Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #491225 > unrolled thread

Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology

Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written

Contents

  Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-28 13:01 -0600
    Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-04-29 12:24 +0000
      Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 14:35 -0400
        Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-29 12:41 -0600
        Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-04-29 13:05 -0700
        Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-04-29 14:08 -0700
          Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2018-04-29 14:28 -0700
            Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-04-29 21:47 +0000
        Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-04-29 20:51 +0000
          Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-04-29 14:23 -0700
            Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 17:48 -0400
            Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-29 16:08 -0600
              Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2018-04-30 14:21 +1200
            Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2018-04-30 03:46 -0500
              Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-04-30 06:52 -0700
                Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-04-30 14:12 +0000
                  Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-04-30 10:28 -0700
                Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-30 10:10 -0600
                  Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2018-04-30 16:24 +0000
                    Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2018-04-30 10:41 -0700
                      Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-30 12:27 -0600
                        Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2018-04-30 13:03 -0700
                        Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 15:46 -0700
                    Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> - 2018-04-30 18:17 -0700
                      Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-04-30 21:01 -0700
                  Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-05-01 19:18 -0600
                    Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 22:25 -0400
                    Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-05-02 02:01 +0000
                      Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 03:07 -0400
                        Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-05-02 13:28 +0000
                          Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-05-02 07:45 -0700
                          Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-05-02 14:51 +0000
                            Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2018-05-09 00:04 -0300
                              Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2018-05-09 04:09 +0000
                            Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-06-04 00:06 +0000
                              Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2018-06-05 02:27 -0700
                                Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-06-05 12:50 +0000
                                  Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-06-05 06:53 -0700
                                    Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-06-05 14:52 +0000
                                      Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-06-05 09:00 -0700
                                        Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 09:16 -0700
                                          Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 13:07 -0400
                                            Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 11:13 -0700
                                              Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 15:01 -0400
                                            Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-06-05 19:05 -0700
                                              Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 02:39 +0000
                                                Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 02:30 -0400
                          Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 09:06 -0700
                            Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-05-02 09:30 -0700
                        Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 12:41 -0700
                          Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) - 2018-05-02 20:33 +0000
                            Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Johnny1A <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 22:06 -0700
                        Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology "Default User" <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-03 00:19 +0000
          Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 02:34 -0400
            Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 05:36 -0700
              Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-04-30 13:47 +0000
              Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 12:29 -0400
            Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-04-30 13:30 +0000
              Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-04-30 16:09 +0000
        Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-04-29 21:29 +0000
          Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 02:35 -0400
        Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2018-04-30 03:43 -0500
          Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2018-04-30 02:00 -0700
          Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 06:59 -0700
    Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2018-04-29 06:21 -0700
      Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-04-29 15:24 +0000
    Re: Ray Bradbury and his issue with technology Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-04-29 14:06 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#492971

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:2e9eb3e3-638d-4bec-8b1e-69b59fec5ddf@googlegroups.com: 

> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 8:52:55 AM UTC-6, D B Davis wrote:
> 
>> Indeed. Regardless, it's my suspicion that my magazine
>> publishers own the copyright on the articles that they paid me
>> to write. 
> 
> Usually, they do. It does depend on the author's contract terms;
> some of the more popular ones could obtain more favorable terms.
> 
> However, for copyright purposes, it doesn't matter who owns the
> copyright, it matters who the author is. Copyright is either the
> life of the author + X years, or Y years for *institutional*
> works, where there is no single author. A story doesn't become
> an institutional work simply because the entire copyright,
> rather than just first serial rights, was sold to a magazine.
> 
I have doubt about that in Canada, but you're certainly wrong (as 
usual) for the United States. Institutional copyright under work for 
hire belongs to the company, regardless of how many authors there 
were, and the term is determined as such, not based on author's life.

-- 
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland: 
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
    -- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#492973

On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 09:16:54 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>news:2e9eb3e3-638d-4bec-8b1e-69b59fec5ddf@googlegroups.com: 
>
>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 8:52:55 AM UTC-6, D B Davis wrote:
>> 
>>> Indeed. Regardless, it's my suspicion that my magazine
>>> publishers own the copyright on the articles that they paid me
>>> to write. 
>> 
>> Usually, they do. It does depend on the author's contract terms;
>> some of the more popular ones could obtain more favorable terms.

That part's more or less correct, amazingly enough.  In the U.S. there
are two categories of publishing contract:  standard and
work-made-for-hire.  With the former, the author owns the copyright;
with the latter, the publisher does.

Popularity is irrelevant, though, and it's an either/or situation --
it's work-made-for-hire or it isn't, full stop.  There are actually
several rules about what can be WMFH (e.g., the contract must be
signed before the final version is written), but they're often
ignored.

(I know it's usually called "work for hire," but the law calls it
"work-made-for-hire.")

>> However, for copyright purposes, it doesn't matter who owns the
>> copyright, it matters who the author is. Copyright is either the
>> life of the author + X years, or Y years for *institutional*
>> works, where there is no single author. A story doesn't become
>> an institutional work simply because the entire copyright,
>> rather than just first serial rights, was sold to a magazine.
>>
>I have doubt about that in Canada, but you're certainly wrong (as 
>usual) for the United States. Institutional copyright under work for 
>hire belongs to the company, regardless of how many authors there 
>were, and the term is determined as such, not based on author's life.

He may have somehow muddled droit morale with copyright.  In the U.S.
droit morale has no legal existence, but in Canada it gives the author
certain rights regardless of who owns the copyright -- mostly the
right to refuse to allow changes the author finds unacceptable, or
publication in a venue the author finds morally offensive.

Or possibly he thinks you can sell a copyright outright after the
fact.  You can't.  You can sell all existing rights, but not the
copyright itself.  If the author sells all rights, then the magazine
has complete control of the work, but the copyright still belongs to
the author and still expires seventy years after his death.

But generally, most magazines don't buy all rights, because why should
they?  They either commission the piece as work for hire, in which
case the copyright (assuming a corporation owns the mag) is 95 years,
or they just buy the rights they intend to use -- which is often more
than just first rights, by the way.  I recently signed an ASIMOV'S
contract where they buy a bunch of reprint rights (anthologies,
foreign editions, etc.), but they're all non-exclusive and pay me
additional money.  And they certainly have no claim on the copyright.




-- 
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned:  A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#492980

Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0tfdhdt493u3a72at2rl73dabe5r6jg2iq@reader80.eternal-september.
org: 

> On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 09:16:54 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>news:2e9eb3e3-638d-4bec-8b1e-69b59fec5ddf@googlegroups.com: 
>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 8:52:55 AM UTC-6, D B Davis wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Indeed. Regardless, it's my suspicion that my magazine
>>>> publishers own the copyright on the articles that they paid
>>>> me to write. 
>>> 
>>> Usually, they do. It does depend on the author's contract
>>> terms; some of the more popular ones could obtain more
>>> favorable terms. 
> 
> That part's more or less correct, amazingly enough.  In the U.S.
> there are two categories of publishing contract:  standard and
> work-made-for-hire.  With the former, the author owns the
> copyright; with the latter, the publisher does.
> 
> Popularity is irrelevant, though, and it's an either/or
> situation -- it's work-made-for-hire or it isn't, full stop. 
> There are actually several rules about what can be WMFH (e.g.,
> the contract must be signed before the final version is
> written), but they're often ignored.

Popularity (of the author, and, I suppose, of the publication) will 
only affect the odds of which contract gets signed. And the size of 
the check, of course.
> 
> (I know it's usually called "work for hire," but the law calls
> it "work-made-for-hire.")

Noted.
> 
>>> However, for copyright purposes, it doesn't matter who owns
>>> the copyright, it matters who the author is. Copyright is
>>> either the life of the author + X years, or Y years for
>>> *institutional* works, where there is no single author. A
>>> story doesn't become an institutional work simply because the
>>> entire copyright, rather than just first serial rights, was
>>> sold to a magazine. 
>>>
>>I have doubt about that in Canada, but you're certainly wrong
>>(as usual) for the United States. Institutional copyright under
>>work for hire belongs to the company, regardless of how many
>>authors there were, and the term is determined as such, not
>>based on author's life. 
> 
> He may have somehow muddled droit morale with copyright.  In the
> U.S. droit morale has no legal existence, but in Canada it gives
> the author certain rights regardless of who owns the copyright
> -- mostly the right to refuse to allow changes the author finds
> unacceptable, or publication in a venue the author finds morally
> offensive. 

It's also possible he's correct about Canadian law, no matter how 
unlikely it seems. (I mean, just because it never *has* happened 
doesn't mean it never *could*. It's not like he's Shawn Wilson or 
something.)
> 
> Or possibly he thinks you can sell a copyright outright after
> the fact.  You can't.  You can sell all existing rights, but not
> the copyright itself.  If the author sells all rights, then the
> magazine has complete control of the work, but the copyright
> still belongs to the author and still expires seventy years
> after his death. 
> 
> But generally, most magazines don't buy all rights, because why
> should they?

I think it's rather more a matter of "most authors don't *sell* all 
the right, because why should they?" Most magazines would 
cheerfully buy the author's children as organ donors if they could 
get them for the same price. (And many feel they *have* bought the 
authors' souls, as I'm sure you are aware.)

-- 
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland: 
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
    -- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#492983

On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 11:13:20 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:0tfdhdt493u3a72at2rl73dabe5r6jg2iq@reader80.eternal-september.
>org: 
>> 
>> But generally, most magazines don't buy all rights, because why
>> should they?
>
>I think it's rather more a matter of "most authors don't *sell* all 
>the right, because why should they?" Most magazines would 
>cheerfully buy the author's children as organ donors if they could 
>get them for the same price.

Good point.



-- 
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned:  A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#493008

On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 11:07:57 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:

> Or possibly he thinks you can sell a copyright outright after the
> fact.  You can't.  You can sell all existing rights, but not the
> copyright itself.

Basically, my error was that I thought that the "after the fact" situation 
basicaly applied even in the beginning. That one could in the beginning sell not 
only all rights, but the copyright itself - so it's "Copyright 1994 Publishing 
Co.", but the _term_ of the copyright was still the same as if it was Copyright 
1994 Joe Author, because... it _wasn't_ a work-for-hire.

A work for hire usually involves multiple authors, making it an institutional 
work; such as a comic book, with a writer, a letterer, a penciller, an inker.

Now, there are legitimate situations where a work ought to be a work-for-hire 
even if there's only one author. For example, someone writes a movie script 
using characters originated by another author. Thus, it's a pity Ian Fleming 
didn't write the Thunderball contract correctly.

So I wasn't thinking of moral rights, except that I had thought that the 
identity of the author determines copyright term - and that authorship and 
ownership of the copyright itself, not just rights, were separable.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#493015

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:dbe54141-2b42-424b-931f-0e8e845b1970@googlegroups.com: 

> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 11:07:57 AM UTC-6, Lawrence
> Watt-Evans wrote: 
> 
>> Or possibly he thinks you can sell a copyright outright after
>> the fact.  You can't.  You can sell all existing rights, but
>> not the copyright itself.
> 
> Basically, my error was that I thought that the "after the fact"
> situation basicaly applied even in the beginning. That one could
> in the beginning sell not only all rights, but the copyright
> itself - so it's "Copyright 1994 Publishing Co.", but the _term_
> of the copyright was still the same as if it was Copyright 1994
> Joe Author, because... it _wasn't_ a work-for-hire. 
> 
> A work for hire usually involves multiple authors, making it an
> institutional work;

Again, you are, as usual, full of shit, at least for the US (and 
likely Canada, too). There is an entire section of Title 17 on 
shared copyrights. They are *not* corporate copyrights by nature.

Multiple authors and work (made) for hire are completely 
independent of each other.

> Now, there are legitimate situations where a work ought to be a
> work-for-hire even if there's only one author. For example,
> someone writes a movie script using characters originated by
> another author. 

While it is arguable that *ought* to be work (made) for hire, 
again, there's nothing inherent to it that makes it so. What is 
inherent is that it is a derivative copyright, with separate and 
discinct rights belonging to both the author of the derivative work 
and to the creator of the original (assuming that copyright applies 
to what is used).

Again, you're full of shit.

So far, you have been wrong on every. single. statement. you have 
made about copyright.

> Thus, it's a pity Ian Fleming didn't write the
> Thunderball contract correctly. 

Completely irrelevant to this discussion.

-- 
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
    -- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#493025

On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 02:39:46 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>news:dbe54141-2b42-424b-931f-0e8e845b1970@googlegroups.com: 
>
>> On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 11:07:57 AM UTC-6, Lawrence
>> Watt-Evans wrote: 
>> 
>>> Or possibly he thinks you can sell a copyright outright after
>>> the fact.  You can't.  You can sell all existing rights, but
>>> not the copyright itself.
>> 
>> Basically, my error was that I thought that the "after the fact"
>> situation basicaly applied even in the beginning. That one could
>> in the beginning sell not only all rights, but the copyright
>> itself - so it's "Copyright 1994 Publishing Co.", but the _term_
>> of the copyright was still the same as if it was Copyright 1994
>> Joe Author, because... it _wasn't_ a work-for-hire. 
>> 
>> A work for hire usually involves multiple authors, making it an
>> institutional work;
>
>Again, you are, as usual, full of shit, at least for the US (and 
>likely Canada, too). There is an entire section of Title 17 on 
>shared copyrights. They are *not* corporate copyrights by nature.
>
>Multiple authors and work (made) for hire are completely 
>independent of each other.
>
>> Now, there are legitimate situations where a work ought to be a
>> work-for-hire even if there's only one author. For example,
>> someone writes a movie script using characters originated by
>> another author. 
>
>While it is arguable that *ought* to be work (made) for hire, 
>again, there's nothing inherent to it that makes it so. What is 
>inherent is that it is a derivative copyright, with separate and 
>discinct rights belonging to both the author of the derivative work 
>and to the creator of the original (assuming that copyright applies 
>to what is used).
>
>Again, you're full of shit.
>
>So far, you have been wrong on every. single. statement. you have 
>made about copyright.

To the point I'm not going to try to correct any of it, I'll just
throw up my hands and second you:  He's wrong on every single
statement.





-- 
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned:  A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#491518

Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <uloied1aptbgouf25cea576nks031821gk@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
> Lawrence Watt-Evans  <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> wrote:

> >Probably.  He read a lot, including American fiction.
...
> >And speaking of the Inklings, let us not forget that C.S. Lewis said
> >that he swiped some of the ideas in "The Great Divorce" from an
> >American SF pulp magazine.  Not something I'd expect him to have read.
> >
> He and Tolkien both read some SF.  At one point they got together
> and said, "Okay, let's us write some SF/F,"

Lewis was published in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, which, for all the taste of the editor, was a pulp.  "Ministering Angels" and "The Shoddy Lands" look to have their first publication there, so, whether he submitted them or the editor approached him, it doesn't seem to be the case of Verne and Wells "appearing in" Amazing Storied via reprints.

(I must have run across him in "The Best from..." the sixth series, my mind would have already been blown by Shirley ("The Lottery") Jackson having made the jump from schoolbook to pulps in the fifth series.)

-- 
-Jack

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#491521

"Ministering Angels" appeared in the January 1958 issue of F&SF, and 
according to a site about Lewis, its first book publication was in "Of 
Other Worlds" from 1966, so, astonishing as it is to me, you 
appear to be right.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#491526

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 3:07:45 AM UTC-4, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2018 02:01:58 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> wrote:
> 
> >In article <fkshvcFio4lU2@mid.individual.net>,
> >Greg Goss  <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:
> >>David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 2018-04-30 7:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> >>>> I know that happened to Shakespeare. But Tolkien? Didn't he raid old
> >>literature for his tropes?
> >>>> 
> >>>
> >>>Doesn't everyone.  But can you think of an example of a Sauron-like Dark 
> >>>Lord with a horde of monster soldiers before Tolkien?
> >>
> >>The witch's flying monkeys?
> >
> >The question would then arise, whether Tolkien ever *read* _The
> >Wizard of Oz._
> 
> Probably.  He read a lot, including American fiction.

We know from his letters that he'd read Asimov, for example.

William Hyde

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#491528

In article <349ef50a-0ad8-48cc-87cb-bbe8bde26ea4@googlegroups.com>,
William Hyde  <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 3:07:45 AM UTC-4, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 May 2018 02:01:58 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <fkshvcFio4lU2@mid.individual.net>,
>> >Greg Goss  <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:
>> >>David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On 2018-04-30 7:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> >>>> I know that happened to Shakespeare. But Tolkien? Didn't he raid old
>> >>literature for his tropes?
>> >>>> 
>> >>>
>> >>>Doesn't everyone.  But can you think of an example of a Sauron-like Dark 
>> >>>Lord with a horde of monster soldiers before Tolkien?
>> >>
>> >>The witch's flying monkeys?
>> >
>> >The question would then arise, whether Tolkien ever *read* _The
>> >Wizard of Oz._
>> 
>> Probably.  He read a lot, including American fiction.
>
>We know from his letters that he'd read Asimov, for example.

Images of Saruman trying his hand at Seldoning back the lost golden age....
-- 
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#492105

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 3:33:12 PM UTC-5, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <349ef50a-0ad8-48cc-87cb-bbe8bde26ea4@googlegroups.com>,
> William Hyde  <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 3:07:45 AM UTC-4, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2 May 2018 02:01:58 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >In article <fkshvcFio4lU2@mid.individual.net>,
> >> >Greg Goss  <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:
> >> >>David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>On 2018-04-30 7:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> >>>> I know that happened to Shakespeare. But Tolkien? Didn't he raid old
> >> >>literature for his tropes?
> >> >>>> 
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Doesn't everyone.  But can you think of an example of a Sauron-like Dark 
> >> >>>Lord with a horde of monster soldiers before Tolkien?
> >> >>
> >> >>The witch's flying monkeys?
> >> >
> >> >The question would then arise, whether Tolkien ever *read* _The
> >> >Wizard of Oz._
> >> 
> >> Probably.  He read a lot, including American fiction.
> >
> >We know from his letters that he'd read Asimov, for example.
> 
> Images of Saruman trying his hand at Seldoning back the lost golden age....
> -- 

It's interesting if he did read that, because Seldon looks almost like a central casting example of one of Tolkien's classes of villain, the Reformer.  He would be in the same general class as Sauron.  Saruman is also a Reformer, of course, he'd be less likely to try to bring back a past age than to rush forward to a hypothetical new one, regardless of the cost to bystanders.

The decision of the Second Foundation to sacrifice a world to take down the Mule, or Seldon's willingness to trick 100,000 people into moving out to the Marches with the intention of trapping them there, would fit right into that mindset.

Tolkien's other class of villainous motivation is the Embalmer, the one who keeps trying to freeze change, or force things backward against their natural tendency.  That's the category who would sacrifice the living to regain the Golden Age.

Tolkien-esque embalmers included the Elves of Eregion of who made the Rings, or Denethor, they're less likely to be master villains and more likely to be used by villains, though they can become nasty as Denethor does at the end.  The initial government on Terminus, that Salvor Hardin overthrows, are Embalmers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#491578

Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:

> On Wed, 2 May 2018 02:01:58 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> wrote:

> > The question would then arise, whether Tolkien ever read _The
> > Wizard of Oz._
> 
> Probably.  He read a lot, including American fiction.
> 
> He apparently took an interest in American culture, partly because he
> discovered there were Anglo-Saxon family names surviving in Appalachia
> that had gone extinct in England (e.g., Brinegar -- I knew several
> Brinegars when we lived in the Kentucky hills).

Not relevant to the discussion really, but Paul Brinegar was a
character actor known for his portrayal of "Wishbone" in "Rawhide".


Brian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#491318

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 20:51:25 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>In article <2n3ced18k3g0dsgi60a9vfctvs1u5do83e@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
>Lawrence Watt-Evans  <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:24:03 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <g@crcomp.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>    _An Occurrence at Owl Bridge_ (Bierce)        known
>>
>>Overrated, in my opinion.  "Twilight Zone" did a surprisingly faithful
>>adaptation way back when.
>
>I wonder if that's the one I saw, not on the tube but in a
>theater.  Black and white, about half an hour long?

Yup, that's probably it; I know it was shown other places besides TZ,
and it's B&W and about half an hour.




-- 
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned:  A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#491331

Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 20:51:25 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
> 
> >In article <2n3ced18k3g0dsgi60a9vfctvs1u5do83e@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
> >Lawrence Watt-Evans  <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:24:03 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <g@crcomp.net>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>    _An Occurrence at Owl Bridge_ (Bierce)        known
> >>
> >>Overrated, in my opinion.  "Twilight Zone" did a surprisingly faithful
> >>adaptation way back when.
> >
> >I wonder if that's the one I saw, not on the tube but in a
> >theater.  Black and white, about half an hour long?
> 
> Yup, that's probably it; I know it was shown other places besides TZ,
> and it's B&W and about half an hour.

In some Twilight Zone episode guide it's said "Owl Creek Bridge" was a foreign film acquired and used to fill out the last season of the show.

-- 
-Jack

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#491337

In article <254f908f-0bbb-40d5-9648-542a5215612e@googlegroups.com>,
Jack Bohn  <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:
>Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 20:51:25 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>> Heydt) wrote:
>> 
>> >In article
><2n3ced18k3g0dsgi60a9vfctvs1u5do83e@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
>> >Lawrence Watt-Evans  <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:24:03 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <g@crcomp.net>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>    _An Occurrence at Owl Bridge_ (Bierce)        known
>> >>
>> >>Overrated, in my opinion.  "Twilight Zone" did a surprisingly faithful
>> >>adaptation way back when.
>> >
>> >I wonder if that's the one I saw, not on the tube but in a
>> >theater.  Black and white, about half an hour long?
>> 
>> Yup, that's probably it; I know it was shown other places besides TZ,
>> and it's B&W and about half an hour.
>
>In some Twilight Zone episode guide it's said "Owl Creek Bridge" was a
>foreign film acquired and used to fill out the last season of the show.

Okay, I looked at ISDB and here's the one I saw, made in 1962:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056300/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Which was not long before I saw it in Berkeley as a student.

IMDG also lists a 1959 episode of _Alfred Hitchcock Presents_,
and a 1964 episode of _The Twilight Zone_.

And looking at the listing for each episode (checking the name of
the director, chiefly), I learn that the Hitchcock episode was
not the same as the 1962 film, but the Twilight Sone episode
*was*.  Same director, same cast.

(IMDB also lists a 2005 version and a 2007 version.)

Getting back to the theater/Twilight Zone version, it won an
Oscar, a BAFTA Award, and a Cannes award.  French cast and crew;
here's the Wikipedia entry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Occurrence_at_Owl_Creek_Bridge_(film)

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#491352

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 05:36:06 -0700 (PDT), Jack Bohn
<jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:

>Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 20:51:25 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>> Heydt) wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <2n3ced18k3g0dsgi60a9vfctvs1u5do83e@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
>> >Lawrence Watt-Evans  <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:24:03 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <g@crcomp.net>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>    _An Occurrence at Owl Bridge_ (Bierce)        known
>> >>
>> >>Overrated, in my opinion.  "Twilight Zone" did a surprisingly faithful
>> >>adaptation way back when.
>> >
>> >I wonder if that's the one I saw, not on the tube but in a
>> >theater.  Black and white, about half an hour long?
>> 
>> Yup, that's probably it; I know it was shown other places besides TZ,
>> and it's B&W and about half an hour.
>
>In some Twilight Zone episode guide it's said "Owl Creek Bridge" was a foreign film acquired and used to fill out the last season of the show.

Now that you mention it, that sounds right.  Thanks.



-- 
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Stone Unturned:  A Legend of Ethshar.
See http://www.ethshar.com/StoneUnturned.shtml

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#491336

In article <e6ededlssbt13v5i3d2brvj5o31dtf25lk@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
Lawrence Watt-Evans  <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 20:51:25 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>In article <2n3ced18k3g0dsgi60a9vfctvs1u5do83e@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
>>Lawrence Watt-Evans  <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:24:03 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <g@crcomp.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>    _An Occurrence at Owl Bridge_ (Bierce)        known
>>>
>>>Overrated, in my opinion.  "Twilight Zone" did a surprisingly faithful
>>>adaptation way back when.
>>
>>I wonder if that's the one I saw, not on the tube but in a
>>theater.  Black and white, about half an hour long?
>
>Yup, that's probably it; I know it was shown other places besides TZ,
>and it's B&W and about half an hour.
>
Interesting to know.

I had never read the story before I saw the film, which thus had
maximum effect.

I wonder if it had any influence on Wilils's _Passages._

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#491348

Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
> In article <e6ededlssbt13v5i3d2brvj5o31dtf25lk@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
> Lawrence Watt-Evans  <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 20:51:25 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>>Heydt) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2n3ced18k3g0dsgi60a9vfctvs1u5do83e@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
>>>Lawrence Watt-Evans  <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:24:03 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <g@crcomp.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>    _An Occurrence at Owl Bridge_ (Bierce)        known
>>>>
>>>>Overrated, in my opinion.  "Twilight Zone" did a surprisingly faithful
>>>>adaptation way back when.
>>>
>>>I wonder if that's the one I saw, not on the tube but in a
>>>theater.  Black and white, about half an hour long?
>>
>>Yup, that's probably it; I know it was shown other places besides TZ,
>>and it's B&W and about half an hour.
>>
> Interesting to know.
>
> I had never read the story before I saw the film, which thus had
> maximum effect.
>
> I wonder if it had any influence on Wilils's _Passages._
>

The short story's available online. [1] Part II provides the back story
as to why a civilian named Peyton Farquhar is being hung by the Yankees
in the first place.
    The French treatment's bereft of words and instead focuses on
1960s era black and white surrealism. <- It seems like there ought to be
(a possibly French) name for that genre. Does anyone know it? 

Note.

1. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/375/375-h/375-h.htm

✍

Thank you,

-- 
Don

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#491289

Lawrence Watt-Evans <misenchantedpress@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:24:03 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <g@crcomp.net>
> wrote:
>
>>    "The Exile" enumerates some fantasy titles soon after it begins.
>>Some were read by me, a few more were experienced as Hollywood
>>treatments, and the remainder are unknown to me.
>>
>>    _Tales of Mystery and Imagination_ (Poe)      unknown
>
> Collection that includes most of his most famous short stories.
> Definitely worth a read, especially if you like Bradbury.
 
It hadn't occurred to me until you said something that the Poe is a
short story collection. Many of the shorts in the collection are indeed
known and cherished by me.

<snip>

>>    _The Weird Shadow Over Innsmouth_ (Lovecraft) unknown
>
> I think it's just "The Shadow Over Innsmouth," no "Weird" in the
> title.  I read it, but a long time ago when bingeing on Lovecraft so
> I'm not sure whether I'm confusing it with other HPL stories.

The story's unknown to me. But my double check of "The Exiles" shows
that "Weird" appears in the Bradbury title. ⚂⚃

Thank you,

-- 
Don

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written

csiph-web