(The following material -- which will be posted to other forums -- is
submitted on the theory that I apparently haven't gotten in *nearly* enough
trouble lately. So I may as well go for broke.
jms
Dear Mr. Miller:
I am in receipt of your recent letter inviting me to rejoing SFWA.
While others who have either resigned from SFWA or let their
memberships lapse have received similar letters, I note that you
added, in handwriting, the following: "Michael - We're particularly
interested in encouraging writers of your stature and experience to
rejoin."
I'm posting this, my reply, both online as well as in standard mail
to you, because the issues at hand affect others in the industry;
because it is a good subject for public debate; and because SFWA has
to this date refused to publish my letter of resignation from SFWA
in its membership publication; even now, years after the fact, SFWA
does not choose to recognize the boorishness of its behavior toward
those of us who work in television, film and other media.
To recap, for the benefit of those looking on, and for the purpose
of historical accuracy: a number of us were troubled by the fact
that SFWA allowed TV and film scripts in the SF genre to count for
membership, so that our dues could be accepted, but that these very
same scripts were not considered "real" science fiction...and thus
ineligible for consideration for a Nebula Award.
An attempt was made to restore the Dramatic Nebula, given in years
past, in order to achieve equity with other forms of SF. Those
involved in the attempt included myself, Harlan Ellison, David
Gerrold, D.C. Fontana, Michael Cassutt and others. We believed,
foolishly in retrospect, that SF writers -- presumably forward
thinking and progressive -- would understand that stories can take
new and different forms, that SF for television and film was a
perfectly valid form. It's still SF; it simply uses a new kind of
technology to facilitate that storytelling. Since SF is often
about the foolishness of small-minded people when faced with
changing technologies, and generally the impact of technology on
people and art forms, we felt they would agree that the time
was right for the reinstatement of the Dramatic Nebula.
We were wrong.
We were greeted by an outpouring of such virulent bigotry, such
undisguised hostility, and such abuse as to numb the senses. There
was hate mail, name-calling and dead-catting; we were called (in
person, and in SFWA's publication) "hacks" and "no-talents" and
told that scripts aren't stories...obscene and threatening messages
were left on my answering machine...hate mail arrived at my home...
and the most nakedly straightforward one stated, "I work my ass off
for a few pennies a word, while you Hollywood hacks earn big bucks
for turning out crap. You'll never see the Dramatic Nebula back as
long as I'm alive."
To help defuse some of the tempers, many of us were willing to
disqualify ourselves from ever being eligible for the Nebula, should
it be reinstated, to remove any suspicion of a vested interest. It
was the principle that concerned us.
For an organization claiming forward-thinkers, there was more fuzzy
thinking and illogic pouring out of SFWA than at any average meeting
of the Flat Earth Society. "Why should SFWA give scriptwriters a
Nebula if the WGA won't give awards to prose writers?" some yelled
at us, which granted was at least an attempt to put together a
comprehensible sentence.
"Because the WGA is *form* oriented, and SFWA is *genre* oriented,"
we said, "that's why. Any genre script can win a WGA award, as long
as it's in the right form. And any form of SF should be able to be
considered for a Nebula, as long as it's in the right genre."
Our point, in the final analysis, was simply this: If SFWA will not
recognize scripts as SF for the Nebula, then they should not qualify
for membership in SFWA. If SFWA *does* recognize them as SF for
purposes of membership, then they should be eligible for the Nebula.
It was real simple: you can't have it both ways. Pick one.
But that didn't happen...the illogic, the contradiction was allowed
to continue, with SF scriptwriters held as second-class citizens
within SFWA. In theory, a GOR novel could be considered for a
Nebula...but a Babylon 5 script could never even begin to be
considered because according to SFWA, it isn't a story, it isn't
real writing, it isn't literature, it is absent of quality, and
fundamentally, it ain't SF.
It was this issue that finally compelled me to resign from SFWA,
as had others before me. That, and the insults, abuse, veiled
and not-so-veiled threats and harrassment I received from many
in SFWA over this issue.
And now you come to me...and you ask me to rejoin. You say this
is because of my "stature and experience"...but what use can that
be to SFWA if my work and the work of every SF writer working in
television or film is dismissed as lacking in merit by virtue of
the form in which we work? Since the bulk of my work is in TV,
how can SFWA consider what I have to be "stature" if it does not
recognize that there is any quality work in SF being done in TV?
I don't believe in stature, particularly and especially my own.
I'm still the same person I was when I resigned, for good or ill.
The only thing that matters to me, that has *ever* mattered to
me, is the work. The storytelling. This genre. I love SF. I
love the community of fandom that has embraced it, and given it
life. I love the sense of wonder that is SF.
[More]
[Continued]
In order to rejoin SFWA, I would have to accept the tacit
implication that my work is NOT SF...and this I will never do.
Last year, I realized a lifelong dream, and we received the Hugo
award for an episode of Babylon 5. And I'll tell you a true
thing: I'll take the Hugo over the Nebula any day, because it
comes based on the quality of the work...it comes based on the
understanding that fans have that SF is SF, regardless of the
medium. Where the pro community throws up barriers, and tidal
waves of snobbery, and play political games by defining SF as
whatever is most convenient for them, the fan community is open
to the free debate of one singular question: "Is it good SF?"
In light of that, what possible reason could I have for wanting
to rejoin SFWA? To associate with writers who disdain the form
in which I work? To try and educate them? We tried that...and
got our heads handed to us.
It's not just the Nebula that's the concern...as before, I'm
willing to permanently disqualify anything I write, now or in
the future, from Nebula consideration, to set aside allegations
of self-interest; it's the principle of the thing that matters,
the desire to make this better for the next guy to come down this
road; and it's the attitude behind the current situation that
rankles, that worries me; the open hostility and prejudice
against those working in the visual media.
So thanks, but no thanks.
SFWA has chosen to ostracize film and television...and in the
end, has only hurt itself. By sticking its head, ostrich-like,
in the sand, it has failed to come to grips with these new
media...has become isolated, so that no one in Hollywood thinks
of SFWA members, because SFWA thinks nothing of Hollywood.
The result? Where once many SF novels were chosen as fodder for
movies, now movies and TV shows drive a substantial portion of
the novel market through licensing. All too often now, books are
based on movies, when it *should* be the other way around, which
means that the audience is deprived of visual medium access to
some truly excellent work. The publishing industry has become
more like Hollywood in many ways now, looking for the blockbuster,
losing the midlist, one megacompany swallowing up another. We've
been there, done that, and could've helped.
(Now *here's* an irony I hadn't considered before just this
moment: while an episode of B5 is not eligible for a Nebula, a
novel based on B5 *is* eligible. Where is the logic in that
one? And here's another irony: one of the members who most
vociferously opposed the Dramatic Nebula on the grounds that
everything SF that came out of Hollywood was crap...well, his
name showed up recently on a list of writers asking to be
considered for an assignment to write one of the Babylon 5
novels.)
Because of SFWA's provincial attitudes toward those of us who
work in TV and film, it has lost access to secondary markets
and opportunities, costing its members potentially hundreds of
thousands of dollars.
If parts of this letter seem angry, or frustrated, you should
understand that the two areas of my life which have always meant
a great deal to me are my work in television, and SF as a genre.
I'm proud, have always been proud, of both. Many producers
assigned to SF series deny they're doing SF, as though they were
ashamed of it. I've always embraced the idea. I was proud to
be a member of SFWA. I was proud to write for television. But
finally I had to choose between them, and that was a very
difficult, painful thing for me. It still is. It's like having
divorced parents; you want desperately for them to get along with
each other, somehow put it together again...but it doesn't happen
and doesn't look like it will *ever* happen. So you get upset.
I'm not upset with you, John, or even many members of SFWA, a
number of whom weren't even members when all this went down a
few years ago. It's simple frustration with a system, and a
certain loud proportion of the membership, that is provincial
and parochial. A great deal of good could come out of a tighter
coordination between those of us working in the visual media,
and print authors. To see that frittered away is maddenning.
Television and film are as valid a forum for the exploration
of science fiction as any short story or novel. As long as
SFWA persists in saying otherwise, I will never rejoin that
organization.
Let me know when you folks get serious. Let me know when you
are willing to consider that what we do in TV and film counts as
SF. Then we'll talk.
But not before.
J. Michael Straczynski
Executive Producer/Creator/WRITER
Babylon 5
*****
(From an XFiles called Memento Mori)
(Scully speaks her journal)
For the first time I feel time like a heartbeat, the seconds pumping in my breast like a reckoning; the numinous mysteries that once seemed so distant and unreal threatening clarity in the presence of a truth entertained not in youth, but only in its passage.
I feel these words as if their meaning were weight being lifted from me knowing that you will read them and share my burden as I have come to trust no other. That you should know my heart, look into it, finding there the memory and experience that belong to you, that are you, is a comfort to me now as I feel the tethers loose, and the prospects darken for the continuance of a journey that began not so long ago and which began again with a faith shakened and strengthened by your convictions.
If not for which, I might never have been so strong now as I cross to face you and look at you incomplete hoping that you will forgive me for not making the rest of the journey with you.
*****
Top Ten Reasons Why the Star Wars Characters Would Kick Butt in the
Star Trek Universe
10) In the Star Wars universe, weapons rarely, if ever, are set on
"stun".
9) The Enterprise needs a huge engine room with an anti-matter unit
and a crew of twenty just to go into warp-- the Millenium
Falcon does the same thing with R2-D2 and a Wookie.
8) After resisting the Imperial torture droid and Darth Vader,
Princess Leia still looked fresh and desirable-- after
some Cardassian starvation and torture, Picard looked like hell.
7) Jabba the Hutt would eat Harry Mudd for trying to cut in on his
action.
6) Luke Skywalker is not obsessed with sleeping with every alien he
encounters.
5) One word: lightsabers.
4) The Federation would have to attempt to liberate any ship named
Slave I.
3) The Death Star doesn't care if a world is class "M" or not.
2) Darth Vader could choke the entire Borg empire with one glance.
1) Picard pilots the Enterprise through an asteroid belt at
one-quarter impulse power. Han Solo floors it.
*****
*****
Trevor,
You betcha...
A DS0 (or Digital Service 0) is rated at 56 or 64 kb/sec (depending upon phone company and country). In the US, these started at 56 and might have been upgraded. A DS0 can also carry one or two voice channels.
A T1 is also known as a DS1 and is rated at about 1.45 mb/sec or 24 DS0 channels. In Europe there are E1's that are rated at 2 mb/sec or 30 DS0 channels. These typically cost between $1000 and $2000 per month. T1's were first developed as a way of delivering multiple voice channels over two pairs of wires.
A T3 is also known as a DS3 and is rated at about 45 mb/sec or 30 T1's. Most large Internet Service Providers use one or more of these. Most of the Internet backbones are DS3's. CompuServe's US backbone was based on DS3's last I heard. These cost about the same as five T1's.
An OC-3 is a 155 mb/sec circuit. (The number after the OC- is the number of DS3's the circuit is equivalent.) The MCI Internet backbone used to be this speed until recently. A few of the other big Internet backbones are this speed.
An OC-12 is a 622 mb/sec circuit (12 DS3's). The MCI Internet backbone is now mostly OC-12.
An OC-48 is a 2.4 gb/sec circuit (48 DS3's). I think all of the long haul phone carriers in the US have fiber-optics rated at this speed. They usually sub-channel OC-48 into DS3's and sell those to computer networking types or else they carve 'em up into many (34,000+) voice channels for long distance carriers.
Is there anything on the market faster than OC-48? I don't know; wait'll next year <g>.
-Dupa T. Parrot, Team SF/F [Tech. Supp. SysOp]
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dupa
OzWin 2.11 O-
*****
I was trying to find something to read this morning, but couldn't find anything that interested me. So I decided to watch the last three eps of Babylon 5. And as I was watching them, I realized that it felt like I was reading three chapters of a phenomenal book. I've mentioned before that re-viewing B5 enables you to see the story arc unfold like the novel that you meant it to be. Now, however, the novel form is so evident that you don't have to go back more than one episode to see it.
And right now, we're just past the middle of the book, when the background has been realized, the crises have hit, and events have reached the point where you do >not< want to put down the book for a second. If B5 >were< a novel, this would be about midnight on a work night for me, and I'd look at the clock and realize I should get some sleep. I never do, though. And I certainly wouldn't put down >this< novel.
The myth cycle: Joe, the introduction of Lorien, and Sheridan in the underworld of Z'ha'dum have brought your story into the mold of the classics. You've mentioned that you are striving to create something great. I believe you have achieved that.
Lorien is that mystical, powerful being that our hero always finds in one form or another. Lorien is also constrained by needing to find that one special person. No one has reached him before Sheridan. Many have tried, he said. The Shadows know that he is there. I think the puzzle of Z'ha'dum itself is being solved. They want his power. They don't know how to get it. They can't seem to have it. So they put themselves right on top of Lorien's prison (whether or not it was a self-imposed imprisonment remains to be seen) and prevent all else from getting to Lorien and perhaps sharing in that power.
"The man in between is looking for you." Lorien was looking for someone to be his instrument, or his messenger. He probably even has the power to have known that Sheridan would ultimately arrive on Z'ha'dum.
"You are the hand." Sheridan is the tool that Lorien will use to fulfill his purpose. What is his purpose? We don't know yet. Is he good or evil? We don't know that yet, either. He seems to be benevolent. And that, too, is a mythic element. Not for you the blacks and whites of lesser writers. Greys, and greys, and greys again for the Babylon 5 mythos.
Don't misunderstand this next part. I have a strong background in myth and literature, and I am >not< a tunnel-visioned fantasy fan. But the best adjective I can use to describe your writing at this moment is Tolkienian. NOT for the imagined similarities in your works. But because I believe your ability to take the mythic elements and put them into a wonderful, well-written narrative and a hugely entertaining story resembles Tolkien's works. I greatly admire authors who can take myth and make it into literature. Mary Stewart's Arthurian novels are among my favorites, as is T.H. White's Once and Future King. Each of them took legends and fantasy and made them real.
You, Joe, have done more than that. Now, you're making legends real. But you are also taking reality (to a degree, since Babylon 5 feels so incredibly realistic to me) and making it legend. It is an extremely rare ability. Felix Salten and Richard Adams had it, too. Bambi and Watership Down are two novels that shout myth and archetype. Deer and rabbits and the forest creatures they wrote about are real. But what those authors did with those animals was legend. Have you ever read Bambi? Salten created a conversation between two leaves about the onset of winter and made it so chilling that I can't help but think of that passage every time I see a leaf fall from tree.
I find that certain lines from Babylon 5 effect me that way. "Teach me how to fight legends" keeps echoing in my head during the Z'ha'dum sequences. The scene where Sheridan finds Delenn after her nightmare in the plague quarantine is an image that pops up any time it feels like. "Dead. Dead. Dead. Dead." Another scene that refuses to leave my mind.
Babylon 5 is reaching the heights of archetype.
There are many things about your show that I enjoy more than I've enjoyed on any other show. One of them that I treasure most is this medium. I know you don't know me from Adam, but I love that I can send you these messages now, while the images are fresh in my mind, and while I'm thirty minutes away from seeing "The Summoning" here in New Jersey. I know that you've planned Babylon 5 for a long time, and that fans won't effect the overall plot and consequences. But your presence on the nets brings a sense of immediacy to the production. And I know that you listen to us, and take our comments into account. I think that your respect for your audience shows in your work. I certainly hope that you realize the vast majority of us respect you as well.
So again, Joe, I thank you for all your efforts. It's now twenty minutes until "The Summoning," and I'm going to have to find something to do to fill the time until my latest fix of Babylon 5.
Meryl
Joe replies:
Wow...I hardly know what to say. You work this hard on a show, and you hope that what you're doing gets noticed for what it is. You hope people will understand. Thanks for, in one message, making the journey worth the effort.
jms
*****
Thanks. I hope, and sometimes allow myself to think, that you're right. This show is going to be around for a long, long time, and I think it's going to be remembered and talked about. It's a great experiment, and my only regret is that its like will almost certainly not come my way again.
jms
*****
Joe,
WOW! I saw Z'Ha'Dum Sunday night, and all I can say is wow!
I've been watching and reading SF for over 20 years now, and I must say this show, is the best I've ever seen, and this episode is one of the best you've ever done. After getting burned by some of the ST offereings and accepting them as the best that was available, this show has been a real delight.
