HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dstein@deimos.math.ucla.edu (David Stein)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: NPR & Freedom of the Press: Part II
Date: 6 Sep 92 15:50:06 GMT
Reply-To: dstein@deimos.math.ucla.edu (David Stein)
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

Francis Muir writes:
|> Also on NPR today was an interesting and classic tale involving
|> Liberalism and Freedom of the Press. No; for "and" read "versus".

   Francis, is the fact that the manager refused to sell what he
   percieved as a tasteless, (racist?) sexist material (of no artistic
   value), a clear mark of "Liberalism"?  (I do not want a long political
   discourse, only a simple yes or no.)

   And is the refusal to sell such material, for a company that shows
   no concern or respect for artistic freedom, and which will fire you
   for disobedience, a matter of "Freedom of the Press"?  _Despite_ the
   fact that Walden Books had an easy choice of either fireing the manager
   or keeping the calendar?

   If, in your opinion, this is a matter of "Freedom of the Press", is 
   it then comparable to the federal, state, or county enforcement of
   (liberal?) `obscenity' laws?  Or to the refusal by major chains or
   distribution networks to carry certain books, records, or authors, so 
   that these  have no reasonable chance to reach certain large segments 
   of the public?
 
 - David

[the rest of the article is below:]
|> The employees of Walden Books in Georgetown have all been fired.
|> This is how it went. The manager received for sale and display a
|> spiral-bound calendar with about three days/page. For each day there
|> was, in his opinion, a truly tasteless joke, and some of which he
|> considered sexist. It was one of those "funny" calendars, and i
|> guess we have all seen them. He decided that it was too much, and
|> refused to put it on display as his management had requested. As he
|> said, "suppose a 16 yr old black girl comes in and reads the "joke"
|> about jungle bunnies. This will add to her low self-esteem..." or
|> words to that effect. After discussion with the management over the 
|> phone, he was told a supervisor would arrive to fire him for insubordination
|> if he did not comply with instructions. He refused and was fired,
|> as, in turn, were all the other assistant managers (everyone at Walden
|> is an AM).
|> 
|> Comments?
|> 
|> 							Fido

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not a native speaker of English, so I'm not sure what I wrote.
Flames will be ignored unless you post them in perfect Czech.
================================ - David (the metamathician) - ===
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: The White Man's Burden of Proof
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:57:05 GMT

In article <JMC.92Sep11221024@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

>I promise to take a literature
>course next year if someone will assure me that after taking it I
>will understand what Mark Taranto meant.

I'll jump right in here and assure you of just that. Send me the Stanford
catalog, and I'll pick a lit course for you, if you like.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung
From: tmaddox@netcom.com (Tom Maddox)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: utopias and distopias
Date: 7 Sep 92 07:20:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <14890@mindlink.bc.ca> Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:
[matter on utopias/dystopias omitted]:

>These are the traits of "anatomy" as defined by Northrop Frye in his Anatomy of
>Criticism (1957)--a work I commend to all book-lovers. Frye deals with subject
>lucidly and at some length.

	Can we take up a collection to buy Crawford Kilian a critical work
later than 1957?  Either that or to buy him two weeks at the Clinic for 
Deprogramming Those Addicted to Literary Archetypes?

	Or I suppose we could just go on letting him believe in the "anatomy."


-- 
				Tom Maddox
		    	    tmaddox@netcom.com
		   "I swear I never heard the first shot"
                Wm. Gibson, "Agrippa:  a book of the dead"
From: lnh@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (sometimes a Wombat)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: penguins to avoid
Date: 13 Sep 92 19:47:53 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Society for the Appreciation of Janni Lee Simner

First, Fido complains about Barbara's paws and whiskers:

>First it was otters, then wombats, and now Baba deserts us featherless
>bipeds for another furry mammalian thing. 

Then later the same post he mentions:

> ... the only Penguin that I have ever worn out.

Arf.  So *that*'s your game, you dirty old Englishman.

	Larry "Respectible animal, that's what I am!" Hammer
--

LNH@physics.arizona.edu          \  "What can be seen, heard, and learned, 
The insane don't need disclaimers \  this I prize." -- Heraclitus, #13
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: books to avoid
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:38:40 GMT

In article <8SEP199215085697@zeus.tamu.edu> spb0457@zeus.tamu.edu (SubGenius) writes:
>Mike Godwin writes...
>>Yes, but NAKED CAME THE STRANGER was *intended* to be both ludicrous and
>>lurid. The book was a group project of several "name" authors, who
>>published under the pseudonym "Penelope Ashe." 

>Nice of everyone to point that out, especially since their source of information
>is the same as mine--the book itself.  

Where on earth do you get that idea? I've never owned a copy of the book,
nor have I ever even held one in my hand. I simply recalled news stories
about the book at the time of its publication (around 20 years ago, I
think).

>Anyway, the argument that since the book was "*intended*" to be lurid and
>ludicrous does not signify.

And this sentence, so far as I can tell in the lateness of this afternoon,
does not parse. If you mean to say that my argument "does not signify"
(this would involve subtracting the word "since" in your sentence), I'm
not sure how you can say this. Perhaps you disagree with what I said, or
find it inapposite?



--Mike





 
-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: mtaranto@shearson.com (Mark Taranto)
Subject: Re: books to avoid or Re: Well Met in MN
Organization: Yale CS Mail/News Gateway
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:17:24 GMT


fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster) writes:
 
> Mark Taranto writes:
 
>> All the talk of differences between self & persona make me miss Joe Green,
>> who is very different from his net presence.
 
> Ooh, how so?  Do tell.  Wikiwiki!  Before he comes back, we should
> gossip...
 
Fiona was on sabbatical from the Net during the now legendary "Well Met
in Minnesota" series (I still get e-mail asking what it is like to become
a fictional character in Joe's masterpiece).
 
I'll fill Fiona in via e-mail, but do wonder if anyone out there has
the complete eight-part series.  If so, please don't send it now (the last
thing I want is 30 people sending me "Well Met in Minnesota") but please
send me e-mail telling me you have it & I'll write back for it.
 
If worse comes to worse, I can get a hard copy from my ex-wife.  She has
known Joe for years, and during a recent visit to Minnesota, Joe had a hard
copy delivered to her hotel.  I'm sure she enjoyed hearing me described
as a postmodern, balding Rudolph Valentino and as a horny younger Carlo Ponti.
I know I did.
 
Mark
 
 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster)
Subject: Re: A Reply to Professor McCarthy's query on films
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:45:34 GMT

Another example of a character in a movie reading a book: In 
"Immediate Family," the James Woods character is shown sitting in
bed one night reading James Crumley's _The_Wrong_Case_.  Being
a bit of a Crumley fan, I was tickled to see the Vintage Contempo-
rary paperback, with its cover illustration of a bed-sized rat trap.

My supposition?  James Woods himself was reading the book during
the filming, and he suggested it might look good in that scene.

							--Fiona
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: james@brock.b17b.ingr.com (James Brock)
Subject: Donna Tartt
Keywords: Any comments?
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:07:02 GMT

Any reports on this new book by Donna Tartt? She was a friend of that
literary giant Bret Easton-Ellis (at Bennington) and was given an advance
of $500,000 for her novel (the title has left my mind). 

Anyone read it?

I am still searching for anyone who has heard of H.E. Francis....
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: ghica@fig.citib.com (Renato [Titanium Cranium] Ghica)
Subject: FAQ request 
Originator: ghica@duck
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:28:58 GMT



Could someone repost the FAQ for this group?

Thank you....

-- 

"I am a brain, Watson."
"These views are my own. / Mail me or Flame me"

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Garnett, Garnett, Garnett & Garnett
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 22:53:27 GMT

James P. H. Fuller writes:

	I recall when the uncut edition of _The Waste Land_ appeared, 
	to much fanfare.  After actually getting a look at the restored 
	passages most of us concluded that Eliot was a great poet, which 
	we already knew, and also that Pound (who did the original cutting) 
	was an excellent editor.

