posted
Samp: For one thing, in this Hamlet remake, the king's pedophilia doesn't turn them all gay. One of them is gay and struggles with that, and sure I'll grant one might speculate that that fits in with essays OSC has written on the subject. But even in the quote you cited OSC isn't saying that all gay people must have been sexually abused as children.
His literature has quite a few gay characters Anton/Zdorab and there is absolutely nothing about their being abused by a pedophile. In the latter's case there's actually quite a pretty lengthy discussion about the horrors of living in a society that is bigoted against homosexuals. Is Hamlet's father sin that he was churning out gay people with his sexual advances? No! It was because he was self-centered, child molesting, near son rapist.
There's no soliloquies where homosexuality as an institution is discussed, nor are there any lines about gay people being a blight on society. The hero isn't some champion for heterosexuality. There's isn't a history of villains in OSC's literature being homosexual.
We both know OSC has vocally expressed his opposition to same sex marriage, but if his fiction was conceived as a vehicle for teaching people that gays are evil or somehow deserving of scorn, it's doing a very poor job, and not because it's trying and not succeeding.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am having a hard time envisioning this as anything more than a George Washington's ax* version of "Shakespeare". It seems that the plot has been altered, the characterizations have been distorted, the deep themes have been replaced with something else entirely, and the poetry has been excised. What of Shakespeare is left? I have no problem with people using Shakespeare as a springboard for their own works - Shakespeare did that himself more often than not; I do have a problem with touting this as a clarification, amplification, or worse, substitute for the original.
*Or Ship of Theseus. At least George and Theseus had their artifact replaces with similar pieces. Shakespeare was not granted this.
ETA: BlackBlade, any happy, well-adjusted gay people in OSC's fiction? He may not portray them as evil, but he does portray them as doomed except for that one sad character who has really bad sex in order to procreate in the Homecoming series.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So true and depressing. Also that poor fellow in Songmaster. Someone should tell him that gay guys really typically go for MEN not boys.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots: What does well-adjusted mean? Zdorab certainly is comfortable in his homosexuality, the rest of society is what has a problem. Is there a character who is comfortable gay who is just hopping along doing their own thing and happy? Perpetual happiness is not a hallmark for just about any OSC character. Further, there are no intellectual African Americans as far as I know, that doesn't mean OSC thinks the black race is mentally inferior. A lack of A is not evidence for a belief in B.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Nooooooooo! He probably took over a character to nag everyone about marriage and fidelity and monogamy being the best way to raise children!
Wait a minute. Marriage and fidelity and monogamy are... not good things, then? I am so confused now.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I think it is that Hamlet's father's victims become gay because of the experience.
Didn't OSC write a really disturbing short story once about a guy who has incestuous thoughts about his daughter?
You actually might be talking about a short story from the Changed Man in which a father actually has sex with his daughter and is thereafter haunted by a physical manifestation of his own guilt and shame. I think it was Eumenides in the Fourth FLoor Lavatory, maybe?
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Nooooooooo! He probably took over a character to nag everyone about marriage and fidelity and monogamy being the best way to raise children!
Wait a minute. Marriage and fidelity and monogamy are... not good things, then? I am so confused now.
They are not the only good things, nor the best things for everyone.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: They are not the only good things, nor the best things for everyone.
You are absolutely right that they are not the only good things. I myself think honesty is a good thing, and a nice mutton lettuce and tomato sandwich if the mutton is nice and lean...and cough drops. But none of this changes the fact that by and large, fidelity and monogamy in marriage are VERY good things and should be honored.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well when it's shakespeare rewrites for modern audiences that turns the scene where hamlet learns of ophelia's death into this ...
quote:For my part, I have basic reservations about rewriting someone's work when it is not necessary to do so.
I only have reservations about bad fiction, period. To some extent I think it's silly to, say, remake a movie that just came out 5 years ago, but ultimately it matters whether the remake is worth watching on its own merits.
And in Shakespear's case, I absolutely agree, both with OSC's description of why he rewrote Shrew, and Tom's explanation. If you want to actually experience what Shakespear's audience experienced, you cannot do so when you have to mentally translate every line.
There's value to mentally translating things and gaining an understanding a different culture, but that's not what Shakespear created his work for originally.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shakespeare doesn't have to be "translated". It is written in modern English which, while it may be unfamiliar in syntax and occasionally require a stretch in vocabulary, is hardly a different language. My question is, what is the point of Shakespeare without the beauty of the language, the rich characters and the deep universal themes? If you take those away, why call it Shakespeare? Lift the plot, change the names and make it your own.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been told that English is indeed a different language from American and that immigrants to the States should speak American.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Shakespeare doesn't have to be "translated". It is written in modern English which, while it may be unfamiliar in syntax and occasionally require a stretch in vocabulary, is hardly a different language.
Shakespeare often has to be translated. That's one of the main points of why people don't like to read it. The archaic language gets in the way of the story.
quote:My question is, what is the point of Shakespeare without the beauty of the language, the rich characters and the deep universal themes? If you take that away, why call it Shakespeare? Lift the plot, change the names and make it your own.
Hamlet's Father isn't a play. It's a novella. So...you know, apples, oranges.
As for OSC's adaptations, the adaptations succeeds in making the language better understood and thus capable of beauty; thus making characters richer to modern audiences; thus making the themes more distinguishable.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Shakespeare doesn't have to be "translated". It is written in modern English which, while it may be unfamiliar in syntax and occasionally require a stretch in vocabulary, is hardly a different language. My question is, what is the point of Shakespeare without the beauty of the language, the rich characters and the deep universal themes? If you take those away, why call it Shakespeare? Lift the plot, change the names and make it your own.
If you understood Shakespear the first time through with no mental stress and painful effort, then power to you. I did not, neither did many people I know.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most Shakespeare dialog I have to read over and over again before I think I know what it means. Even then I am probably wrong most of the time.
When its performed on stage, I get the basics of what's going on from context, but the jokes and subtleties of the plot are lost on me if I hadn't already studied the play in school.
I doubt I am alone.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't understand the written word at all before I learned to read. Nor did I understand all the big words grown ups used the first time I heard them. Learning them may have been effort but certainly not painful or stressful.
If you don't like Shakespeare, so what? Find something more to your taste. It isn't a crime. Read (or watch) what you do enjoy. Why dumb down Shakespeare until it isn't Shakespeare anymore? It feels like deciding to repaint Monet using only primary colors and getting rid of all those fuzzy parts.
Scott, it seems that if there is beauty in the language it is Card's not Shakespeare's, the themes and characters are enough changed to also be Card's rather than Shakespeare's.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Nooooooooo! He probably took over a character to nag everyone about marriage and fidelity and monogamy being the best way to raise children!
Wait a minute. Marriage and fidelity and monogamy are... not good things, then? I am so confused now.
They are good things, you just don't need every character in the book going on and on about how good they are when you already KNOW they are good.
Also, gay monogamy and marriage is nice too. So there. It's like, please put down the hammer. I GET THE POINT!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:it seems that if there is beauty in the language it is Card's not Shakespeare's, the themes and characters are enough changed to also be Card's rather than Shakespeare's.
Are you talking about Hamlet's Father (in which case, I don't disagree, but I haven't read the book), or about OSC's adaptations?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:it seems that if there is beauty in the language it is Card's not Shakespeare's, the themes and characters are enough changed to also be Card's rather than Shakespeare's.
Are you talking about Hamlet's Father (in which case, I don't disagree, but I haven't read the book), or about OSC's adaptations?
As far as the language goes, all of them. As far as themes and characters, Hamlet's Father. I don't know if Card held true to the themes and characters in the other adaptations; it seems clear (unless all the reviews are false) that he warped both for the novella.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you don't like Shakespeare, so what? Find something more to your taste. It isn't a crime. Read (or watch) what you do enjoy. Why dumb down Shakespeare until it isn't Shakespeare anymore? It feels like deciding to repaint Monet using only primary colors and getting rid of all those fuzzy parts.
No. You do not get to be a monopoly or authority on how to enjoy something.
Most of my favorite things are reimaginings of other things. I LIKE the deliberate contrast between the original and the new thing. I don't know if OSC's adaptations are any good, but their particular goodness isn't really the point.
I'm fine with venting steam about nonsensical things that artists have done with stuff you like, and if that's all you meant to do I apologize for taking you too seriously, but I'm not okay with straight faced "you are not allowed to like this."
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
No apologies necessary. Since I don't have a problem with Shakespeare and stopped enjoying Card's fiction when I discovered his essays I have not read them. I don't know if he stayed true to the characters and themes. I assume he held to the plot and just simplified the language. I don't find that particularly offensive just pointless (and perhaps a little sad). I suppose they are something like those Readers' Digest Best Loved Books for Young Readers. I enjoyed those as a child.
I am offended by the line, "because now you'll know what's really going on" in the product description of Hamlet's Father. There is no evidence that any of the particular depravity that Card superimposed on that story is "going on" anywhere except for in Card's mind.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you don't like Shakespeare, so what? Find something more to your taste. It isn't a crime. Read (or watch) what you do enjoy. Why dumb down Shakespeare until it isn't Shakespeare anymore? It feels like deciding to repaint Monet using only primary colors and getting rid of all those fuzzy parts.
No. You do not get to be a monopoly or authority on how to enjoy something.
Most of my favorite things are reimaginings of other things. I LIKE the deliberate contrast between the original and the new thing. I don't know if OSC's adaptations are any good, but their particular goodness isn't really the point.
I'm fine with venting steam about nonsensical things that artists have done with stuff you like, and if that's all you meant to do I apologize for taking you too seriously, but I'm not okay with straight faced "you are not allowed to like this."
I didn't say that you weren't allowed to enjoy the adaptations. (And, of course, Card is allowed to write them and make money off them as they are well out of copyright.) I said that it was wrong to call it Shakespeare and that, if you want Shakespeare, you should read Shakespeare. Of course, I also fail to see the point of decaf coffee, non-alcoholic beer and diet ice cream when the real think is actually better for you anyway.
I am offended by what appears to be a perversion of Hamlet rather than an adaptation. However, if it appeals to the tastes of some people, there is nothing I can or should do about it. I can voice an opinion about it, though.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that line was meant to refer at all to Card's interpretation, I think it was meant to refer simply to the audience's ability to follow. (Could be wrong, but I don't think so)
This doesn't mean the language needs to be *simplified*, but it does mean (if I were to consider Card's work successful) that the puns and poetry need to be reworked to reflect modern english sensibilities.
If he simply REMOVED them (looks like in some cases he did), well yeah, that's just sad, from an artistic standpoint. But I take major issue with the opening point:
quote:Every new performance of the Bard is also an act of interpretation, sometimes a drastic and transformative one. We still have authoritative versions of the scripts afterwards, to be reedited and reinterpreted. However, Card's essay concludes with the following:
quote:The purpose is to present Taming of the Shrew in a way that recovers, not the original text of Shakespeare’s play, but the original experience of it—a fast-moving, instantly comprehensible, pun- and bawdy-filled, ironic, self-parodying comedy with a legitimate moral lesson about the relationship between man and woman in marriage.
Note that he considers it a virtue for a text to be "instantly comprehensible," as though it were a very bad thing to confront an audience with something they don't already know, understand, and believe
In this particular case, Card is not saying that. He's saying that his goal for the play is to capture the original sensation of experiencing Taming ot the Shrew, and one of the features of the original experience was that you didn't have to take a semester long class to understand it. That's a legitimate artistic goal.
Taking a semester long class to fully understand the beauty of the original is also a worthwhile way to experience it, but it shouldn't have to be the only way.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
If you need a class to understand Shakespeare and you want to watch plays that you don't have to take a class to understand there are tons of them out there. Good ones. Why not watch those in all their richness instead of watching a watered-down Card/Shakespeare hybrid? I am not saying you aren't allowed to do it; I am just saying that I don't get it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all seriousness, Kate, it would probably help if you read the first scene of Card's translation of R&J, which will at least enable you to speak from some authority.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You posted another comment shortly before I submitted. I was referring to:
quote:I am offended by the line, "because now you'll know what's really going on" in the product description of Hamlet's Father. There is no evidence that any of the particular depravity that Card superimposed on that story is "going on" anywhere except for in Card's mind.
posted
Because few people outside of an academic setting understand what the deuce Samson and Gregory are going on about!Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate: The stated intent of Hamlet's Father is to encourage people to go see Hamlet, armed with knowledge so when they are watching, they don't have to devote so much energy to trying to keep up with the plot while struggling with the langauge. One would then already know the plot, the gist of the dialogue, and thus the language suddenly comes alive.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, unless the reviews are false, Card has added a whole layer crap that is not at all what the play is about. There is no evidence that Horatio murdered the King or that the King was sexually abusing Hamlet's friends. Or that the Ghost was lying. Hamlet clearly looked up to and mourned his father in the play. Judging by the reviews, people unfamiliar with the play who read Hamlet's Father are going to be misled at best.
Scott, it isn't that complicated! Aside from having to know what a collier is instead of knowing what a sickle is, I don't see how it am improvement.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A whole layer? What quantity can we measure that with? If there is a layer, a few plot adjustments is pretty paper thin. I watched an anime adaptation of Seven Samurai called, don't laugh, "Samurai Seven." They added large mechs, courtesan characters, steam punk elements, whole episodes in places that don't exist in the movie, and the samurai's themselves were the archetypes that were established in the movie, but other than that *very* different.
I saw that before I saw the classic movie, and surprise I had no trouble latching on to all the original material that was referenced in the anime. I immediately identified all seven personalities from the anime, and when they started having conversations, the scenes lifted from the movie in the anime immediately came to mind.
It's not as if Hamlet's Father has so so many liberties taken, that one cannot glean much benefit from having read it first before seeing Hamlet the first time.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read Hamlet's Father, myself, and have refrained from offering an opinion. But the review offered for our input here castigates the story for being a bowdlerized version of Shakespeare's play that then proceeds to seriously reinterpret it, which I think would be a fair criticism if a reworking of the play had been OSC's intent. Certainly that was the case with those of his versions of Shakespeare's plays that were themselves offered up as plays, but given that this is a novella I find it much more likely that his take on the plot here is simply a bit of "through the mirror" revision, similar to Maguire's take on Wicked and dozens of other works that've deliberately approached a classic story in the public domain and performed a simple "what if" role reversal.
Now, you can quibble that his take on it is facile, or that Card should make a conscious effort to avoid "gay panic" scenarios given his reputation, or that a version of Hamlet which removes the ambiguity of the protagonist's actions is like a version of the (newer) Battlestar Galactica in which all the Cylons are fully aware of their identities at the start of the show and, using their privileged positions, betray and destroy the human survivors within the first half-hour. I want to reiterate that I haven't read the story myself, but these all immediately spring to mind as hypothetical criticisms that would, were they accurate, seriously impact my enjoyment of the story.
But let's leave it at that. I mean, were you outraged when Glinda the Good Witch turned out to be a shallow, vain, manipulative bitch? Or Charlotte turned into a zombie?
(That said: if Card has indeed said that his hope is to make the themes of Hamlet more obvious to an audience through this retelling, that's a bit ridiculous. Maguire didn't pretend that his version was giving people a necessary introduction to The Wizard of OZ, and in fact it wouldn't've worked if people weren't already familiar with the story; in the same way, the take on Hamlet that's described here is unlikely to be a good introduction to the more traditional version of the play, and moreover is likely to lack any power at all for people who haven't already read it.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, would you prefer "crapload" to "layer"? Changing the Ghost's motivation and the reasons for Hamlet's reluctance to act hits at the heart of the play. If Claudius didn't kill the King, why is he eager to get rid of Hamlet? What is the purpose of the play within a play?
Tom, if that is how it is being marketed - as a "new" Hamlet story in the line of Wicked that is different than making Hamlet more accessible and easier to understand. Is this supposed to be an adaptation or a new work?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We both know OSC has vocally expressed his opposition to same sex marriage...
Just to be clear, I suspect that if all Card had done was express vocal opposition to SSM, these various criticisms might be less heated. He has, however, gone further than that. I think he would be strongly disagreed with and criticizes if he simply opposed SSM. It's when he continues his thoughts on the subject that he earns enmity.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate: If Card has changed a crap load, then the play has many more such loads he could cart away before it would be indistinguishable from Hamlet the original.
-----
Rakeesh:
quote:Just to be clear, I suspect that if all Card had done was express vocal opposition to SSM, these various criticisms might be less heated. He has, however, gone further than that.
What do you mean? Are you referring to his joining NOM?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Peripheral to the direction of the discussion, I disagree with the following:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Film already must make sacrifices of its source material so as to fit it all into a two hour or so presentation. If you have such a limitation there is no excuse for adding new scenes, you rarely if ever please the audience with the additional cuts that make room for the new material, and the new material itself rarely fits properly with the original artists vision.
The movie must still be coherent. If the adapter of the book regards scenes/events 15, 37 and 59 as fundamental to the spirit of the story, he/she must still make the appearance of these scenes/events plausible in the context of the movie. This might mean substituting scenes/events 16-36 with, say, 7 new scenes/events.
On the topic of movie adaptations of books, I read an interview of Christopher Priest in which he expresses some displeasure at Chris Nolan over the adaptation of the Prestige. Apparently in interviews Nolan discouraged people from reading the book as it would ruin the movie's twist (which is different from the book's twist). While Nolan's claim is true, I agree with Priest and find it poor form.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Kate: If Card has changed a crap load, then the play has many more such loads he could cart away before it would be indistinguishable from Hamlet the original.
I have no trouble with Hamlet but could someone please simplify that for me?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blackblade:I think it's in reference to his infamous Mrmon Times essay on homosexuality, which has been reference here several times. The one where he claims that homosexuality is often the result of abuse, that homosexual culture is exclusively focused on sex, and other tasty nuggets. It also seems to come up whenever Card is involved with a big new project, or gets an award. And it should too- he has never disowned the hateful nonsense it contains.
Then there was that bit he printed in the rhino times about violent opposition to the government as a response to pro gay legislation.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was thinking mostly of the bit about jailing homosexuals periodically for homosexuality in order to remind them, and everyone else, that it's Bad Sex, but the things Orincoro mentioned are relevant too.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have no trouble with Hamlet but could someone please simplify that for me?
The percentage of content that Card changed was relatively small compared to the amount of content in hamlet, total.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the reviews are correct, it changed the basic plot, characters, language, and theme. What is left?
If it is supposed to be a "spin off" retelling like Wicked that doesn't try to get passed off as a substitute or an introduction to the real Hamlet then my response is merely an eye roll to Card's increasing obsession with the gay. If, as the product description I quoted seems to indicate, it is supposed to clarify, replace, or make accessible Hamlet, it is a violation of the original. Let him keep retconning his own stuff.
ETA: BlackBlade, adding a whole new homosexual pedophilia undercurrent is a deep change. Making Claudius an innocent victim is a huge change. Making the King a child abuser is a huge change. Making Horatio a murderer and abuse victim is a huge change. Just to start.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: We both know OSC has vocally expressed his opposition to same sex marriage, but if his fiction was conceived as a vehicle for teaching people that gays are evil or somehow deserving of scorn, it's doing a very poor job, and not because it's trying and not succeeding.
I don't think the fiction was conceived as a vehicle for teaching people that gays are evil. That's not the point. It doesn't have to be that in order to have it be yet another shot at homosexuality from a virulently anti-gay author.
But even all this is not really a response to the hypothetical. I bet you that you wouldn't even really question for a second whether the linkage between pedophilia and mormonism is or is not my own bigoted anti-mormon beliefs burrowing blatantly into my work, but when the situation is reversed, you are confusingly ambiguous and coming up with very, very strange excuses for Card, including "even in the quote you cited OSC isn't saying that all gay people must have been sexually abused as children."
Because, no. He's directly linking pedophilia and homosexuality. It makes it so that when he is rewriting hamlet to turn old king hamlet into a serial gay pedophile molester and that his victims become gay, it's predictable, and it's offensive.
The internet has even gotten back to us on the issue; people are now reading it and giving us additional takes on the controversy:
quote:It's made pretty clear. A lot of energy in the revised storytelling is (not so subtly) focused on linking the gay pedophilia with homosexuality. We all know exactly why Horatio and Laertes are gay. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are now "fusty and peculiar." Moreover, it is easy to read the intent in linkage because the prose has been turned excruciatingly dry and straightforward. It is pretty obvious that the heterosexist, anti-gay-rights campaign that has dominated a lot of Card's time, focus, and mental energy for many years now -- which has resulted in him saying a number of pronounced and inexcusably radical and hateful things about gays, as well as his being a boardmember for the also inexcusably radical and hateful National Organization of Marriage -- makes what is going on here profoundly clear. He could not help but let elements of his pronounced heterosexist crusade leech into the way he has rewritten Hamlet. I have often read that Hamlet is the quintessential rorschach blot of plays; the more definitive you create or produce an interpretation of it, the more it's really about you. It's easy to keep that in mind when you are listening to Hamlet's almost robotic interactions with his perverted gay dad that now haunts him as a looming demon.
quote:Pretty much all of the soliloquizing about spiritual/afterlife matters is gutted entirely, frequently replaced with much more concrete assertions about absolute nature and absolute morality. Ambiguous metaphysical affair (and agonizing over such) is replaced with certainty, especially in the case of robo-Hamlet. Knowing what I know about Mormon theology, this reads as if the intent of this was to make a version of Hamlet which is not only "accessible" language-wise (or to people with autism, given how emotionless the tone is) but has been treated specifically to make it spiritually 'safer' and more appropriate for young Mormon audiences. At times, it's blatant enough to almost be explicit.
I'm still welcome to alternate perspectives on the work, since this still really does seem way too hilariously, unbelievably tacky, but for now they all seem to be wallowing in postoperative defenses from people having no exposure to the source.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scott, it isn't that complicated! Aside from having to know what a collier is instead of knowing what a sickle is, I don't see how it am improvement.
kmboots, it really IS that difficult for people to get the Bard. I'm glad you have an easy time of it-- how are you with things like Ellison's 'Repent, Harlequin! said the Tic Tock Man?' or Card's 'Dogwalker?'
quote:I was thinking mostly of the bit about jailing homosexuals periodically for homosexuality in order to remind them, and everyone else, that it's Bad Sex, but the things Orincoro mentioned are relevant too.
I don't think he said this-- I know the part you're talking about but this is specifically called out as something he intends to avoid in keeping the legislation.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Otherwise, I didn't see the point.
