RE: JDS Film and TV
PODESTA,Lesley (Lesley.PODESTA@deetya.gov.au)
Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:04:51 +1100
Malcolm Lawrence wrote:
>We're talking about literature for Christ's sake, not sports. Who cares who
>is
>better or worse? This is worse than the recent thread about which female
>vocalist was better. Why can't people who obviously enjoy literature talk
>about the artist and their art exclusively rather than having to dredge up
>comparison's to their "competition." Only readers make these comparisons.
and:
> "My team is better than your team." "Oh, yeah?" "Yeah." "Oh, yeah?" "Yeah."
>"Oh, yeah?" "Yeah." "Oh, yeah?" "Yeah." "Oh, yeah?" "Yeah." "Oh, yeah?"
>"Yeah."
>
>So which trees are better than other trees?
>
>Which animals are better than other animals?
>
>Which planets are better than other planets?
>
>
This exchange brought back some great memories. When I was about ten or
eleven I had an on- going argument with my best friends about those
categories too. (If I remember correctly my favourites were Silver
Beech, antelopes and Saturn), my best friend was Oak, cats and Earth,
our biggest enemy was Pine, mice and Venus, yuck....
Malcolm, I agree with your sentiments but I think you're a bit harsh.
The project of modernism means that we and reinvent ourselves based
(partly) on our likes/choices and allegiances. These things change...
but they're are an important part of working out who we "are" and why.
I love Salinger's stories but depending on who I am (today, tomorrow) I
like certain ones more or less. Self and identitity (such a core theme
in all of JDS' works) are constant themes of the modern reader and
writer, particularly during adolescence or periods of change.
Lesley P.
>----------
>From: Malcolm Lawrence[SMTP:malcolm@wolfenet.com]
>Sent: Friday, 14 November 1997 14:39
>To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu
>Subject: Re: JDS Film and TV
>
>Graham Preston wrote:
>
>> BTW, right or wrong I still hold true to the notion that Stephen Crane is
>> the best novelist (writer) of the 19th century in America. Not that that
>> has anything to do with anything. I just thought I'd throw it out there
>> for the vultures to scrounge and pick apart my notion.
>>
>> BTW again, Seymour still (and Holden) is the most intresting, gripping
>> character on any artform ever.
>
>We're talking about literature for Christ's sake, not sports. Who cares who
>is
>better or worse? This is worse than the recent thread about which female
>vocalist was better. Why can't people who obviously enjoy literature talk
>about the artist and their art exclusively rather than having to dredge up
>comparison's to their "competition." Only readers make these comparisons. Do
>you think writers sit around planning their works to "outdo" this guy or
>"better" that girl? NO. Works of art are apples and oranges. GET OVER YOUR
>HIERARCHICAL SOCIALIZATION. Only a populace raised on Super Bowl hype and
>Jimmy The Greek odds who somehow believe that books and authors (or musicians
>or painters) need to be pitted against each other like a goddamn cockfight
>with trivia on their lips and a useless degree under their belt on the line.
>"My team is better than your team." "Oh, yeah?" "Yeah." "Oh, yeah?" "Yeah."
>"Oh, yeah?" "Yeah." "Oh, yeah?" "Yeah." "Oh, yeah?" "Yeah." "Oh, yeah?"
>"Yeah."
>
>So which trees are better than other trees?
>
>Which animals are better than other animals?
>
>Which planets are better than other planets?
>
>