THE PAVILION ANNEX

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Moderator » Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:02 am

Lori Koonce wrote:*grabbing her bunny flogger* Ok you two, DO NOT make me have to figure out how to hurt someone with this thing!


Oh, now that's disappointing.

I thought you already knew how to use it.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Lori Koonce » Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:33 am

Barber

I do know how to use it, but seeing as how it's RABBIT fur, I can't hurt anyone no matter how hard I try. Sorry to disapoint, but truth is truth.

User avatar
markabaddon
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:24 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby markabaddon » Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:40 am

Perhaps it would hurt worse if it was "Killer Rabbit" fur?

"Where's the monster, is it behind the bunny?" "It IS the bunny!" Quick, someone hand me the holy hand grenade of Antioch (OK, I am bored, a nerd, and it is Friday afetrnoon. Sue me)
Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristrocratic forms. No gov't in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, gov't tends more and mroe to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Lori Koonce » Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:51 am

Mark

You are no more nerdy than I am. I've been trying to figure out how to use steel bars to reinforce the flails, at least a few of 'em, that way I only hurt when I want to.

Besides, Robo and Frankie are just big wimps at heart. If I wanna add 'em to the harem gotta bring 'em in with honey don't ya think?

User avatar
robochrist
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:30 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby robochrist » Fri Oct 22, 2010 1:46 pm

Steve Barber...

you know, I'm beginning to think I should rephrase my post about theater. NO ONE - yourself included - replied thus far to the pertinent question (well, maybe Brian Phillips!)

In your case, for example, you point out, "But we've also seen, in only slightly smaller theaters, DEATH OF A SALESMAN (with Brian Dennehy), AVENUE Q (anything BUT a light and airy musical) and others."

Pogue went down the same avenue.

My issue is NOT that there aren't "GOOD PLAYS" out there. DEATH OF A SALESMAN, and everything else from THE ICEMAN COMETH to OF MICE AND MEN are done over-and-over all over the country.

And that's SORTA my point: if we aren't talking Broadway, we're talking either the classic dramas done over-and-over, or an occasional NEW play.

BUT we see no new original playwrights with the profound culture-changing impact of a Tennessee Williams; NOT someone who writes LIKE Williams, mind you, but a dramatist with his OWN vision, with a gift to communicate indelibly the inner world of his incendiary characters.

The writers ARE out there. But not in a way the world notices, as was once the case. You might say, there's no 'NEW WAVE' in 21st century drama.

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Lori Koonce » Fri Oct 22, 2010 1:50 pm

Robo

If you are looking for new and/or expiremental theatre, may I suggest a theater pig out for you next year at the San Francisco Fringe. They have over 50 new plays in about 3 weeks, most of which you can see for way less than a play in your standard theater.

User avatar
robochrist
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:30 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby robochrist » Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:19 pm

Ohhhhh...Lori, you too.

I'm not looking for "experimental new theater".

I'm exploring the reasons we no longer see commercial viability in "new theater". From the 1920's to the early 1970's, the world was moved by original dramatists. The "golden age" of drama ended, it seems to me, when expensive productions became more pervasive. TIE-INS, like the Disney movies, became a safer risk.

The new writers are out there. But the commercial market doesn't seek them, the way it did for a time.

Let me know if my point is getting any clearer.

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Lori Koonce » Fri Oct 22, 2010 3:48 pm

Robo

I think we agree, but are having a hard time putting it to words.

We live in a place and time where most of our entertainment is going to appeal to the masses. And lets be honest, the majority of people are just plain stuck on stupid. So many of us want our entertainment predigested it's scary. And because we don't demand any better, we end up with SHIT!

I suppose I'm also rather spoiled. In SF we've had the American Conservatory Theater here for as l can remember if not longer. They have done both the classics and Contemporary plays by playwrights who are both known and unknown. I cannot afford to go to any of them myself, but I do get a chance to read the odd Playbill from time to time, so I am not totally unaware of them.

But, for my scant funds, the most amazing and profound plays are done on the stages that aren't well known. They have the freedom to explore those topics and acting styles that would never make it on your most common of stages. What major theater company would put on a play that discusses body issues? None that I can think of, but our local Fringe Festival did one that took that issue from the view point of a Teenager, an middle aged woman and an old woman. Like it or not it is an issue for millions if not billions of women the world over.

If I'm still missing the mark, please enlighten me.

User avatar
robochrist
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:30 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby robochrist » Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:12 pm

"I think we agree, but are having a hard time putting it to words."

I still have to learn to use "active voice" instead of the "passive", maybe putting the topic sentence at the beginning of my posts. I thought the phrasing and bullet points in my FIRST Pav post on the topic were fairly clear; but no one, except for Brian Phillips, addressed the "dead art" argument. Everyone else seemed to think I was positing that there are no "good plays" to see, or that only now do we get empty-headed spectacles without options.

We've only the classics to rely on now if we want to watch good stage drama. But there's nothing fresh anymore. Nothing to popularize new and daring art, as there was in the decades of great dramatists. It takes some hard lookin' to find it (like your example, experimental theater in SF), whereas it was once a commercial boon.

User avatar
Rick Keeney
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 4:40 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Rick Keeney » Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:38 pm

Would anyone who knows the answer to the following question please email me the answer?

Anyone know where I can get a copy of "An Hour With Harlan Ellison?"

peace,
Rick

User avatar
Chuck Messer
Posts: 2089
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 9:15 pm
Location: Lakewood, Colorado

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Chuck Messer » Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:49 pm

Rob, the problem is also in Hollywood and in publishing. They want the humungous blockbuster, the NY Times best-seller. Harlan has mentioned before how mid-list writers, always reliable money-makers, are getting the shaft from major publishers. They want the big bucks and they want them NOW. It's the same for Broadway.

