Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > FWIW, if memory serves, the film was
> *novelized*
> > after-the-fact. There was no novel from which
> to
> > work up a screen play. The novel came
> afterward,
> > which to me implies that it was commercially
> > driven.
> >
>
> I think Kubrick and Clarke cooperated on the
> screenplay. It was Clarke's ideas, but Kubrick
> naturally wanted his say. After that Clarke wrote
> the book.
>
> > Kubrick was a very hit-and-miss director, in my
> > opinion. He had tremendous visual sense (Ridley
> > Scott is another such--but with no real
> > pretensions to great revelations--a solid,
> gifted
> > workman), and I think maybe Kubrick also
> flattered
> > himself to think that he was revealing deep,
> > hidden truths about whatever it was he chose to
> > film.
> >
>
> You may be right. But a great movie craftsman in
> every sense. (Anyway, it appears he exposed enough
> about "Illuminati"
That's the Italian electrical workers' union, right?
> (the all-watching Eye at the
> top of the pyramid)
I thought it was supposed to be one of Jeffry Epstein's house parties...
> in Eyes Wide Shut, to get
> himself killed; but that's another discussion.
Do you feel that those involved in The Davinci Code have much to worry about?
>
> > Do you place great faith in the thoughts/ideas
> of
> > authors and critics. K? I tend not to. I'll
> read
> > them (maybe) to see if there are any "catalyst
> > ideas" that fire up further interest, but
> seldom
> > do I care what writer (or critic) X says in
> > unqualified praise (or condemnation) of writer
> Y.
> >
>
> It depends, like for you, on whether what they say
> suits my interests. ;)
> I have greater faith in taking literary advice
> from a person I respect, than from one I don't.
But everything you need to know about *the content* is right there for you to read. It's not that hard to evaluate it. You can err in the actual reading (I do), but once you settle on the text, it's up to either: a) the author convey his meaning or intently accurately enough to the target audience; or b) you, if you're not in the target audience, accept that the book is not aimed at you until you do what it takes to become part of the target.
> I
> generally have faith in what Lovecraft says (and
> it has proven right), but that doesn't mean I read
> everything he recommends; it must suit my
> subjective interests.
Specifically, does it matter that Arthur C. Clarke finds HPL's essay "masterly" if he doesn't bother to tell you *why*?
I mean, it seems like he''s trading on his own name recognition.
>
> I think it is easier to find one's way to great
> books, if listening to recommendations of those
> with insights. Less effort and time is then
> wasted. I read lots of crap as a teenager, because
> I had no idea at all, just grabbing what was on
> the shelves in the book stores. After that I have
> leafed through many critical fantasy/science
> fiction/horror bibliographies. And I enjoy doing
> so.
That becomes an entirely different endeavor than the aesthetic interpretation of an author's content.
It's a sort of "side gig"...
> It becomes a mix of listening to the "experts"
> and trusting my own intuition.
Maybe that's where we differ: maybe I tend not to trust experts except in quantifiable areas. I don't know them, at all, and have no idea of how they think.
Here a sort of difference.
You recommended Ligotti to me, and you are a quasi-known quantity, K, I know and like what I have read in our exchanges, have some idea of your tastes, and where we may differ, so I read Ligotti and while he expresses very distasteful thoughts, I feel I am the better for having read him.
At *your* recommendation.
Flip side was my recommendation to you of Melancholia. I've shot off my mouth so much here on ED that you know me pretty well, and you probably decided that in terms of thinking about the unthinkable, we may be similar, so you invested some time/energy in watching it and discussing it.
Many people here on ED, if they recommend something, I'll probably try it. They are known quantities. But someone like Clarke or Machen or Lewis are not, and so I place much less faith in their judgement.
I'll close this section with an illustrative anecdote.
I used to play a lot of tennis--competitive at the local level. I was very familiar with technical aspects of stroke production. I know what it takes to hit a successful topspin lob, e.g.
More than once I saw players I had played in competition giving lessons for money. Some of them were far, far better players than I was, and yet watching them teach the mechanics, I realized that while they could hit the particular shot almost perfectly, and consistently, they really had NO CLUE how they were doing it; it just came so naturally to them that it never entered into their consciousness, even in a rudimentary fashion, how they performed the shot.
Their advice was all but worthless, even though they were proven experts in their area.
Hah. And they took money for it, basically from hopeful klutzes.
Reading Stevenson recently, I wonder if he might be this sort of natural talent, has no clue how he does it. Too, I've long thought that a guy like Raymond Chandler, a natural stylist, had no clue, either.
> In the end it is I
> who make the final decision (an expert
> psychologist would perhaps argue differently),
> based on my interests and the artistic flavor of
> the author. It must click. Sometimes I have made
> bad choices, but most of the time not. On rare
> occasions I have reluctantly read authors I ruled
> out beforehand, and became pleasantly surprised.
Melville was like this for me, and Dreiser.
> Ultimately I trust my own judgment. First time I
> bumped into Lovecraft was by way of a Call of
> Cthulhu roleplaying game displayed in a shop
> window. Seeing his electric name, and a few
> illustrations of his settings and characteristic
> monsters (Gene Day's Cthulhu!), I immediately knew
> he would stay with me forever, without even having
> read a single story of his. And I was right.
Hah!
My first conscious awareness of Lovecraft was that there was a very short-lived rock band, in the 60s, I believe, and maybe the DJ said they were named after the famed horror author, H. P. Lovecraft.
Lessee...
Ah, here we go:
[
en.wikipedia.org])
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