There are moments when something strikes you so deeply, so profoundly, that it strikes a place deep down inside that you *FEEL* that this is a real place you are looking into. I have to tell you, B5 has reached that point. It has struck an universal cord on so many levels that it has become real in what it is. It no longer feels like TV, it feels like life.
The emotional rollercoaster and the characters reactions were superb. Please congratulate EVERYONE for an outstanding performance: Bruce, Melissa, Mira, Richard, Claudia, and Jerry, they all made their characters appear so real and their individual acting performances were superb.
A few thoughts if I may on where you've taken us...
* A thought struck me when Justin was describing the shadows motives, it goes like this:
If we are fully human when we are at our best, being the most we can be, or acheiving our ideal, then the question one would ask of oneself would be "Who Are You?", for that is what your focus would be, on Who you are and Who you are becomming. Traditional Jedeuo/Christian principles would call this a state of Grace, where we were like God, who is our highest and most ideal model. This appears to be the track the Vorlons are taking.
If, however, we are fully human in our "native" state, that is, there is no where to go, then the question of "Who are you?" is meaningless and the question you begin answering is "What do you want?". And that takes you down an entirely different path, one where what would be called (by the other view) Sin is normal and acceptable while death, destruction and mayhem are the norm. This appears to be the path taken by the Shadows.
However, it's not quite that easy. Because you could say, the Shadows are the bad guys and the Vorlons the good guys and alls well that ends well, nuke the b*stard shadows and lets get on with life.
* BUT *
If the Shadows are evil and bad, what happens when the "good" start acting like the bad and take their eyes off their Ideal, and start striving for what they want?
The Vorlons and Minbari have been so wrapped up in the Shadows, that they have become the Shadows. They are focusing on what they want. The Vorlons manipulate races genetic codes to create telepaths, they manipulate Sheridan to put him in a place to head the AOL so that he will wipe the Shadows away, and they are so sure that they have answered the question "Who are they?" that they have forgotten thier answer. Delenn and Kosh hide the truth from Sheridan, don't trust him to be who he is, and then excpect him to do what they ask?
In trying to stop evil, the Vorlons and Minbari have fallen into the oldest trap that evil has, they have become what they fought, they have become so busy asking everyone else "Who are You?" while they were answering "What do you want?" that they no longer know who they are.
Tha answer is simple. It is a theme you have put throughout B5. Forgiveness. By forgiving one another, and by being forgiven, they can begin to answer the question of "Who are they?" again. The amazing thing is, Sheridan has already forgiven them, he may not know it, but his actions and message to Delenn indicate that in his heart he has, they just need to ask. So in their fear that he wouldn't be what they needed him to be, he has become more than them and in return already begun to answer the question he needs to answer.
Yow, my head hurts... What do you think?
--Scott
jms replies:
That's an extremely good and cogent analysis. And you hit the theme right on the head, one we'll explore in year four with the Vorlon/Shadow situation...and which was presaged in "Infection," right in the first season, the first episode shot. Sinclair says, in the ultimate moment in that conflict, "You forgot the first rule of the fanatic: When you become obsessed with the enemy, you *become* the enemy." That is what is happening here, with these two and other parties.
It all comes together....
jms
*****
There's an old saying...maybe from Oscar Wilde... "Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth learning can be taught." Some things can only be "understood" by being experienced.
*****
Thanks. A writer's job is to stay vulnerable, and explore everything in the writing...the drama, the tragedy, the comedy, the weirdness...it's all part of the package. I just sometimes put a little too much out there, I think.
jms
*****
Nothing at all insulting in the question. It's a hard one to address, but I'll give it a shot.
Harlan says, when someone comes up to you and says, "Listen, when I read your story, I saw you had structured the whole thing around the Jungian notion of inner conflict vs. external conflict, and...." that the proper response is, "Absolutely, and you're the first person to figure that out," whether it's true or not. Let them think you're an utter genius. (This was, obviously, somewhat tongue in cheek, but there's some truth there, I think.)
Generally, some of the "deeper meanings" attached to the work are less a product of what's written, as what's perceived and how it's perceived; it's a function of what you, the viewer, bring to the table. In that respect, a good story is like a Rohrscarch test (and I think I just hideously misspelled that).
Some of the hidden meanings or subtext (the more proper term, I think) are deliberately set in place during the writing process.