It seems the whole world has been taken over by the bean-counters and marketing people. People who see the cost of everything and the value of nothing, and pathological liars who believe their own bullshit.

It's the same way with politics. The marketing dept. has pretty much turned campaigns into a year-long commercial.

Chuck
Some people are wedded to their ideology the way nuns are wed to God.

User avatar
swp
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 5:59 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby swp » Fri Oct 22, 2010 9:18 pm

Rick Keeney wrote:Would anyone who knows the answer to the following question please email me the answer?

Anyone know where I can get a copy of "An Hour With Harlan Ellison?"

peace,
Rick

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/ ... dition=all

User avatar
robochrist
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:30 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby robochrist » Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:38 pm

Chuck: "Rob, the problem is also in Hollywood and in publishing."

I more or less MADE this point (sans the publishing industry, which is a good example, too). Twice.

Maybe I'm just too damn long-winded, and people aren't reading my posts beyond a quick glance. Who has the patience, right?

OK: I'm gonna fine-tune my style a bit when starting a new topic. Thesis sentence at the opening, and less verbiage in the argument that follows.

Succinctness and brevity will be the order of the day from this moment!

Less tiresome polysyllabic terminology. Fewer digressions. Did I mention I would aim for all these as well? This should make our dialog easier. The semiotics more fluid. The formats more constructive. Yes, this will be my new mode: conciseness, condensation, crispness, curtness, economy, ephemerality, pithiness, terseness, embracement of the subject without pork and emotional extremities. I always did believe in this policy: state your point, and move on. Spare the crowd of protracted, overly-florid circumlocution! Yeah, that's the way I should have ALWAYS delivered the message. Why bore people with excess? That's the important thing in communication! If I want people to understand clearly, I must cleave the exposition, argumentation and description. After all, narration, broadly defined, is one of four rhetorical modes of discourse. If I want to be understood I have to adhere to these criteria. Clarity is so important in our culture. We codify ourselves by the words we use. So, we expect our ideas to be interpreted in the intended context. Thus, I will from this day forward aim for clarity and succinctness. Yep...that's my style from now on. More narrowly defined, it is the fiction-writing mode whereby the narrator communicates directly to the reader. Readers, with less time on their hands, value strong content, but BRIEF and TO the poing. Thus, having the ability to skilfully craft an argument is essential, free of repetition, and pretentiousness. Instead of using the passive voice filled with nominalizations and jittery exposition, I will STRIVE for short active verbs, subjects that match up, and central subject-verb structure; CONCISION!! That's the answer to it all. Yessir! I will KEEP the reader focused on what really matters in my posts, providing him or her with a sustained flow of sentences from a single point o fview. I should have used this approach long ago, and I'm sure all would have been invariably attuned with my premise. No more redundancy from THIS neck of the woods! Nope! Never more! It will be the end of this wordy, inert style that makes it hard for a reader to follow. If I want the analysis to have clarity, it must be placed in the active voice. That's the key. That's the ticket. That's the end zone. That's the anal tract to aim for!

And did I mention less redundancy? Less tiresome polysyllabic terminology? Fewer digressions? Did I mention I would aim for all these as well? This make our dialog easier. The semiotics more fluid. The formats more constructive. Yes, this will be my new mode: conciseness, condensation, crispness, curtness, economy, ephemerality, pithiness, terseness, embracement of the subject without pork and emotional extremity. I always did believe in this policy: state your point, and move on. Spare the crowd of protracted, overly-florid circumlocution! Yeah, that's the way I should have ALWAYS delivered the message. Why bore people with excess? That's the important thing in communication! If I want people to understand clearly, I must cleave the exposition, argumentation and description. After all, narration, broadly defined, is one of four rhetorical modes of discourse. If I want to be understood I have to adhere to these criteria. Clarity is so important in our culture. We codify ourselves by the words we use. So, we expect our ideas to be interpreted in the intended context. Thus, I will from this day forward aim for clarity and succinctness. Yep...that's my style from now on. More narrowly defined, it is the fiction-writing mode whereby the narrator communicates directly to the reader. Readers, with less time on their hands, value strong content, but BRIEF and TO the poing. Thus, having the ability to skilfully craft an argument is essential, free of repetition, and pretentiousness. Instead of using the passive voice filled with nominalizations and jittery exposition, I will STRIVE for short active verbs, subjects that match up, and central subject-verb structure; CONCISION!! That's the answer to it all. Yessir! I will KEEP the reader focused on what really matters in my posts, providing him or her with a sustained flow of sentences from a single point o fview. I should have used this approach long ago, and I'm sure all would have been invariably attuned with my premise. No more redundancy from THIS neck of the woods! Nope! Never more! It will be the end of this wordy, inert style that makes it hard for a reader to follow. If I want the analysis to have clarity, it must be placed in the active voice. That's the key. That's the ticket. That's the end zone. That's the anal tract to aim for!

User avatar
Chuck Messer
Posts: 2089
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 9:15 pm
Location: Lakewood, Colorado

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Chuck Messer » Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:37 pm

Chill, Rob. I was simply agreeing with you and reinforcing the point by showing the crass mentality extends beyond the stage, which I was sure you knew.

Raht own, bruthah!

Chuck
Some people are wedded to their ideology the way nuns are wed to God.

User avatar
robochrist
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:30 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby robochrist » Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:42 pm

I'm chilled, I'm chilled. I just like to torture everyone.

And I need to strive more for that ever-evasive "active" voice!


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests