Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:43:32 -0400 
From: Louis Blair <lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Brin: Writers should be read and not heard
	<1b603c59.ARN21d0@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au>

Pete Nofel writes:
>Brin is a snob

Andrew Clayton writes:
>What bilge you spout!

While I would not necessarily agree with everything that
Pete said, I have to say that I am generally in his camp on
this one.  Let's just take a few examples from one of his
recent notes:

Example one:
>one has to deal with people best described as "Net-Tourettes"

This sort of thing strikes me as simply childish name-calling
dressed up in fancy clothes.  If Brin is as devoted to reason as
he pretends he might stick to reasoned discussion of the issue
or simply apologize that he does not have the time for such
discussion and shut up.

Example two:
>the attractions to livid flaming are clear.  Biochemists find
>that endorphins released into a human brain during fits of
>self-righteous rage are almost as potent as those triggered
>by pain and injury, and are many times as addictive. ...
>(Of course, they rationalize this self-induced drug high with
>moral indignation about this or that.  But let's recognize the
>self-secreted equivalent to PCP when we see it.) ... (And yes,
>_I_ have been seen to rant self-righteously, in public, so we're
>talking shades of gray, here.)

This is one of my favorites.  If somebody loses his cool after
extended exposure to Brin's pomposity then it is because
the person is addicted to endorphins or something, but if
BRIN starts ranting, then suddenly it is a grey area.

Example three:
>The Net liberates... but do we _want_ to be liberated from
>courtesy? ... I have nothing to say to RJ Rauser or Greg Bole.
>They are welcome to behave as they wish.  One advantage
>of the Net is that flying spittle is seldom contagious.

Elsewhere in Brin's note we find references to "the wretched
way uneducated people interpret the English Language."  If
this is Brin's version of courtesy, I can only say, "no thanks".

Example four:
>Anyone who tells you that Freedom of Speech is _sacred_ is
>anthropologically illiterate, since NO other culture ever
>practiced it, and it flies in the face of human nature.

I fail to see how either statement after the word, "since",
justifies the conclusion before the word "since".  Brin just
seems to like calling others ignorant in one form or another.

Example five:
>paying money to Bakshi is as ill-advised as donating to the
>Mafia or KKK or any other institution inimical to human
>decency.

This is just an example of how spectacularly wild Brin
can get when he wants to denounce someone.  But of course
he's not addicted to endorphins in his brain or something.
Remember, it's just a grey area in there.

Example six:
>Plato asked, "What is the Good?"

Brin is also something of a name-dropper.  Does this fragment
really add anything to whatever point Brin is trying to make?

Example seven:
>It is still the most critical question facing human beings.

This is the sort of muddled thinking that masquerades as
thought in Brin's note.  Almost anything that is debated
these days can be viewed as a debate over "What is the
Good?"  Nice of Brin to tell us so clearly what is important.

Example eight:
>I am not online to transcribe a litany of accusers against
>Bakshi, for past crimes and misdemeanors.  It's not my job,
>nor do I want to break the privacy of friends who have
>confided their tales.  I thank Chuq for bringing up the
>brilliant Vaughn Bode, whom a certain director did such
>heinous dirt that Bode's subsequent demise is not unreasonably
>attributed to him by some.  Otherwise, either take my
>word for it or not... or tap your own Hollywood contacts.
>The basis for my arguments against Bakshi's films is not
>that he's a bastard.

Then why is this passage here?  Brin obviously wants to
have things both ways.  He wants to denounce Bakshi as
a person and at the same time pretend that he is above that
sort of thing.  If Brin were sincere about wanting to judge
Bakshi's films on their merits then he would have left all
this garbage out, rather than drop all these hints about
Bakshi's dark deeds.

Example nine:
>Stanley Friesen and several others, go ahead and skip the
>following.  You know how to tell when you're being peddled
>garbage.

The rest of us, however, evidently need the great Brin to
help us out.

Example ten:
>This technophobic symbolism deserves its own masters
>thesis, but suffice it to say that -- 

This one was a real jaw-dropper for me.  By now, it is
no surprise to see Brin hinting at the vast intellectual
activity that is supposedly going on in his head - activity
that he is too busy to share with us in detail, of course.
What is surprising is that a published author would use
such a stale old cliche for this purpose.  Masters thesis,
indeed!  Is all of Brin's writing this bad?  I hope not.

Example eleven:
>the viewers delight in the mutant-slaughter

A pathetic and crude way to insult those who like the
film, Wizards.

Example twelve:
>There IS evil in the world.

Brin actually believes that we need him to tell us this.

Example thirteen:
>It is what panders to herd poison, causing the IQ of a mob
>to be that of its stupidest member... divided by the number
>of people in the mob.

Nothing like a little pseudo-math thrown in to enhance
the appearance of intellectual activity.

Example fourteen:
>(Ask me sometime about what Warner Bros. has done to
>_The Postman_!!)  (Better yet, don't ask, please.)

This one isn't a big deal.  It is just another example of
how Brin likes to hint that he has something to say
without actually saying it.

Example fifteen:
>This cost me several hours.  And there's sure to be tons
>of response that will kill _more of my work time.  Agh!
>Now you see why I fear (!) this addictive Net stuff?
>Why do intelligent adults DO this ?????

Well, I don't know anything about Brin's endorphins
or whatever, but I would say that a good guess in Brin's
case is that he likes to appear clever in public.  Consider
this one last example which at last brings this discussion
around to movies.

Example sixteen:
>I often play this game at cons... "who is the bad guy in
>the movie, E.T.?"  One in a hundred gets it right

Well, I don't have the latest edition of The World
According to Brin, so I have no idea whether or not
I have the "right" answer, but for what it is worth,
here is MY answer:

E. T. has NO "bad guy"s.  Everyone behaves pretty
much with good intentions.  What little conflict that
there is in the film arises from misunderstandings
of one sort or another.

I wonder how much partial credit Brin would give
me for that answer.