The Garnetts have always found their detractors; they are easy targets. Let
me remind you of the Family Garnett. Richard Garnett may still be remembered
for his novel *Twilight of the Gods*, but I see him as a Shelley scholar and
an editor of Peacock. Peacock's novels contain many footnotes by the author,
and RG added to them. I remember a fabulous one in *Maid Marian*, I think.
Peacock had waxed eloquent about the Saxon Cavaliers at the Battle of
Hastings, and RG noted that "the Saxons fought on foot." His son, Edward
more or less defines the Garnett Emminence Gris type. In addition to
Lawrence, Conrad and Galsworthy came within his sphere of influence. The
Garnetts knew how to pick only Big Deal writers. Edward's wife, Constance
Garnett has met some criticism in r.a.b for her translations of Tolstoy
and Dostoevsky. I read her Dostoevsky -- all of it -- when I was 11 through
13, so for me she defines D. I would hate to even look at anuone elses.
Richard and Constance had a son, David Garnett. I have seen his name 
mentioned somewhere, but I cannot remember the context. I'll bet it was in 
some advisory capacity, tho'. David! I've got it! He followed in his 
grandfather's footsteps and edited Peacock ; that nice, two-volume set of 
the novels that Rupert Hart-Davis put out in 1948.

							Fido
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: lew@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (lewis.h.mammel..jr)
Subject: Re: Wonderful Life
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:49:38 GMT
Summary: WL does a valuable service

In article <88645@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> Actually, WL is a poor book in many respects, and I consider it Gould's
> worst.  His portrayal of Burgess is ridiculous.  It is _provable_ that
> Burgess was not trapped in some 19th century shoehorn, preventing him
> from recognizing what he discovered.  Burgess was, after all, the one
> who separated the trilobites from the crustaceans.  He would have done
> the same with Marella had he properly analyzed it.  Burgess also knew
> the fossils should be dissected--he chiseled a few.  (He can't be held
> responsible for not thinking of using a dental drill.)  Burgess also knew
> some of his classifications were wrong--he was widely told that Aysheaia
> looked more like an onychophoran than an annelid.

Please don't overlook that WL serves as an introduction to the whole
subject of the Burgess Shale to many readers such as myself
( although I did recall seeing the referenced SciAm article .) The
recreative drawings and fossil reproductions alone make this an
excellent contribution to the general readership.

For my part, I'm well capable of keeping a little distance from
some of his contentions. From reading, for example, TIME'S ARROW
TIME'S CYCLE, I have learned to do this much when reading Gould. 
I dissented from a lot of his points in that work just on the
basis of my other reading, and from reading between the lines.
Of course, dissent does help keep up interest. Even though Gould
often leaves me grumbling, I do appreciate his efforts.

As to WL, I was nonplussed by the way Gould tried to
work up so much excitement over the idea that humanity was not
a foregone conclusion of earth history. I should think one would
have accepted that idea already.

Anyway, thanks for your interesting and informative remarks!



Lew Mammel, Jr.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re:  Books on Disc
From: liam@durie.amigans.gen.nz (Liam Greenwood)
Date: 7 Sep 92 20:14:25 GMT+12
Distribution: world
Organization: It's Home, really...

In article <s3mn_xp@lynx.unm.edu> rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires) writes:
>       But I am by no means convinced that there is anything inherently
>       bad about reading a monitor.  If there existed a good quality
    Until I can convince my wife to allow a computer|terminal in the bedroom
I will still have to have _some_ paper based books.
--
 Liam Greenwood ------ liam@durie.amigans.gen.nz ------ Wanganui, N.Z.
                 Don't tell my Mother I'm a programmer,
               she thinks I'm a piano player in a brothel

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: wwhitman@nevada.edu (MICHAEL WISE)
Subject: Re: Encyclopedia Brit.
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:51:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.025620.21746@athena.cs.uga.edu> fuller@athena.cs.uga.edu (James P. H. Fuller) writes:
>
>     Used encyclopedias.  I picked up an 11th edition of the Britannica
>from an old-books place a couple of years ago for $150.  To catch up on
>black holes and neutron stars no two-year-old encyclopedia can possibly
>be as good as this month's _Scientific American_ or the like.  On the
>other hand, for the humanities the ... eighty? ninety? ... year old 11th
>is incomparably better than any edition since.  Signed articles?  Some of
>these are more like inflamatory theses nailed to a door with a dagger.  
>*Ferociously* opinionated and combative -- witty -- marvelous fun.
>
>                                               -- jf

The eleventh edition is widely considered the last of the Encyclopedia
Brittanicas, literally since it is the last one edited in Britain, but
also because none of the volumes that follow it live up to its standards.

