From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: alt.horror
Subject: Re: Jacob's Ladder (was Re: Flatliners
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:17:52 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <204686@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, seawasp+@pitt.edu (Ryk E Spoor) writes:
> 	[MUCH incredibly complex interpretation removed]

 Incredibly complex???? Geezuz..... guess we should stick to cartoons here eh?

> it's fine to torture people until they believe the way you do, well, you
> must get along well with the Gestapo. no thanks, I'll stay alive, if you

You read as well as you watch movies Ryk. give it up - if you got the above
from what I wrote then there is simply no hope for you - stick to cartoons
and Star Trek...

>>face it, the drug did not exist - it really does not even come into play until
> >the what-if world begins to crumble around Jacob, and he begins to see
>>more and more hints at what is to come should he not accept death and move on.
> >It seems to me that it is simply a last gasp effort to save the what-if
> >world and force some logic into what is happening - of course I could be
> >very wrong.
> 
> 	If you're allowed to throw out such huge chunks of storyline, what's
> the point? 

Who threw it out? I simply put it in line with the rest of the story - you
on the other hand insist on throwing everything out that you don't understand
which is unfortunately most of the film and grab onto the one simplistic
sub-plot of the film for all you're worth.

> The drug was the solution to the mystery that was being persued; if you just

 OH really? Well, I missed your name on the book... 

> toss it out it's like eliminating Hercule Poirot's solution of the crime.

As I've said too many times already, I am not throwing it out - I simply
am capable of accepting it as being a part of the larger ppicture rather
than as *the* part of the film - it is no more important than any other
aspect - but you seem to want to focus on that single aspect since

a) a chimp could understand it
   and
b) it was, by most people's opinions, the weakest part of the film.

 You have finally dropped your bogus arguments regarding the mistakes in the
film which of course turned out to be errors on your part which indicate your
abilities to even absorb visuals from a film, but you grasp onto the final
straw you have with all of your might - well, as I've said, the drug sub-plot
was weakly done and the movie trailer probably distorted its importance
more than anything else - however, talking to you about this film is like
trying to discuss programming with my 6 year old - the abstractions confuse
him and he tends to cry....

> Sure, it's only showing up in the last part of the book but it's also crucial
> and follows from the prior sections.
> 	The drug had to be real; they spent too much time on that point. After
> all, Jacob wouldn't have BEEN DYING if he hadn't gotten trashed by another 
> soldier ON that drug.

Give it up will ya..... do me a favor though - go read a poem by Dante
called  _The Divine Comedy_, its plot is of a type called a Christian
allegory - now my familiarity with the bible is strictly academic - that
is I know the stories more or less but have very little invested in the
book - but I am familiar with Jacob, and the story of the angel and
the ladder, of course the other names in the film are probably not chosen
by accident and so it is likely that a familiarity with these names and
stories might give one some ability to gain insight into a movie which
is also a Christian allegory - my point here is simply that you are taking
a very simplistic approach to the film - you repeatedly shout that you
find something too complex or too abstract and you wear your ignorance 
almost as a badge of honor - I simply do not understand that view of things. 
I like to comprehend things and if I don't, I have long ago learned that
it is often due to the fact that I am lacking something necessary to
understand - I do not brag about my ignorance, instead I either attempt
to learn what is necessary or I simply say "screw it - I don't get it
and I'm not interested in finding out" (something I've done with some
films by the way) but you seem to actually believe that since you didn't 
understand it, then it had no clear meaning and thus is garbage and
worthy of being publicly trashed by you - you simply reject out of hand
the idea that your background in symbolism and allegorical work is poor
at best and that you really haven't a clue about the issues that are essential
to this particular film.

> 	By the way -- a lot of your objections to the "obviousness" of the
> film stemmed a lot from the use of Biblical names and images. While I
> have read the bible, I don't remember many names from it and only general
> plotlines; 

And of course we assume that it is the fault of the film that you don't
have this knowledge right? The film-makers should never ever assume that
the audience might have the slightest bit of intelligence. We should
be able to take the most obvious interpretation of a film and the film
should fly or sink based on that simplistic interpretation. Again, it
is nice that you have such self-confidence as to assume that you are the
norm and that your ignorance reflects the ignorance of everyone, but
I suggest to you that many people who are familiar with literature and
literary criticism are familiar with many of the names and basic stories of the
old testament as they are frequently referred to in some of the greatest
masterpieces of world literature.

> I suspect the same is true of many other people. 

 Again, you wear your ignorance well, but to claim that you are right because of
it is laughable. Also, you should not assume that everyone else is ignorant
about something just because you are....

> Until very
> recently, I thought "Jacob's Ladder" was either a song by Rush or a device
> made of 2 wires connected to a high voltage transformer (often seen in grade
> Z sf movies...)

 Yuk yuk..... boy we is dumb but we is funny yuk yuk.... 

>                                  Sea Wasp


			not seawasp