THE PAVILION ANNEX

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

Moderator: Moderator

diane bartels
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: CHICAGO IL

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby diane bartels » Mon Sep 10, 2012 12:54 am

Mark, glad to hear you still getting better.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Sep 10, 2012 1:58 pm

Mark, I miss our little scrums. Be good.

Mark Tiedemann
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Mark Tiedemann » Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:12 am


User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:11 am

Diane, I bet they are going apeshit lying about the teachers there.

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

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Moderator » Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:42 am

Mark Tiedemann wrote:http://marktiedemann.com/wordpress/?p=1351

An observation.


Very good post, Mark. Unfortunately, in the eyes of many Americans the actions of this group tar and feather the entire Islamic world, giving this embarrassing film a cache when it deserves none. Our own religious zealots will no doubt see it as a call to arms themselves (an excuse the Florida Koran-burning pastor has used to support his own actions).

Religious zealots -- of every stripe -- do little to help their own cause in the eyes of the world, and do much damage in the name of their savior/prophet/God.
- 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 » Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:56 am

Barber

It's zealots of any stripe that are causing problems. After all religion doesn't corner the market when it comes to rabid belief.

IMO Mitch McConnell is just as much a zealot as the man who made this movie, just for different causes.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:25 pm

I fear that you will have atheists like Sam Harris and Dawkins actually defend the film. Imagine what Hitchens would have said.

Sure, killing people over an obscure film is awful, but we also know what happens when films like these get made.

The real idiots are also Egyptian television that made this film out to be some big hit. It's a very badly made film. Looks like someone's bad college project.

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 » Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:36 pm

FrankChurch wrote:I fear that you will have atheists like Sam Harris and Dawkins actually defend the film. Imagine what Hitchens would have said.

Sure, killing people over an obscure film is awful, but we also know what happens when films like these get made.

The real idiots are also Egyptian television that made this film out to be some big hit. It's a very badly made film. Looks like someone's bad college project.
I

Fuck Frank, cherry pick much.

Speech I like is to be free and not condemned at all...

But, that shit I don't like, we need to stop it at all costs.

You don't get to choose which speech is free, it is or it isn't.

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Ezra Lb. » Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:55 am

FrankChurch wrote:I fear that you will have atheists like Sam Harris and Dawkins actually defend the film. Imagine what Hitchens would have said.

Sure, killing people over an obscure film is awful, but we also know what happens when films like these get made.

The real idiots are also Egyptian television that made this film out to be some big hit. It's a very badly made film. Looks like someone's bad college project.


Stop sniveling Frank. It's not very becoming in a "radical". I have no doubt that Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins will defend the right of the filmmakers to make a bad film. As for Hitchens, he wrote extensively and eloquently about the Salman Rushdie affair, another "offense" to the barbarians. And another book you haven't read.
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:35 am

Ezra, I'm trying not to get people like Gwyn abused by bigots. It's not about Islam but about bad translations and corrupt imams.

Thankfully we have Fawaz Gerges to tell us that the Jihadi's can be reached, but we have to change our foreign policy to policing.

Mark Tiedemann
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Mark Tiedemann » Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:52 am

Cultural misfires happen all the time and we should know this, but that is only a reason for there to be more speech. And not just more speech but more exposure.

Re the Salman Rushdie thing. Several years ago on another chat group I got into an extended dialogue with a devout Muslim. She was not an uneducated woman by any means and the large majority of our exchanges were of a high order, very good, educational, and mutually beneficial.

Until we got to Rushdie.

One of my core values is that if you do not know of what you speak, you have no right to criticize it. Acting on hearsay doesn't count, even if you trust the source. You want to condemn something, see it, hear it, or read it first, then come talk to me about what's wrong with it. (Many, many years ago I went to see an X-rated film and outside the theater was an earnest young woman protesting the film, handing out christian fliers condemning it, etc etc. She picked on me for extra effort for some reason and I turned the tables. "What was it about the film you found offensive?" "Oh, I haven't seen it." "Then how can you condemn it? Come on, I'll buy your ticket. If you still hate it afterward, I'll listen to what you have to say." She turned white as a sheet and ran away. Same deal with all the morons who picketed The Last Temptation of Christ---none of them saw it, they just took somebody's word for it that it was evil. Fuck that. Be a human, find out for yourself!)

So we started discussing The Satanic Verses and she allowed how she agreed with the fatwa (which is not a death sentence, btw, but a decree of disrespect---the reward for his death was a separate pronouncement). I asked why and she said it was obviously obscene, right from the opening pages, with that "homosexual arrangement of oral sex."

Now, I'd read the book, and I didn't know what she was talking about. Nobody went down on anybody in the novel. So what was she talking about?

Here is where limiting one's exposure to other cultures becomes a real problem.

For those who haven't read it, the opening of the book is a fictional depiction of the Lockerbie disaster. The two main characters were both on the plane and they are falling to earth. As they fall, they come into a head-to-toe arrangement, tumbling over and over. It is obvious to anyone with a modicum of grasp that what is depicted is a symbolic Yin Yang arrangement and this is borne out through the rest of the book as these two personify light and dark, good and evil, selfish and altruistic, etc by turns.

When I pointed this out, she had no idea what I meant. She never heard of Yin Yang. She had no cultural or even reading referent to see that scene as other than two guys in a 69. I doubted that she would have gotten much more out of the book, but as it turned out that was as far as she'd read. (At least she'd tried.)

How do you deal with that? You not only have to work to undo the misinterpretation, but you then have to re-educate practically from the ground up, and that only works when you have a willing student. I realized then that the pigheaded ban on things regarded as blasphemous were as often as not based on inadequate understanding of what things really mean as much as on things that might be taken literally as offensive. How do you tell the difference if you only know the inside of your own little box?

Even many of the Libyans who are saddened by the death of Chris Stevens wonder out loud how America could have "allowed" the film to be made. They simply do not understand how we see the world and individual rights.

This is hard.

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 » Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:01 am

Mark

When it comes to the visual arts, wouldn't you say that the best way to quiet its effect is to get it ignored.

I have found that far from getting people up in arms about an artwork, harsh and public condemnation usually makes people want to see what it is and why people are complaining in the first place.

Mark Tiedemann
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Mark Tiedemann » Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:47 am

Lori Koonce wrote:Mark

When it comes to the visual arts, wouldn't you say that the best way to quiet its effect is to get it ignored.

I have found that far from getting people up in arms about an artwork, harsh and public condemnation usually makes people want to see what it is and why people are complaining in the first place.



Very much so. Classic class clown crap. But I think people who expose themselves to the widest possible range of experiences are much harder to shock and much quicker to ignore that which has no merit.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:05 pm

Did you know that one in five people will be sexually molested as children? Why isn't this part of the debate?

And, no, stranger danger is a myth as well. Most molestations are done by family, friends, or trusted people near the child. The strange guy in a black van would take care of a kid more than the kindly priest or football coach.

Myths are hard to break because they make us feel better.

No, I was never molested myself, but I almost was.

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 » Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:36 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Did you know that one in five people will be sexually molested as children? Why isn't this part of the debate?

And, no, stranger danger is a myth as well. Most molestations are done by family, friends, or trusted people near the child. The strange guy in a black van would take care of a kid more than the kindly priest or football coach.

Myths are hard to break because they make us feel better.

No, I was never molested myself, but I almost was.



Frank

Stranger danger isn't quit a myth. There is more than molestation that children should be worried about. Kidnappings aren't done by people who know you or your family for one thing.

And things like drive by shootigs usually end up killing bystanders and not the intended targets.

Most parents I know teach there children that there are strangers you avoid and ones like police officers that you can trust


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests