I started thinking about something while I was watching Live 8. I saw bits and pieces of one of those 8 hour blocks a few weekends ago, and there were some really great performances, along with some real crap. But when I was watching some of my favorite old bands, I couldn't help noticing how many former members were missing. I saw McCartney without Lennon, The Who without Moon or Entwistle, and of course Pink Floyd, playing the song they wrote for their departed comrade Syd. I don't remember most of these peoples' deaths, but I have been around for some famous passings. It never really seems like they're gone until several years later. Then I finally realize that their unique vision of the world will never be expressed again.
Anyway, it put me in the mind of a game. If you were granted a wish to restore one person who you did not know personally back to the timeline, have them live out a full natural life, and remove all the implications of their death (i.e. Syd Barrett, who had a great deal of potential, but may have prevented Wish You Were Here or Dark Side of the Moon from being made if he'd survived), who would you pick and why?
The person could be famous in any field... music, movies, politics, literature, theatre, science, etc. But if you knew them personally, they're disqualified.
I have a choice in mind, but I'm not going to put it down just yet. I want to see if anyone can make me change my mind. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'd love to see what Jesus would have done with a few more years in him.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Bobby Kennedy. I think he would have been president and done some interesting things.
I was going to say JFK--then I realized that I would prefer to see what Bobby would do.
-Katarain
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*claps hands on ears to drown out the dinging*
I'd love to see what would have happened with Julius Caesar. He had a lot of good ideas, and I get the feeling he was just getting started.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
What kind of things do you think Bobby would have done? Not an argument, I could just use the history lesson. Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Honestly...I'm really not that sure. I get that from a conversation I had with my brother many years ago. He thought that Bobby Kennedy would have been a good president, and that if he had lived, a completely different line of presidents would have been elected after him as well.
I don't actually remember his reasons, but I remember the conversation was compelling enough that he is my choice..
And I mean this seriously, not in a "Jim Morrison is living it up in the Sachelles" kind of way.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Wow... I just checked with Wikipedia, and apparently you're right. I'm shocked. I was sure that he'd died decades ago. And I thought I heard Roger saying something about his death at the Live 8 show.
I stand corrected.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I did a doubletake, because I though maybe he had died within the last year and I hadn't heard of it.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Not exactly in line... but I wonder what would have happened had Beethoven not gone deaf.... would his 9th symphony (arguably the best piece of music, ever) been even better? or would it never have been written?
I'm gonna go with Socrates, though... there's a lot of knowledge and understanding that developed through his school of thought, and it'd be very interesting to see what would have happened with a few more years under their master.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I agree on the Bobby Kennedy answer, but getting back to music, and throwing my own out there: Harry Chapin. He made so much great music that means so much to me, and he seemed to really be getting going when he died.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'm gonna skip world leaders and just say 'Sam Cooke'.
He was a beautiful musician, and was gunned down in his early 30's.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I've got to agree with Icarus. Harry Chapin was a heck of a songwriter. And where would Rock 'n' Roll have gone had Buddy Holly not taken that last flight?
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
I know you will find this very disappointing, but... SYD IS ALIVE, DUDE!
Rumors say he's sick and depressed, though.
Let's give the guy a Hatrack group-hug
(((Syd))) Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I can post all my secrets here, and I know that they're safe from Beanny, who, after all, will not read them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Chapin's a good choice. So is Hendrix. Look at how much Clapton's skill and artistry matured between the early 70s and now. Then imagine if Hendrix had done the same.
And Janice, just because she's, well, Janice. Oh, that voice.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
Oh, and who would I bring back from the dead?
Binyamin Theodore Herzl, founder of the Jewish Congress who layed the founations of the Jewish state yet to come. I just think he deserves to see the results of devoting his life to a dream he did not live to see come true. I also think he'd be quite heplful in the current situation.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I can post all my secrets here, and I know that they're safe from Beanny, who, after all, will not read them.
I see you're jelaous. That's completely understandable. After reading the lovely thread dedicated to you without commenting, you deserve a big, fat, fluffy hug from me.
([{([{([{([{Icarus}])}])}])}])
And I'll throw a party for you too! Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Joseph Smith Albert Einstein Douglas Adams
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Dag, it's funny because it's true!
-o-
quote:Binyamin Theodore Herzl, founder of the Jewish Congress who layed the founations of the Jewish state yet to come. I just think he deserves to see the results of devoting his life to a dream he did not live to see come true.
That's kind of a recurring motif in Judaism, eh?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Ah. Only Dag's secrets are safe here. Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
(((((sarcastic and bitter Icarus)))))
I like you just the way you are!
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
Oh, I wouldn't dare read Dagonee's secrets. Dag is scary. He'll press charges against me and have me locked up with Granny Weatherwax. The only thing I'll be capable of donig is sitting in the corner and trying to think happy thoughts.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
By the way, I'm sorry you think I'm "bitter" (though I don't know what about). I used plenty of smilies to indicate that I was kidding, but, whatever.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
I'd be interested in what a longer life span would have held for MLK. It would be so fascinating to actually be able to compare a timeline where he didn't die with this one. Would you call him a martry? Would he have had a greater or lesser impact if he had lived. Cool thread btw.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
From now on I'll try to be more sensitive!
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Alexander Hamilton, anyone?
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
George Gershwin, John Lennon, Jimmy Hendrix, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr, Abraham Lincoln, Jesus, Joseph Smith Jr.
[ July 25, 2005, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Does it have to be a person? Can I say I wish George Lucas' vision hadn't died a premature death? Or that Cyberpunk hadn't died so fast?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Alexander the Great.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That space was not NEARLY large enough, Beanny. You need to make it much, much bigger, and then hide the name in the middle of a paragraph. If someone didn't want to be spoiled, they would have been anyway. It's unavoidable. Please.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
<---spoiled
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
John the Revelator.
And thank you very, very much, Beanny. Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
Dear Icarus and "advice for robots",
I am deeply sorry for spoiling the book for you. I was sure I did the spoiler sign safe enough, and clearly I haven't. I had no evil intentions, but was definitely quite careless. I apologize.
That post was deleted so no other Hatrackers will have to face your situation. I haven't read SotG yet (no English copies of it where I live), if you seek vengeance I will most agreeingly face the concequences to my blunder.
Sincerely yours, Beanny
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Haven't read SOTG yet? Then you don't know about how Bean left Petra to become a Catholic priest? Wow.
Oh,
SPOILER ABOVE!
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Music: Harry Nilsson, although Hendrix is a good choice too. John Lennon...
US Historical figures: Lincoln -- a postwar, past president would've been interesting. MLK -- would he have forced race relations to be healthier than they were in his absence? JFK and RFK both would've been good to be a part of.
Other Historical/Artistic Figures: Jesus -- an 80 year old Jesus talking about "in MY day..." Methuselah: C'mon, just a few more years and he'd've made it to quadruple digits. What a gyp!
Personal: My dad. Died at 40. I often wonder what our relationship would be like today. I imagine we'd be great friends making puns constantly and driving my poor mother up the wall. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Icarus: Jerk! Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Yeah, thanks for RUINING MY LIFE.
j/k :) No, really, it didn’t surprise me a bit. I’ll still enjoy the book when I get around to reading it. No worries, mate.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
Just for clarification - I didn't spoil the book that stupidly.
Icarus - I don't believe you. Bean would never do that.
Edit: "advice for robots" - was your post related to Icarus or to me?
[ July 25, 2005, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Beanny ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Wow... I just checked with Wikipedia, and apparently you're right. I'm shocked. I was sure that he'd died decades ago. And I thought I heard Roger saying something about his death at the Live 8 show.
I stand corrected.
Maybe you have more power than you knew, and your wish just came true! Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:
quote:I just think he deserves to see the results of devoting his life to a dream he did not live to see come true.
That's kind of a recurring motif in Judaism, eh?
Shouldn't it be a recurring theme in every society? Should we not all be planting (metaphorical as well as literal) trees for our grandchildren?
My vote is for Gilda Radner.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
touché.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
quote: I am with Bob MLK would be nice
My posts apparently vanish into the ether. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I would like to third Robert Kennedy.
I think it would have changed the course of history had Lincoln not been assassinated.
I think it would have been really interesting if Woodrow Wilson had lived a few more years.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:I think it would have been really interesting if Woodrow Wilson had lived a few more years.
Yeah. The US would own half of Latin America. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
While I appreciate the 'rolling eyes' which always speak volumes, can you elaborate? Was not aware he was complicit in taking over Latin American countries. I was thinking more along the lines of seeing an effective League of Nations instituted which would have been interesting.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:While I appreciate the 'rolling eyes' which always speak volumes, can you elaborate?
Okay, fair enough. Put simply, if I am not mistaken (and I'm pretty sure I'm not), no US president invaded Latin American countries more than Woodrow Wilson.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I'll second a lot of the world leaders already mentioned and then quickly move on to entertainment:
Douglas Adams, for obvious reasons. Bill Hicks. Hilarious and outspoken comedian. I'd love to hear him rant about the current state of the US, considering all his jokes about the previous president Bush and the previous Iraq war. Hunter S. Thompson. Okay, a lot of people say his suicide was no surprise because he was a drug-crazed madman. He was still a brilliant writer, and he never seemed like a downer, depressive, end-it-all sort of person, so I don't think it's that simple.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Sigh. O.K. I'll google.
I was suprised by your comment because Wilson has always been potrayed by most historians as a champion of little countries and peoples.
In foreign affairs, Wilson was determined to revise the imperialist practices of earlier administrations, promising independence to the Philippines and making Puerto Ricans American citizens. But Wilson's own policies could sometimes be high-handed. His administration intervened militarily more often in Latin America than any of his predecessors.
Again, looks to be mostly for the good, with Wilson not bent on conquest but aiding liberation.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
By the way, am not saying Wilson is some perfect paragon of virtue.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Another nominee, but not because they did anything GOOD: Lee Harvey Oswald. It would have been nice if he'd lived long enough to actually stand trial and make some statements, instead of getting shot.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
From your link:
quote:These were Wilson's only successes in Latin American relations, however. The rest of his dealings with South, Central, and Caribbean American countries largely failed, and many of them even resulted in bloodshed. Wilson's attempt to help Nicaraguan rebels eventually required him to occupy the country by force in 1914. The same blunder occurred in Haiti in 1915 and the Dominican Republic in 1916, when Wilson eventually sent in American troops to occupy the islands. During Wilson's Presidency, the United States also purchased the Virgin Islands from Denmark. It is ironic that despite his loathing of imperialism and his deep belief in self-determination, Wilson resorted to military action in Latin America just as his predecessors had. Although Wilson had problems in the Caribbean, his greatest challenge came from Mexico.
quote:Between 1914 and 1918 the United States invaded or intervened in Latin America many times, particularly in Mexico, Haiti, Cuba, and Panama. The U.S. maintained troops in Nicaragua throughout his administration and used them to select the president of Nicaragua and then to force Nicaragua to pass the Bryan-Chamorro Treaty. American troops in Haiti forced the Haitian legislature to choose the candidate Wilson selected as Haitian president. After Haiti refused to declare war on Germany, Wilson had Haiti's government dissolved and then forced a new, less democratic constitution on Haiti through a sham referendum. American soldiers also expelled small farmers from their lands to work in chain gangs on public works projects and transferred the land to plantation owners. In 1919, Haitians rose up in rebellion against the Americans, resulting in 3,000 deaths. Gleijesus (1992) notes: "It is not that Wilson failed in his earnest efforts to bring democracy to these little countries. He never tried. He intervened to impose hegemony, not democracy."
(Note also his words of praise for Birth of a Nation and his success as a recruiting tool for the KKK.)
(Incidentally, wikipedia seems to be plagiarized by just about every other "informative" site out there--unless, of course, it's the other way around.)
This site also talks about how his Latin American and Carribean policy was a failure.
Haven't you expressed disagreement with Bush's policies in Iraq? Wilson seems like a Bush clone to me. In fact, after I had that thought, I found this article drawing the same comparison.
quote:Far from making the world safe for democracy, Woodrow Wilson and the U.S. Congress so compromised the principle during 1918-1920 that informed observers (and leading Wilsonians) such as Walter Lippmann developed a realist worldview to demonstrate why democratic systems were dangerous as either the originators or objectives of foreign policy.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Interesting. I will keep your points in mind, but I'm not sure that they tell the whole story. I'm not saying they're wrong, i'm just not sure they don't have a certain slant to them that might not be providing the whole picture.
I am aware that Wilson is a product of his time and his culture, and your information definitely casts him in a more negative light, but I still think though the implementation was flawed, the idea that America can be a force for change is a good idea, and that America should be pro-active as a force for good deserves serious consideration. Certainly, I think it's a far better idea than just sitting behind fortress America and letting things run their course.
I have expressed some disagreement with the Bush camp as to how effective invading Iraq and Afghanistan might be in reducing terrorism and as to whether it is the best thing to do to grow democracies, but I do think the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan have the potential to be good things for Iraqis and Afghanis. In other words, I'm open to the idea of invasion if it leads to greater good--democracy, freedom, standard of living, what have you.
Don't you think that helping to overthrow Castro and start democracy in Cuba might be a good idea?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
The thing is, Castro would never have been able to keep control in Cuba if not for the Platt Ammendment, which the US forced Cuba at gunpoint to adopt in its constitution. Wilson is not responsible for that; it's before his time. But he is in part responsible for the "Platt Ammendment Mentality," because he invoked it so many times. His constant meddling (and that of Roosevelt and others) made Cuba weak for democracy because it demoralized any tendency toward homegrown democracy.
So overthrowing Castro? Well, it would just seem like cleaning up the mess the US did so much to help create.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I am not clear from your post whether you think the U.S. should meddle some more and help to overthrow Castro or whether meddling will further make Cuba weak for democracy.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't have a strong opinion on the question of whether the US should invade Cuba to create a democracy right now, because I perceive the issue as being ridiculously far from being on the table. I would say the US should have meddled less in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (especially the twentieth). Having already meddled so much, the US should have held true to their pattern of behavior when Cubans felt sure that they would depose an obviously communist dictator (basically, seeing as how Cuba was a de facto teritory of the US up until Castro), or at the very least, not have betrayed the attackers in the Bay of Pigs. I also think Kennedy should never have made a promise that was outside of his right to make in order to bring "resolution" to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
If there were seriously a consideration of invading Cuba right now for the express purpose of setting up a democracy, intellectually I would lean against it (though perhaps not in my heart) because I don't think you can create democracy effectively by ignoring the sovereignty of nations.
If an invasion were to be mounted as a way to end/punish the numerous human-rights violations under Castro, then I would be a little more open to it, but I would tend to oppose such an invasion if it were done unilaterally (or virtually unilaterally) because I think this would lead to a further puppetization of any countrry being aided in this way. If we want to take out brutal regimes, I think that's a good goal, but we need to have the world on our side. (And think about when we plan to take out China.)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Cool.
I generally agree with a lot of what you're saying.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
And I agree with you that good can come of the Iraq invasion and hope that it does, while I do not care for the circumstances under which we invaded or the precedents we established.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Abraham Maslow. His death was a tragedy that robbed the world of one of it's best minds. He was in full stride and had gotten himself into a great position and then *poof* he's dead.
Bejamin Franklin. Sure, he lived to a ripe old age, but if there's anyone who deserved a shot of the old partial immortality so that they could be alive today, it'd be old Ben.
Alan Turing. Yeah, he really helped us win World War II and revolutionized the world of information theory and pretty much (with appolgies to Charles Babbage) invented the computer, but he was gay. So let's hound him to death. On such things are our super-genuises destroyed.
Chaim Potok. This is as close to the original point of the thread I'll get. Knowing that there will be no more of his books to read makes me sad.
On a Hatrack note, we (and the rest of the world) lost Centurion way too soon.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
In terms of political figures, I'd go with Yitzhak Rabin. I could be wrong, but I felt very optimistic that the changes he was making were actually going to do something to help bring about peace in Israel, and I mourned his death.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Frank Obannon, if he hadn't have died, Indiana might still have a democratic governor.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I agree with many of the choices made so far, but the one that actually invoked an emotional reaction was Douglas Adams. He wasn't very prolific, but everything he wrote was pure gold. If only to see the finished version of The Salmon of Doubt, and to see how the Hitchhikers Guide movie would have come out if he'd been around to continue his fight with the studios, it would be worth it.
[ July 27, 2005, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
erg . . . . there is nothing I could say that would not be classless, so I'll shut up.
Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :
But if Jesus lived till he was 80, he could have died on any shape! Can you imagine if he passed out and hit his head on a dodecahedron floor tile? Think of how much more iron would be used across the world in the building of dodecahedrons for churches! We'd be running low! Madness I tell ya!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I find it depressing that as a culture we mourn the death of entertainers much more than almost anyone else. I remember a space on Hatrack where I was expecting a "Shirley Chisholm has died thread" but she just wasn't as important as people like that guy who used to be on Law and Order. Our values are broken.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't think you've got the right of it this time. I don't think it's celebrity worship, or we'd be hearing about a lot more athletes, for instance. I think people are talking about entertainers as artists, and it seems not-inappropriate to me, because artists can touch us on a personal level, while political figures typically do not. So I'm sad that Harry Chapin and River Phoenix, say, didn't live to be older not because I am unaware of history or don't value MLK, but because these performers, while not as earth-moving, affected me more personally.
Also, this is a thread (ostensibly) about people who died too soon. This is not uncommon with entertainers, but politicians tend to not make it to the top until they've been around for a while. In general, then, we don't tend to know about the ones who "died too soon." The ones we do know about tend, in more cases, to have lived long lives, and therefore not fit the topic. (This is not simply a "mourning famous people who have died" thread.)
Finally, you have posted twice now to sneer at the topic. I think that's kind of rude.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I don't know about that, Squicky. Art is the way people connect with the rest of humanity. Scientists and politicians are very important. But artists can connect with people in a way that other public figures can't. When someone who helped us learn about our own humanity and our place in the world through their art dies, there's bound to be an emotional reaction. It doesn't lessen the importance of the people who contributed to society in other ways, on a large scale or a small scale. It's just a different kind of experience.
When Shirley Chisholm and Johnny Carson die around the same time, I have a stronger emotional reaction to losing the person I spent every night with when I was going through high school. It has nothing to do with values. It has to do with the human experience, and being honest with myself about it.
[edit: I bow to your fast fingers, Ic]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Did anyone say Mitch Hedberg yet?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
ehhh...while I'm not going to say that the reason you offered aren't also in play, there is a great deal of celebrity worship and it's attendent self-centeredness in this. People don't mourn the performer as a person so much as they mourn the loss of the performances. I see a lot of what's been said as equivilent to the idea that players on your professional sports team give a darn about you. It's a poor place to put value in your life.
This shallowness and egocentricity is to me one of the central sickness of American society. Celebrity worship is, to me, one of the more visibly distasteful aspects of it.
Posted by Zemra (Member # 5706) on :
[ July 26, 2005, 01:18 AM: Message edited by: Zemra ]
Posted by Zemra (Member # 5706) on :
I think that it should be Princess Diana. She was involved with charities working to help children, homeless people and AIDS sufferers, as well as with the campaign to ban land mines.
[ July 26, 2005, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: Zemra ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:People don't mourn the performer as a person so much as they mourn the loss of the performances.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here . . . or what the point is. Of course we moan the loss of the performance: it's precisely through the performance that these performers touched us. It's not like we know any of these famous people as actual human beings. Heck, in the last year, I've heard stunningly negative things about Ghandi, Thomas Jefferson, MLK, and Abraham Lincoln as people. Are they true? Beats me. Their private pecadillos are nowhere near as relevant to me as the effect their lives have on me. The same is true for the artist.
As far as self-centeredness, that seems like an easy criticism to throw out in a thread that asks people to reflect on what they personally wish there had been more of, but I'm not sure there is any relevance to the charge. Am I "self-centered" because I miss my grandmother? Well, technically, I guess the answer is "yes," but that doesn't make it wrong, or suggest that I care less about others than I should.
Sometimes it really is acceptable to indulge your own feelings.
I agree with you about the excesses of our celebrity-obsessed culture. But I don't agree that this thread is inherently symptomatic of that disorder.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
There's a bit of hypocrisy evident in anyone who has 3000+ posts on a famous author's cultural forums coming down on people who appreciate the work of celebrities.
There's a wide range of activities that could be defined as "celebrity worship". One definition could be buying all the trashy tabloids and obsessing over who's dating Tom Cruise, or what Britney Spears wore to the grocery store. Another definition could be immersing oneself in the work of a skilled and famous artist, and letting their work change how you think about life. Not a lot of people on this forum "worship" celebrities by the first definition. But by the second definition, I dare say everyone here, along with everyone in any part of the world where fame has a meaning, has engaged in some form of "celebrity worship." It's not a cultural thing. It's a human experience thing.
I'd say, though, that it's a bit misleading to use a term more fitting one thing to describe the other. It also seems somewhat... well I don't want to start throwing out words that would turn this discussion personal, but there's something amiss in feeling that your appreciation for Star Wars, Chaim Potok and Douglas Adams are somehow more noble or intelligent than another person's appreciation for Harry Chapin or Jimi Hendrix.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
PedroZamora, from the third MTV "Real World." He was many, many young people's first exposure to a real (to them) person with HIV.
He moved us forward much, but I think we would have moved faster if he hadn't died. And I wish he could have had a longer life to enjoy. Way, way, way too short.
[*toasts with Noemon ]
[ July 26, 2005, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I remember a space on Hatrack where I was expecting a "Shirley Chisholm has died thread" but she just wasn't as important as people like that guy who used to be on Law and Order. Our values are broken.
This is a fairly constant theme in your posts, Squick: that paying attention to one thing implies a lack of appreciation or acknowledgment for the other.
Did you start a Chisholm thread? Or did you just file away the little bit of information that nobody else did to be used later in your sneering?
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Icarus, I think I was folding my "People seem to regard performers as their own dancing monkeys." complaint into this. To hopefully make it clearer, it the difference between "I love you." meaning "I understand aand cherish the person that you are." and "I enjoy the things you do for me."
When people mourn the death of an entertainer, they are usually mouring their loss of things that'll entertain them. It's not that these people were taken too young, but rather that I want more jokes or songs or whatever.
The orientation that entertainment is the most important thing is the self-centeredness and shallowness that I'm decrying. I'd go so far as to say that the problem starts first when you find entertainers as prominent people to form emotional attachments to.
From my perspective, this thread in many ways displays the idea that entertainers are more important than everyone else. This is obviously something that is pushed heavily in our culture. I'm saying that not only do some people not think this way, but that some find it a really bad way to think.
You may have a different perspective on what's going on in this thread. I can respect that, but I still hold to my perspective.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Why would I start a Shirley Chisholm tribute thread? That's not the sort of thing I do. It was just for me another example of the orientation of many people here. And yes, I'm always filing away information about the social contexts that I find myself in.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And the fact that it's not the sort of thing other people do doesn't mean people here find her less important than Jerry Orbach. It means that Jerry Orbach's death is more the type of thing that's discussed here.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And this ties into the fact that I said I saw it as an example of a prevelant attitude. It was hardly the sole example of the attitude that I'm talking about.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why don't you start that sort of thread, Squicky? By refraining from starting that sort of thread, aren't you part of the problem? You say you don't do that, but you do criticize other for also not doing it. Isn't it better to build something yourself than to criticize other people for not building it?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
To further support the theory that entertainers are more important to my self-centered perspective of the world, here's a few that I don't think were mentioned yet in no specific order:
Chris Farley Kurt Cobain Jason Matthew Thirsk Eric Blair (George Orwell) Ernest Hemingway Charles Dickens Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Van Gogh Darth Vader
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote: Isn't it better to build something yourself than to criticize other people for not building it?
Well said Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
For much the same reason I don't post a landmark. I generally don't personally appreciate the "so and so has died" threads and don't feel like posting them. I did however find it somehwat depressing that I belong to community that finds Jerry Orbach's death a much more comment worthy topic than Shirley Chisholm's.
Can people understand why that would be?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Why would I start a Shirley Chisholm tribute thread? That's not the sort of thing I do. It was just for me another example of the orientation of many people here.
Ah. So you're disappointed in yourself for not starting a Shirley Chisholm tribute thread? Or are you disappointed in all those other people out there who cared about Shirley Chisholm who, like you, didn't start a tribute thread?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm disappointed that that substantial subset of the Hatrack population who values tribute threads found Jery Orbach and the like a much more fitting subject of such a thread than Shirley Chisholm. I was certainly not under the impression that there weren't people on Hatrack that honored Shirley on hearing of her passing. But I was disappointed in the presented social standard of entertainers being of more worth to many people here, which I saw this as an example of.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Perhaps the demographic of "people who mourned Shirley Chisholm" does not substantially intersect the "people who make tribute threads when someone dies" demographic.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Which is fine and not at all out of line with what I said. Actually, that pretty much is what I've said, although I added the idea that the group of people who value and make tribute threads is a large one.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
So you're making a generalization about the prevalent attitude of all the people here based on what type of threads are started, yet you refrain from starting your own threads regarding things that you believe in?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, that's not at all an accurate description of what's going on.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:although I added the idea that the group of people who value and make tribute threads is a large one.
So perhaps tribute threads are not the best way to determine what a community really values? After all, presumably you really valued Shirley Chisholm, and yet started no tribute thread.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
They are not exhaustive, but they do indicate the values of some significant section of the community. Were there no tribute threads for semi-famous actors and other assorted celebrities, I'd wouldn't conclude anything from there not being a tribute thread for other people. But having those, the absence of tributes to other people does indicate a relative valuing, at the very least in terms of who is worthy of a tribute thread, among the people who are involved in such threads.
And, as I've said, this is merely an easily demonstrable example of something I see in the social context here. That's not to say that all people here fit this description, but rather that I see this in a significant number of people.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I don't know who Shirley Chisholm is. The only reason I know who Jerry Orbach is is that I've overheard coworkers who watched Law & Order talking about him. Incorporate that into your respective social theories however you like.
I think with political and social leaders, a few major ones were said early on that most everybody says "ditto" but then entertainers get named because more people have a favorite actor who died than a favorite politician who died. Not that this means much either way, I'm just sayin'.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Syd Barett is alive.
Many people think he died, but he is seriously mentally ill.
Edit: oops, sorry, old news.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Musician I would love to see now: Nick Drake.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But having those, the absence of tributes to other people does indicate a relative valuing, at the very least in terms of who is worthy of a tribute thread, among the people who are involved in such threads.
What percentage of Hatrack do you believe starts tribute threads?
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
Andy Kaufman.
The man practically revolutionized performing arts. If he were able to live out a full life, i think we would have seen even greater performances, perhaps lasting ones.
Maybe not deep, but that's my choice.
Posted by unicornwhisperer (Member # 294) on :
Jim Henson made awesome movies and his Storyteller series and Amazing Adventures were awesome. I borrowed the Storyteller DVD and totally watched the whole thing... which was probably close to 4 hours long. Here are some interesting facts I found out about Jim.
quote:Died the weekend he was going to sell his company to Disney
The Processional music at his funeral was the theme from "Sesame Street" (1969).
Was a good friend of George Lucas, who originally offered him the role of Yoda in Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980). He declined and suggested Frank Oz for the part.
Had been ill with walking pneumonia for several days before his death but never told anybody, not even his family, because, true to his character, he didn't want to be a burden to anybody. By the time he finally sought medical help, it was too late to do anything.
Now I remember hearing that he did go to the doctor but the doctor told him he was fine... of course I remember hearing that a looong time ago...
I'm excited about the New Dark Chrystal Movie coming out. Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I just thought about it, and I'm surprised no one has mentioned Bob Marley yet.
Or maybe I missed it.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Speed, I am sorely tempted to edit Bob Marley into my post, but I will not.
By the way, I must alert you to one of the neato-est musical groups i heard at grassRoots: Tinariwen, from Mali. Yowza!
I made a choice earlier, but upon reflection, I'd like to reconsider.
Frank Zappa didn't die that early. At nearly 53, he had nearly twice as long as people like Jimi Hendrix or Kurt Cobain. But considering the fact that he was one of the most prolific, versatile and gifted musical minds of the 20th century, any extra time he would have been granted would have been worth it. He'd still be alive today, and there's no telling what he'd have done in the last 12 years, other than the fact that it would have been revolutionary.
The ironic thing is that rock stars that die early usually die as a result of fast living. Drug overdoses, drunk driving, suicide, or some other effect of lives gone out of control. But Frank never did any drugs, including alcohol. He was an enigmatically sober and intelligent family man, a rock star whose wild ideas came totally naturally. He was politically and socially active, improving the world with more than just his music. And after living a remarkably healthy, happy and sane lifestyle, he was taken by cancer. Life is, truly, a bugger.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
By the way, Elizabeth, those dudes sound very interesting. They kind of remind me of X Plastaz (not so much with the music as with the background). Ever heard of them?
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
No, I haven't heard of them.
When the recordings come out, I will send you a Tinariwen.
I am becoming more and more intrigued by African music these days. Oliver Mtukudzi, Samite, Mamadou Diabate. Now these guys.
It is amazing listening to African music, because its roots are the roots of so much of our music, yet it is so different.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)