And there are some that slip past me, when I get ambushed by my own subsconscious. Often I'm working something through myself at the time, or going through something, and when I'm not looking, the writing part of my brain shoots it out onto the page. Then, afterward, sometimes minutes later or months later, I'll look at it and suddenly realize what was going through my mind at the time, and realize I've given away more of myself than I had intended. It's an awkward feeling...like coming home from a party and discovering that your fly was undone the whole time. There are times I'd like nothing more than to take my subsconscious out and give it a *really* good thwacking when it does this to me.
Sometimes those meanings are very personal ones, sometimes more general in nature, trying to figure out stuff. The only way to stop it is to ride herd on the part of your brain that does the writing, making sure nothing slips past you...but then it becomes a more mechanical process. As a writer, you learn to listen to the small, tiny voice in the back of your head and trust it, that it knows where it's going even if the logical part of your brain does not. You have to get rid of the gatekeeping, get rid of what you were taught writing is supposed to be, get rid of what you think others want to hear from you, get rid of *everything* that gets in the way and overpowers that small voice.
If you do that correctly, then you are *always* surprised by what comes out, which is necessary; if you cannot surprise yourself, you have no chance of surprising an audience.
jms
*****
JMS,
>> You can live a better life if you decide to do so and take action.
This statement reminded me of a statement that my insurance man puts on the back of his card. I'm sure it a quote from somewhere, but I don't know where. This may seem redundant, but I find it inspirational.
"Whatever one vividly imagines, ardently desires, sincerely believes, and enthusiastically acts upon...
Must inevitably come to pass."
If you think about it, any achievement that anyone has ever done came about because they imagined, desired,
believed, and acted.
Personally, I think that the first two (imagining and desiring) are easy. The last two (believing and acting) are the hardest. If a person can put all four together, then anything is possible.
Thanks,
Kevin
*****
Whenever we step out on our own courage and dare to change our lives to make it more in line with what we want it to be, 9 times out of 10 it works out infinitely better than we (and others) expect. Of course, there's always that 10th time...but the lesson obtains. You can live a better life if you decide to do so and take action.
jms
*****
"I'm here to express opinion like it or not."
Peter, I was trying to ignore this whole last thread, but you're really becoming a pain in the ass.
Lemme explain a few facts of life to you.
EVERYONE is here to express an opinion. What happens here is that every once in a while, some bozo (insert your picture here) comes riding in here and has the notion that nobody else here is objective, that he and ONLY he dares say anything negative, and puffs up like a pouter pigeon as proclaimer of Truth, Justice and Objectivity, and all you poor saps out there just dang well better get used to it and get over it.
Seen it.
There's LOTS of positive AND negative opinion expressed here. It didn't spring suddenly into being when you materialized in our midst, Peter. Check out the Grey 17 thread. A number of people were iffy on it, or downright negative. I said they had a point, and agreed with much of it. So right off the bat, you are proceeding from a false assumption, that nobody else here critiques the show. So you're wrong on the face of it. Don't believe me? Check the threads. It's there. And elsewhere. Always has been. Always will be.
But for you, it's necessary to think, for your own ego, that you and ONLY you DARE to stand up and speak ***THE TRUTH***. It's how you make yourself feel important. And the next phase of that is that you must now put yourself in the position of feeling persecuted for your statements...it's not enough that you must criticize, you must feel *special* for doing so, reinforce your own sad notion that only you are the Visionary One here. So you come in and you insult people, deride them...indicate that anyone who takes issue with your hamhanded and abusive messages is a nut, or an idiot, or a blind, ass kissing fool.
Then you go to phase three. It's all right in line with what we've seen here a thousand times before. You may think you've invented this little dance of yours, but we've seen it before you, and we'll see it after you. You've practically become a cliche.
Phase three, when people take offense at what you say, is to shrug and say, "hey, it's just wit," and "chill out." Yessir, that'll work.
There's a particularly offensive sort of netjerk who thinks that as long as he says what he says in a calm, flip fashion, he can say any stupid, offensive, chowderheaded thing he so chooses...and if someone gets upset about it, heyyyyyy, chill out, look how angry you're getting, you're shrieking, when I was just calmly talking about how your mother works the corner of Sunset and Vine for twenty bucks a pop, there's nothing wrong with that, hey, it's the world's oldest profession, why're you being so defensive....
That's the game you play. And it is a game, make no mistake. Difference is, some of us have been around long enough, and seen other yahoos like you come storming in here doing the same thing, to *recognize* that it's a game. And the rules of the game are as follows: "I can say anything I want, and that's great, but if you get upset in response, then that's wrong, and bad."
You want to believe that you're the Last Bastion of Persecuted Truth, the only person who can look at things calmly, so you get other people upset to prove your point...it's a very nice, self-contained little mobius loop designed specifically to reinforce your own self-image.
If you say something, that's your opinion, and you're damn well entitled to spraypaint that opinion all over the walls, and if anybody doesn't like it, screw 'em...but if the other users here exercise THEIR right to hold an opinion about your boorish behavior, somehow THAT'S wrong, that's shrieking and screaming and being an "idiot."
I would suggest that it's you who can't take criticsm, you who can't abide people having an opposing opinion, on one level, because you need to deflate it or deflect it or deride it...but at the same time, you *need* it, you batten off it like a blood-swollen tick, you respond to it with glee, because you think it makes you important in their lives, or at least your own. It's like the ten year old kid sitting on a fence firing a slingshot at a horse, you think that because you got a reaction, it *means* something.
And as for saying "it's just wit," there are two primary requirements for wit: 1) it must be funny, and 2) it must not proceed from maliciousness. Neither of those conditions is operational in your messages. They are mean, venal, petty, self-indulgent, self-congratulatory, derisive, ill-mannered and offensive.
But they're not witty.
That's just what you hide behind, you think it excuses any stupid, hare brained thing you choose to spout...it's just wit, just bein' funny.
Like I said...seen it.
Finally, for this:
"Joe, you comments are cute at times, but remember I tell it like it is. If you want to talk to just yes men, and women then they're all yours. Fail them, and they'll east you alive."
No, you don't "tell it like it is." That's more of your ego, your sense of god-given mission, that somehow you know the Truth and nobody else here has sufficiently evolved to your level yet. Nor do I talk to just yes men and women. That's again your way of dismissing other people here, writing off their opinions as "yes men" while insisting your own is more valid because you're "objective," when you're really just being boorish. Nobody here is a yes-ANYthing. There's disagreements, criticism, even some outright knock-downs. But you don't see them.
Because the universe of Peter Stathis is *just* big enough to contain Peter Stathis, and nothing much more than that. Your messages are intended for the greater glorification of Peter Stathis, to elicit persecution for the poor, embattled Peter Stathis, so that you may be crucified on a cross of your own making because you need the pain and the glory and most of all you need to be *right*.
Because you are none of those. You are, simply, ill-mannered and in the final analysis utterly irrelevant. The only thing more irrelevant than you, is your opinion. But only because it rides into this forum stapled to a horse's ass.
jms
*****
RESPONSIBILITY AND FORGIVENESS
An analysis of Babylon 5
by Brent Barrett
(bbarrett@speedlink.com)
http://www.speedlink.com/bbarrett/b5/
In this long summer re-run period, I've been re-watching all of Babylon 5, a couple of episodes every other day, from the pilot to "War Without End." As with anyone who views Babylon 5 episodes more than once, I've picked up new things here and there that weren't obvious on first viewing. In addition to that interesting outcome of the viewings, I've also come to appreciate some episodes more than ever.
In particular, "Passing Through Gethsemane" and "A Late Delivery from Avalon" have struck new chords with me. Upon first viewing, I took them at face-value; a definite mistake with a Straczynski script, I've come to learn.
When I watched "Passing Through Gethsemane" initially, I saw what most of us undoubtedly saw: The story of a man, his memories and personality wiped from his mind, tormented by his own memories and vengeful people intent on making him remember, making him suffer, making him pay for his crimes. I'm sure most of us caught the undertone of responsibility and forgiveness presented in that story.
Likewise, when I watched "A Late Delivery from Avalon" for the first time, I saw the story of a man, so caught up in self-blame and feeling so responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of humans (not to mention quite a few Minbari), that he wiped his own personality and memories and replaced them with those of a legend who lived almost two thousand years previously. Again, we were shown the issues of responsibility and forgiveness. Very common themes in the entirety of Babylon 5.
But, as I said, