| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
 Posted - 11/16/2006 : 00:12:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Herbert is very nasty, which is just what I want for a horror writer. 
I read one Dean Koontz book, Icebound, and next to Jeffrey Archer was the biggest pile of shite I've ever had the misfortune to waste my time on. He tried to write a techno-thriller while knowing nothing at all about the subject matter (satellites, Arctic ice, volcanoes etc). The whole book was even worse than the end of Dan Brown's Deception Point (which was quite good except for the last 50 pages).
This brings me to a pet hate of mine. Techno-thrillers that accidentally delve into fantasy/sci-fi/magic due to the ignorance or laziness of the writer to research their subject matter properly.  They should take a leaf from Tom Clancy who meticulously researches his subject matter before beginning a project.
<minor spoilers for various un-named books follow>
So, satellites that miraculously remain stationary over the north pole, volcanoes that suddenly erupt under the sea floor and send a bolt of lava that miraculously remains molten while it travels through 1000m of sea water and melts a hole under an iceberg, other volcanoes triggered by a bomb on the seafloor that cause sudden warming of the sea and a sudden whirlpool that sucks ships down to their doom etc etc are the kind of stuff I avoid like the plague. If writers want to write stuff like that they might as well set the novel in a parallel universe a long time ago and far far away where the laws of nature are different. Forget about pretending it's happening on earth.
Oh, another pet hate:- writers who make their characters suddenly do something totally out of character (or psychologically impossible) to suit a plot contrivance (J Archer is a major offender here, hence I only read one of his books, and will never read another). E.g., a 'normal' person who has a sudden unexpected psychotic episode and tries to throttle someone. Or a 'normal' person who throws their whole life down the drain to punish someone who they thought did something bad to them decades ago. Or a person with Dissociative Identity Disorder where one of their 'personalities' is a delusional psychotic... and a psychopath. Etc etc.
Rant over. Humph! 
Nope, not a patch on MguyX.
Sorry. 
Incidentally, don't blame Jeffrey Archer for the books published in his name - you don't think he actually writes them himself, do you? 
|
 |
|
|
Joe Blevins 
"Don't I look handsome?"
|
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 01:26:52
|
Sorry to be joining this thread so late, but I wanted to share some thoughts anyway.
Gotta be honest here: those retroactive declines are a real bummer. The worst. A hundred times more disheartening than having a pending review declined -- and the more votes a review had, the more painful it is to lose. (Let's not even talk about losing an accolade or dropping in the rankings because of such a decline. It's too gruesome to even think about.) I've had maybe 5 retroactive declines (all for voted reviews), and each one ruined my afternoon. So that's 5 ruined afternoons for me, compared against maybe 5 seconds of self-satisfaction to the conscientious, well-meaning people who consigned my generic, redunant reviews to the junkheap.
Is it worth it? Well, yeah, maybe. I mean, we all want this site to look its absolute best, and part of that is keeping it neat and tidy, free from generic or duplicate reviews. However, I think certain site users are a bit overzealous in their efforts to maintain the "purity" of FWFR. It's a cliche, but I'll recommend moderation and restraint to users who want to "report" another person's review. In your attempts to make others follow the FWFR rules, don't forget the Golden Rule in the process.
As for the word "Nazi," it just so happens that I was browsing the Onion AV Club website right before checking FWFR today. The Onion is currently chock-full of banner ads for Seinfeld: Season 7 DVD boxed sets, and those ads make prolific use of the term "Soup Nazi," so apparently Columbia-TriStar has no problem using the word "Nazi" in an ad for a TV comedy series. There was a thread once on FWFR about how the word "Alcatraz" has symbolically come to mean "prison" and not just refer to the actual Alcatraz. (i.e. "Their marriage has become an emotional Alcatraz.") The word "Nazi," similarly, has both a historical and figurative meaning. The figurative meaning is something like, "any person displaying humorless, dictatorial behavior, especially those obsessed with making and enforcing rules." There may come a time when this second, figurative meaning of "Nazi" is so commonplace that the word itself is spelled with a small n. ("Can I have some of your popcorn? C'mon, don't be such a popcorn nazi.") This is what happens to words. They often start out with very specific, historical meanings and then take on additional, figurative meanings as time passes, occasionally going from upper case to lower case along the way. We're just now seeing that happen to the word "Nazi." As recently as the 1980s -- when President Reagan inadvertently visited Nazi gravesites, causing a brief scandal -- it would have been impossible to think of the word "Nazi" in any other context than its historical one. A mere two decades later, the word "Nazi" is blithely used in a banner ad on a comedy website. That's linguistic history for you.
I've been saying for years that the word "Christmas" has two separate meanings. It applies to both a Christian holy day and a secular, consumer holiday. I don't say this to be negative but, rather, pragmatic. I have nothing against the secular Christmas. I don't enjoy it much now that I'm grown, but it was great fun when I was a child. One can choose to celebrate the religious Christmas, the secular Christmas, both, or neither.
But, anyway, I'm getting off-topic. What were we talking about? Stephen King? I've read one of his novels -- Carrie -- which was quite good, but I've not been inspired to read more yet. And I've done more reading in the past 2 years than I've done in my entire life, thanks to the hours I spend commuting to work each week. I've been reading everything from Camus to Capote to Peyton Place. Lately, I've been on a Salinger kick: 9 Stories, Catcher in the Rye, and now Franny & Zooey. You Wes Anderson fans out there should check out Salinger. His influence is pretty obvious, especially in The Royal Tenenbaums. |
Edited by - Joe Blevins on 11/16/2006 01:37:08 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 01:33:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by StaLean
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
The whole book was even worse than the end of Dan Brown's Deception Point (which was quite good except for the last 50 pages).
I knew you were going to write that last sentence before I even read it. 
Yikes! So, was that because you're psychic?  Or because I've ranted about it before and forgotten that I had? (Seriously, I have a poor memory and may well have whinged about that in the past.) Or because you've read it too and were similarly disappointed in the ending?quote:
quote:
Or a 'normal' person who throws their whole life down the drain to punish someone who they thought did something bad to them decades ago.
Not quite as strange as one might think Jealous Classmate.
Yikes again! Having said that, I'd be curious to know what kind of life the killer had prior to committing murder. I would be rather surprised if she had a 'normal' life, e.g, that she was happy, married with kids, and a productive member of community groups etc.quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Nope, not a patch on MguyX.
Sorry.
 Yep, he's the rant king.quote:
Incidentally, don't blame Jeffrey Archer for the books published in his name - you don't think he actually writes them himself, do you?
I'd never thought about it. I was specifically referring to Kane & Abel. Do you know if he wrote it or used a ghost writer? Not that I care, if he put his name on it then he's guilty. |
|
|
|
Stalean
"Back...OMG"
|
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 01:42:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by StaLean
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
The whole book was even worse than the end of Dan Brown's Deception Point (which was quite good except for the last 50 pages).
I knew you were going to write that last sentence before I even read it.
Yikes! So, was that because you're psychic? Or because I've ranted about it before and forgotten that I had? (Seriously, I have a poor memory and may well have whinged about that in the past.) Or because you've read it too and were similarly disappointed in the ending?
Ditto, the last one. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 01:58:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I'd never thought about it. I was specifically referring to Kane & Abel. Do you know if he wrote it or used a ghost writer? Not that I care, if he put his name on it then he's guilty.
We know that Jeffrey Archer didnt really write it himself because he says that he did.
In a little seriousness, I don't think he's capable of writing even that well. He probably keeps a little old lady locked up in a cupboard somewhere and whips her until she produces another chapter.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 02:12:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
It's a cliche, but I'll recommend moderation and restraint to users who want to "report" another person's review. In your attempts to make others follow the FWFR rules, don't forget the Golden Rule in the process.
The Golden Rule here is that Benj decides what goes and what stays. REPORT merely invites his decision on the matter. Where you have two reviews as similar as yours and RedPen's, thats not unreasonable.
Then thats it.
Finito Benito.
Let's not get all sloppy over a dupe. As Sean said, it was living on borrowed time. I feel no guilt.
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 06:06:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
I've been reading everything from Camus to Capote to Peyton Place. Lately, I've been on a Salinger kick: 9 Stories, Catcher in the Rye, and now Franny & Zooey. You Wes Anderson fans out there should check out Salinger. His influence is pretty obvious, especially in The Royal Tenenbaums.
You would think that having to read an author in school might put you off that author in later life. Not so. Salinger is one of them, and now you've got me wanting to take those books off my shelf and re-read them.
(After I re-read Robert Penn Warren's "All the King's Men" prior to the movie coming out here. Even before that, I'm totally convinced that Sean Penn as Stark is probably the worst casting since... since... Madonna in anything!)
|
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 07:50:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
As for the word "Nazi," it just so happens that I was browsing the Onion AV Club website right before checking FWFR today. The Onion is currently chock-full of banner ads for Seinfeld: Season 7 DVD boxed sets, and those ads make prolific use of the term "Soup Nazi," so apparently Columbia-TriStar has no problem using the word "Nazi" in an ad for a TV comedy series.
Bullshit. First of all, you're talking about "The Onion" website. Consider the context. Second, Columbia-TriStar's sanctioning the usage of the terms "spick," "kyke," "wop," "kafir" or "child fucker" doesn't really raise them to the level social acceptability (unless I missed the part where the entertainment industry's dollar-driven crassness has become the world's moral compass).
The word -- as used in the ad -- occurred in the context of an explicit joke made apparent by the accompaniment of an ironic adjective. Not just "Nazi," but "Soup Nazi." Use of the word "Nazi" is not the issue: context is. Would you discern no difference between "Mah Nigga" and "Nigger"?
Where context is not clear, one leaves open the implication of everything untoward. If I call you a "Nazi," is the last thing you think "anti-semitic"? If you call me "Nigger," I guarantee the first thing I think is not "hip-hop."
National Socialism has a definite, offensive, and uniquely anti-semetic beginning. Nothing innocuous there.
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
There was a thread once on FWFR about how the word "Alcatraz" has symbolically come to mean "prison" and not just refer to the actual Alcatraz. (i.e. "Their marriage has become an emotional Alcatraz.")
I disagree. "Alcatraz" evokes images of not just any prison, but a prison particularly impossible to escape from. Hence, "Alcatraz" is a loaded term too. But the error in the comparison is the implication that the purported social transformation of the term "Alcatraz" can be compared with the social evolution of so viscerally virulent a term as "Nazi." The word "aggravate" has come to be virtually synonymouns with the word "irritate" in usage (though the former means to worsen a condition, while the latter means to bother -- but not necessarily to worsen). But I would hazard a guess that the JDL would hardly appreciate a posited verisimilitude in the social transformation of the word "aggravate" and the word "Nazi." Indeed, the numerous museums dedicated to tolerance -- hell, let's not mince words -- dedicated to ensuring that the world never forgets the Nazi atrocities against Jews suggest an appreciable, righteous effort by not just a few people to ensure that we never forget what "Nazi" really means.
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
The word "Nazi," similarly, has both a historical and figurative meaning. The figurative meaning is something like, "any person displaying humorless, dictatorial behavior, especially those obsessed with making and enforcing rules."
Wrong again, my friend. You just defined something akin to "Fascist." "Nazi" evokes far more repugnance.
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
There may come a time when this second, figurative meaning of "Nazi" is so commonplace that the word itself is spelled with a small n. ("Can I have some of your popcorn? C'mon, don't be such a popcorn nazi.") This is what happens to words. They often start out with very specific, historical meanings and then take on additional, figurative meanings as time passes, occasionally going from upper case to lower case along the way. We're just now seeing that happen to the word "Nazi." As recently as the 1980s -- when President Reagan inadvertently visited Nazi gravesites, causing a brief scandal -- it would have been impossible to think of the word "Nazi" in any other context than its historical one. A mere two decades later, the word "Nazi" is blithely used in a banner ad on a comedy website. That's linguistic history for you.
Joe, that is a wholly flawed and self-serving analysis. Again, the word "Nazi" did not occur "blithely" by itself in a banner ad: it occurred as a term modified by an explicitly comical reference in context: "Soup Nazi." Even so, I do not recall a moment in that Seinfeld episode where the Soup Nazi was treated as a nice person nor regarded as likeable. Even with the ironic adjective, the term does not shake its loathsomeness! Would you hazard a definition of the term "White Nigger"? Ironic adjective, yes. But something still edgy in there. Probably so.
Something about your comment reminds me of the Lenny Bruce bit where he states that people should use certain slurs so often that they become meaningless. The difference, however, is that Lenny was talking about words whose usage is intended to demoralize and to demean because they imply something inherently inferior in the person and ethnicity to whom/which they refer. "Nazi" was supposed to signify "the master race." It was supposedly a badge of honor. It was a term indulged by a group of people from whom we could expect the racial slurs. Somehow, the term and its necessary history does not lend itself to the type of sympathetic amelioration-through-usage as does those terms otherwise signifying the classically oppressed.
So I disagree. That is not "linguistic history for you." The word "Nazi" is not, as you suggest, somehow now an accepted, playful term. It might be softened by an ironic adjective ("Soup Nazi" or "popcorn nazi," if you will) but the word has not -- and I believe will not -- lose its acute connection with the history and memory of so spiritually disasterous a time in the modern world, when a country regarded as civilized and politically influential permitted the stated and determined "extermination" of millions of human beings for no other reason than that they were Jews -- all while so many other politically influential nations allowed it to occur, reacting more to the militaristic threat than instance of human depravity. Were it not for the Nazis, historic anti-semitism might seem as "quaint" as historic racism. But the ignorance and social faults of pagan civilizations, of the early christians, of the preindistrial age might be somehow seem forgiveable in hindsight, in light of the exponential development of human knowledge in the time since then. What makes "Nazi" so ineligible for social acceptance is the fact that it occurred during -- or so close to -- our lifetimes, and during an era when that type of ignorance had long since ceased being acceptable as an excuse.
"Nazi" is not funny. And, frankly, the reason it affected me especially in this instance was that CL -- an Israeli; a person Jewish herself -- used it, and without an ironic adjective. Though I missed the "irony" in her usage, when I hear someone Jewish describe something as "Nazi" -- not "soup Nazi" or "popcorn nazi" -- it rings a little more loudly in my ears. If I -- a Black person -- refer to someone as a "Klansman," you wouldn't be remiss in assuming that I'm probably not spelling it with the side-splitting lowercase "k," so to speak.
I might add that Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David -- both Jewish -- came up with the "Soup Nazi," which itself adds much to ameliorate the coinage (as in "I make fun of my problems, we laugh. You do it, we fight."). It might be different if it had been Jerry "the Antichrist is a Jew" Falwell and David "Grand Dragon" Duke who came up with the character.
Am I bringing baggage to this? Go to the Anne Frank house and get a second opinion. Ask the folks leaving Auschwitz. Go to the Museums of Tolerance in Washington, D.C. and in L.A. and take a poll. Hell, ask Simon Wiesenthal's family how many "cute little nazi's" they know.
Context is everything, Joe, both historical and social as well. I am not attacking you, nor do I intend to question your talent or intelligence. I suggest, however, that the analysis given previously may have not taken some important observations into account. |
Edited by - MguyXXV on 11/16/2006 12:50:57 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 08:29:03
|
| OK, I have to admit that I failed adjectives in 3rd grade, I'm afraid. Never got over the trauma, so it seems. |
|
|
|
Conan The Westy
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 09:12:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
"Alcatraz" evokes images of not just any prison, but a prison particularly impossible to escape from.
A more generic prison for me would be Sing Sing, otherwise the phrase "being sent up the river" also works.
(But as I'm not from the US I stand to be corrected.) |
|
|
|
Joe Blevins
"Don't I look handsome?"
|
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 17:35:02
|
Hello, again.
First, I would like to say that I was reporting on the use of the term "Nazi" not as a positive or negative phenomenon. I was merely commenting on something that I *do* see happening. I think in the 1980s, it would have been unthinkable for a character to be called a "Soup Nazi" in prime time network television. The Soup Nazi was, of course, not a Nazi. Not a real one. The writers of Seinfeld were using the term figuratively rather than literally. I think the mere fact that they were able to use the term in ANY way other than literally demonstrates that the term has taken on other meanings. Again, I report this not as being "good" or "bad" -- simply a phenomenon which *is* happening, whether we like it or not. It happens to words all the time. Yes, even words as heinous and despicable as "Nazi." This is attributable to the passage of time. The Seinfeld DVD ads have appeared in places other than The Onion, of course, and the term "Soup Nazi" has been included in internet and print ads -- and I think the word is being used blithely, whereas in the 1980s or earlier, it would have been absolutely unthinkable to use that term in such a way.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but I am not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing. It's just something that's happening in the language and which bears mentioning. It has happened many, many times before. It's a slow process, but it happens. The term "berserk" no longer applies exclusively to Berserkers, for example. The unfortunate modern connotation of "mongoloid" has little or nothing to do with Mongolia. Of course "Nazi" will never lose its literal, historical meaning. But that does not preclude it from taking on a figurative meaning as well.
(SIDE NOTE: Your use of the term "bullshit" is a perfect example of a term whose figurative meaning has actually overtaken its literal meaning. The word "bullshit" is now rarely used to refer to actual bullshit.)
I'm sorry if my post came off as culturally or historically insensitive. That was certainly not its intent. But words can evolve in ways we do not expect. They take on figurative meanings and connotations. I don't think the word "Nazi" now even has to have a qualifier like "Soup" in front of it for the figurative connotation to be understood. Imagine the following scenario: someone tells you, "My assistant manager at Burger King can be such a Nazi sometimes." Now, granted, this is a culturally insensitive thing to say, but the figurative meaning should still be clear. If someone said that phrase to you, it's unlikely you would decode that as meaning, "My assistant manager at Burger King is a member of the National Socialist party." As outraged as you might be by the insensitivity of the statement, you would still guess that the speaker was using the term "Nazi" figuratively rather than literally. I am suggesting that such an interpretation would have been impossible a few decades go but is very possible now -- as insensitive and historically ignorant as it might be. And, yes, that IS linguistic history. Right or wrong, good or bad, words evolve. It doesn't mean Nazism is one bit less reprehensible or one iota more acceptable. It just means that the term "Nazi" can be used -- on its own -- to mean things other than actual, literal, historical Nazis. It happens to words -- even the word "Nazi." |
Edited by - Joe Blevins on 11/16/2006 17:55:34 |
|
|
|
Joe Blevins
"Don't I look handsome?"
|
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 18:48:24
|
Sorry to keep posting here about this topic, but there's still more I want to say. I think there's the general impression here that I'm saying people should be using the word "Nazi" freely and without a second thought as to its historical meaning. I'm not saying that they should do that at all. I'm merely reporting that people ARE doing that, whether we want them to or not, and that it's something which happens to words over time -- even the most heinous, despicable, hateful words in our language. Because, at the end of the day, that's what they are: words. Words are abstract symbols which only have meaning because we grant them meaning. The relationship between the sound of a word, for instance, and its meaning is often arbitrary. If we can grant words meaning, we can take away their meaning or change their meaning as well. Is this historically ignorant? Is this culturally insensitive? Oftentimes, yes, but it happens anyway.
On the other hand, if we were UNABLE to change the meanings or connotations of words, then in a sense the words have defeated us. We have surrendered to them, admitting that they now have a power which we cannot rescind. Which begs the question: who's in charge here? Are we in control or are the words in control? That's what bothers me about the social taboo placed on profanity. We're granting these words too much power and control over us, when WE should have control over THEM.
Language is our tool to use. We as humans created it, and we are the ones who can change how it is used. Of course, as with any tool, it can be misused or carelessly used. We need to use language with caution, of course. But it is not realistic to think that language does not evolve over time or that words will not take on connotations or meanings other than their original ones. |
Edited by - Joe Blevins on 11/16/2006 19:22:48 |
|
|
|
Catuli 
"Loves Film and Fun"
|
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 20:39:50
|
Getting back to the initial issue. I think that there should be a statute of limitations on withdrawing reviews that have been accepted, even if the review is clearly a duplicate. It's sort of along the lines of not being tried for the same crime, no matter how compelling evidence may be after the verdict is reached. Of course a person can voluntarily decide to withdraw a review. I've done this and the sting still lingers.
Calling someone a Nazi and making Hitler comparisons have become a cliche, and it's difficult to see why someone would be truly offended by it this late in the ballgame. There's even a general polemic circulating that he who first invokes the Hitler comparison loses the debate.
|
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 21:35:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Catuli
Getting back to the initial issue. I think that there should be a statute of limitations on withdrawing reviews that have been accepted, even if the review is clearly a duplicate. It's sort of along the lines of not being tried for the same crime, no matter how compelling evidence may be after the verdict is reached. Of course a person can voluntarily decide to withdraw a review. I've done this and the sting still lingers.
You did the honorable thing. Just remember, there are plenty more votes where the old ones came from.
My feeling is that, when I spot a dupe, it's my duty to report it, because what I'm doing is helping benj improve a database which has grown far beyond any single person's ability to police. [More computer-savvy fwiffers know that there's a way to determine which one was first, but honestly, it's beyond me.] The REPORT feature allows me to do this anonymously, which is a vast improvement over publicly posting in fourum. But however a dupe is reported, or an ancient review which is far too generic, or anything else that will encourage newbies to ask, "If THIS is on here, why not MINE?," the final decision rests with benj, as it should.
I also stand with the fwiffers who said, earlier in this thread, that a duplicate review is living on borrowed time, no matter how many votes it has. Zapping it simply corrects a long-standing injustice that nobody knew about. |
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 22:10:37
|
I second Randall's points. Don't forget, no matter how innocent a dupe may be there will always be someone who assumes the later one was a rip off.
I really urge everyone to check existing reviews prior to submitting. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Okay, NOW I'm pissed!