Michael Wise
Alias O Captain! My Captain!
UNLV English Department

PS I was going to start a flame about sinking into a morass of multicultural-
ism and mediocrity. Aren't you glad I didn't? Who could stand the alliteration?


Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: james@brock.b17b.ingr.com (James Brock)
Subject: Damned lit yokels
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:55:56 GMT

My associate James Brock (a fine writer, I must say, none of this 
awful brand name, trademark, angst-ridden bullshit in his words)
is loaning me this e-mail thing, and I am a novice to this type of
modern communication tool, so give me quarter.

Now, what I want to say is this: you people should quit trying to 
sound so intelligent and really read something. All this talk about
books to avoid and best editions of some encyclopaedia. For
F*ck's sake, loosen up.

How many of you really know how to read? Screw this Donna Tartt person,
her words are rubbish and her sentences are poorly constructed.
(It is amazing what one can glean from a thumbing-through.)

Speaking of which, did anyone see the article on Bakhtin in the 
latest issue of "Praxis"?

No harm intended. 

Have any of you read my works? (Does Seymour Glass ring a bell?)
I must admit: I am a bit intrigued by this new technology. Imagine, I
can communicate from my little shed, here in N.H., to the entire world!

Keep reading,
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor )
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Books on Disc
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:40:38 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com

In article <qwmnr3#.dani@netcom.com> dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig) writes:
>Can you imagine having to read these books from a computer monitor?
>
Aside from the size and resolution constraints of a CRT, what is it that  
people dislike about reading books on a computer?  What would be the  
features in a book-reading program?  Bookmarks, tabs, dog-eared pages?

Maybe in my copious free time... 

--
Don McGregor
drm@esl.com  
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: NPR & Freedom of the Press: Part I
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 16:13:48 GMT

National Public Radio, my newsmagazine, had a segment today about
D. H. Lawrence's *Sons & Lovers*. The versions that all you good folk
have is not the book that lawrence wrote but the edited version that
Edward Garnett (GARnett, not GarNETT, please) produced for publication.
It is somewhat shorter, and rather different in tone. In essence, Lawrence
put it in Garnett's hands because he was the only man he trusted to
get it published. And he was right. The Edwardian market for novels was
somewhat different to our own. Now Cambridge University Press have come
out with what amounts to an unexpurgated or deBowdlerized edition.
Throw your old Sons & Lovers away and read the book that Lawrence wrote;
its sounds a whole lot more satisfying.

							Fido
From: fuller@athena.cs.uga.edu (James P. H. Fuller)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The White Man's Burden of Proof
Date: 7 Sep 92 15:48:50 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:

>>Indeed I hope someone will tell me what poem "insidious intent" is
>>from. 
>
>Haven't been following this thread, but it is from Eliot's "The Waste
>Land". Of was Eliot quoting someone else?

    Hmmmmmm.  *I* remember it from _The Love Song of J. A. P._  Have Eliot
verses been misceginating in the dark?

                                             -- jf
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: Mr_b
Subject: Re: Walpole's _The Castle of Otranto_
Organization: LMSC
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 17:35:26 GMT


>Ken Something writes:

Stuff about Walpole's _The Castle of Otranto_ concluding with

>>In other words, he believed his characters acted realistically.
>>But who reading this story can fail to be struck [there follows
>>descriptions of unusual horror]...

>>What accounts for such an odd notion of realism?  Something in
>>the Gothic mystique?


Semper Fido replies:
>Simple, really. Walpole's Introduction is part of the text. A meta
>introduction, not a real one. He wants to help you create a climate
>wherein you can suspend your disbelief. Its a trick.

Based up reading the book and miscellaneous commentaries, I agree that
this was the purpose of the introduction and much of the plot.

(Hmmm, is 'Semper Fido' a sig or just a closing? I hope I didn't
discredit someone.)

--
Mr_B@LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Re: NPR & Freedom of the Press: Part I
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 21:11:58 GMT

James Brock writes:

	Francis Muir writes:

		National Public Radio, my newsmagazine, had a segment 
		today about D. H. Lawrence's *Sons & Lovers*. The 
		versions that all you good folk have is not the book 
		that Lawrence wrote but the edited version that Edward 
		Garnett produced for publication.  In essence, Lawrence
		put it in Garnett's hands because he was the only man 
		he trusted to get it published. And he was right. The 
		Edwardian market for novels was somewhat different to our 
		own. Now Cambridge University Press have come out with 
		what amounts to an unexpurgated or deBowdlerized edition.

		Throw your old Sons & Lovers away and read the book that 
		Lawrence wrote; its sounds a whole lot more satisfying.

	Francis: You advise me to throw out my copy of *Sons and Lovers*. 
	I consider this rash.  Compare the two versions. It seems that 
	the editors (the couple, living I think in Provence) were too 
	enthusiastic about their edition. Of course they want everyone 
	to rush out and buy the new $25 Cambridge edition.

Well, chacun a son gout, although I do agree that it was a bit disingenuous
of the Melpomene who edited the thing to suggest we all rush out and buy it.
But then, as the Somerset Maugham character in Quartet said "If I don't blow
my trumpet, then who will?"

	I do agree that Lawrence's words should be put back in, but 
	let's be a bit calmer.

Calm? Calm? I'm Alice, for Christ's Sake, and the Red Queen's got me
going.

	In another venue, has anyone read anything by H.E. Francis?

Who on Earth or any other place is H E Francis?

								Fido
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: tpryan@vax1.tcd.ie
Subject: Re: books to avoid
Organization: Trinity College Dublin
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:55:57 GMT

In article <10673@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, nall@sun8.scri.fsu.edu (John Nall) writes:
> In article <25710@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
>>
>>".....now a major motion picture....."
> 
>   Well, no, I'd have to disagree a little on that.  There are some very
>   good books which have been made into motion pictures, and subsequent
>   editions usually mention that.  Which I would think they would be
>   entitled to do :-)
> 
>   But the ones which are either (a) written *after* the movie, or (b) are
>   apparently written with the idea in mind that they will become a motion
>   picture, are almost invariably bad.  (I use the phrase "almost" only
>   because I feel sure that in an infinity of universes, there might be an
>   exception.  But I am not aware of any).
> 
>   John
> 
> 
> --
> John W. Nall              | Supercomputer Computations Research Institute
> nall@mailer.scri.fsu.edu  | Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida
>   "Sugar and spice/and everything nice/blend it twice/add more spice/
>    Then serve over ice..." - original recipe for making southerners

I agree, but would add another to the list.
	(c) those which put over the fact that a movie has been made of them,
as their best feature. This isn't to deprecate movies at all, I just feel that
if a book is good as a book that's enough for me, you don't have to make a
movie out of it to prove that.

	John O'Brien
From: fuller@athena.cs.uga.edu (James P. H. Fuller)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Chautauqua ? (Zen & the Art...)
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:54:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

> Is this a slur on Cleveland? I don't understand. Cleveland has a
> rather undeserved reputation for unsavoriness, but it is -- in fact --
> the most culturally diverse city in the country. Very European.

     Haven't heard the Cleveland recently but it was the best Mozart
orchestra in the world when Szell was alive.

> Almost Balkan.

    Artillery shelling been a problem lately?  (Sorry ;-)

                                               -- jf
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: librik@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David Librik)
Subject: Re: books to avoid
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 08:02:36 GMT

jon@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:

"inspires us to re-examine and question our own assumptions about ..."

   i.e. has a particularly obvious political axe to grind.

- David Librik
librik@cory.Berkeley.edu