <***@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
>>>Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:24:03 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <***@crcomp.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> _An Occurrence at Owl Bridge_ (Bierce) known
>>>>
>>>>Overrated, in my opinion. "Twilight Zone" did a surprisingly faithful
>>>>adaptation way back when.
>>>
>>>I wonder if that's the one I saw, not on the tube but in a
>>>theater. Black and white, about half an hour long?
>>
>>Yup, that's probably it; I know it was shown other places besides TZ,
>>and it's B&W and about half an hour.
>>
> Interesting to know.
>
> I had never read the story before I saw the film, which thus had
> maximum effect.
>
> I wonder if it had any influence on Wilils's _Passages._
>

The short story's available online. [1] Part II provides the back story
as to why a civilian named Peyton Farquhar is being hung by the Yankees
in the first place.
The French treatment's bereft of words and instead focuses on
1960s era black and white surrealism. <- It seems like there ought to be
(a possibly French) name for that genre. Does anyone know it?

Note.

1. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/375/375-h/375-h.htm



Thank you,

--
Don
D B Davis
2018-04-29 21:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:24:03 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <***@crcomp.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "The Exile" enumerates some fantasy titles soon after it begins.
>>Some were read by me, a few more were experienced as Hollywood
>>treatments, and the remainder are unknown to me.
>>
>> _Tales of Mystery and Imagination_ (Poe) unknown
>
> Collection that includes most of his most famous short stories.
> Definitely worth a read, especially if you like Bradbury.

It hadn't occurred to me until you said something that the Poe is a
short story collection. Many of the shorts in the collection are indeed
known and cherished by me.

<snip>

>> _The Weird Shadow Over Innsmouth_ (Lovecraft) unknown
>
> I think it's just "The Shadow Over Innsmouth," no "Weird" in the
> title. I read it, but a long time ago when bingeing on Lovecraft so
> I'm not sure whether I'm confusing it with other HPL stories.

The story's unknown to me. But my double check of "The Exiles" shows
that "Weird" appears in the Bradbury title. ⚂⚃

Thank you,

--
Don
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2018-04-30 06:35:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 21:29:43 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <***@crcomp.net>
wrote:

>Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:24:03 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <***@crcomp.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "The Exile" enumerates some fantasy titles soon after it begins.
>>>Some were read by me, a few more were experienced as Hollywood
>>>treatments, and the remainder are unknown to me.
>>>
>>> _Tales of Mystery and Imagination_ (Poe) unknown
>>
>> Collection that includes most of his most famous short stories.
>> Definitely worth a read, especially if you like Bradbury.
>
>It hadn't occurred to me until you said something that the Poe is a
>short story collection. Many of the shorts in the collection are indeed
>known and cherished by me.
>
><snip>
>
>>> _The Weird Shadow Over Innsmouth_ (Lovecraft) unknown
>>
>> I think it's just "The Shadow Over Innsmouth," no "Weird" in the
>> title. I read it, but a long time ago when bingeing on Lovecraft so
>> I'm not sure whether I'm confusing it with other HPL stories.
>
>The story's unknown to me. But my double check of "The Exiles" shows
>that "Weird" appears in the Bradbury title. ??

So Bradbury got it wrong.



--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned: A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml
David DeLaney
2018-04-30 08:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-29, Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:24:03 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <***@crcomp.net>
>> _Tales of Mystery and Imagination_ (Poe) unknown
>
> Collection that includes most of his most famous short stories.
> Definitely worth a read, especially if you like Bradbury.

Also a very nice album from the Alan Parsons Project; youtube oughta have it
for you to listen to.

>> _The Wizard of Oz_ (Baum) treatment
>
> Some of the movie is faithful to the book, some isn't -- and the movie
> completely skips roughly one-third of the story.

Yep. The Wizard's balloon, through happenstance, leaves without Alice ... I
mean Dorothy ... so she and Toto have to travel to the God Witch of the SOUTH
to get clued-in on how to get home. (Why Glinda didn't see what happened in
the Emerald City in her Magic Picture, and bubble over there like at the
start of the story to save Dorothy the trip, will remain a plot hole forever.)

>> _The Weird Shadow Over Innsmouth_ (Lovecraft) unknown
>
> I think it's just "The Shadow Over Innsmouth," no "Weird" in the title.

I think so also. Not gonna isfdb to check, lazy.

Dave, also not gonna check the Ask Lovecraft videos on youtube, I don't think
they actually cover it
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Robert Carnegie
2018-04-30 09:00:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, 30 April 2018 09:43:49 UTC+1, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2018-04-29, Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:24:03 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <***@crcomp.net>
> >> _Tales of Mystery and Imagination_ (Poe) unknown
> >
> > Collection that includes most of his most famous short stories.
> > Definitely worth a read, especially if you like Bradbury.
>
> Also a very nice album from the Alan Parsons Project; youtube oughta have it
> for you to listen to.
>
> >> _The Wizard of Oz_ (Baum) treatment
> >
> > Some of the movie is faithful to the book, some isn't -- and the movie
> > completely skips roughly one-third of the story.
>
> Yep. The Wizard's balloon, through happenstance, leaves without Alice ... I
> mean Dorothy ... so she and Toto have to travel to the God Witch of the SOUTH
> to get clued-in on how to get home. (Why Glinda didn't see what happened in
> the Emerald City in her Magic Picture, and bubble over there like at the
> start of the story to save Dorothy the trip, will remain a plot hole forever.)

In the book, Dorothy meets a different Good Witch in Munchkinland. In neither case is she informed at that
point that she can use the magic shoes to get home
straight away. And, of course, she misses the balloon
both times.

Does Glinda know about any of this before the last page?
Jack Bohn
2018-04-30 13:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2018-04-29, Lawrence Watt-Evans <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:24:03 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <***@crcomp.net>
> >> _Tales of Mystery and Imagination_ (Poe) unknown
> >
> > Collection that includes most of his most famous short stories.
> > Definitely worth a read, especially if you like Bradbury.
>
> Also a very nice album from the Alan Parsons Project; youtube oughta have it
> for you to listen to.

Faithful in its fashion -- for adapting stories to 3-4 minute songs, basically mood pieces. It induced me to read the stories "The Cask of Amontillado" and "The System of Doctor Tar and Professor Feather" which I hadn't previously. Poe has mostly received the short end of the stick in regards to faithfulness of treatment by Hollywood, although we do owe the Alan Parsons Project to it; Parsons's agent, Eric Woolfson, brought up something he'd heard in one of his business classes: that no film based on Poe had lost money. I'm not sure of the factualness of that factoid; I can't help but imagine he was thinking of the '60s RAVEN* cycle.

If I may quote and comment on the rest of Davis's list:

> _Dracula_ (Stoker) treatment

Induced to read this by another book, _Anno Dracula_ by Kim Newman, which can act as an antidote to the movie "Bram Stoker's Dracula".

> _Frankenstein_ (Shelley) known
> _The Turn of the Screw_ (James) unknown
> _The Legend of Sleepy Hollow_ (Irving) treatment
> _Rappaccini's Daughter_ (Hawthorne) unknown
> _An Occurrence at Owl Bridge_ (Bierce) known
> _Alice in Wonderland_ (Carroll) known
> _The Wizard of Oz_ (Baum) treatment


Read and (if needed) recommended. "Rappaccini's Daughter" will have the least expectations/preconceptions attached to it. It has been given the movie treatment; in my appreciation of the story I find it the best part of "Twice Told Tales" (a tangent to the RAVEN* cycle, it has only the element of Vincent Price, substituting for Poe another 19th Cent author -- Hawthorne must be slim pickings for that sweet, sweet, B-movie horror, for a third segment to the movie they had to do a crammed adaptation of _The House of the Seven Gables_.)

> _The Willows_ (Blackwood) unknown
> _The Weird Shadow Over Innsmouth_ (Lovecraft) unknown

Quite probably read, but I'd have to go over them again to have anything to say about them, so, effectively, unread.


* RAVEN stands for:
Roger Corman
American International Pictures
Vincent Price
Edgar Allan Poe
Not necessarily in every picture.

N allows inclusion of "The Haunted Palace", which demonstrates the profitability and faithfulness of the films. Corman had produced an adaptation of Lovecraft's "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward" staring Price, and A.I.P. asked if they couldn't advertise it as a Poe picture. So, taking the name of one of his poems, it became "Edgar Allan Poe's The Haunted Palace" the screenplay, the credits tell us "from the poem by Edgar Allen Poe and a story by H.P. Lovecraft." (AIP continued this practice after Corman stopped working for them. They imported a British film "The Witchfinder General" based on a Ronald Bassett novel; as it starred Vincent Price, they renamed it after the Poe poem "The Conqueror Worm." My DVD copy, deciding the truth lies somewhere in the middle, has "Edgar Allan Poe's The Witchfinder General" on the cover.)

--
-Jack
Loading...