@Anarcissie - Love the idea - kind of a John Barth / Donald Barthelme thing where there's layer upon layer upon layer of reality - characters frozen in time, unable to act because their Author has abandoned the project that engendered them, until that cross-pollination you describe frees them again ... throw in a little Jeremy Leven influence as we find out that the one we thought was real is imaginary and vice versa, or go with the Ellison influence and have one of the thought-up characters supplant someone in the real world, with or without the "real" one's consent -- still derivative, admittedly, but on an interesting level, and appealing to logic-puzzle geeks like me. I'd buy it.
@Paralost - How snarky. He would appreciate feedback details, which would also validate your attitude, somewhat.
I don't know anything about the movie, haven't seen it yet, but both these dialogues from these two sub-literates is the most unrewarding thing for an English-speaking adult professional communicator to try to follow that I ever saw. The fractional thoughts, the one-quarter-formed ideas, the trendy but unexplained cultural references, the commonality shared by them and no one else whose language I speak ... if the theme is that this is the audience-level that might like the movie, then I applaud. Otherwise I'm puzzled, and resentful that I wasted my time trying to decode this drek.
Well written and impressively detailed article, Alex. Lost cause convincing me about golf, though. I stand with George Carlin (well, except he doesn't stand any more) against this racist, classist, exclusionary, trivial pastime (neither game nor sport) and support the reclaiming of all golf courses to build housing for the homeless. And, excuse me, but "without golf there would be no Caddyshack" is an argument for the abolition of both. Caddyshack was the un-funniest coke movie ever. But, like I say, well written essay nonetheless, and congrats on that.
well heck. Posted this on the wrong thread. Keep it in your memory as you page to the bomber story, and think about it there. Thank you.
Parallels: The bomber on Rolling Stone and Lt. Calley on Esquire http://my.opera.com/VegaTheTerrible/albums/showpic.dml?album=526443&picture=7261873 Both fronting insightful articles. The uproar over the bomber cover shows only that it's easier for people to be outraged than thoughtful. For that matter, that Cory somebody (no need to learn his last name now I guess) who died of heroin got his pretty-boy picture all over every dumb supermarket magazine cover and nobody's saying he's being unduly glamorized, though he is. People are just getting too damned stupid to function.
There's TV? With shows? That someone watches?
No matter what side I'm personally on, I always get uneasy when mobs hit the street ro protest a court decision made by jurors who heard all the evidence. I didn't like the OJ verdict but I didn't take to the streets claiming to know better. The law might be wrong ("Stand your ground"), the system might well be broken, the vigilante thing is all very risky and suspect, but people, this is the court system, which we're supposed to have faith in, and everybody gets their day, and jurors decided after hearing the evidence. If you would change that, then you're showing you have no faith in our justice system, and it's all hopeless. Is that what you're saying?
You missed a bet not applying the by-line of Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm.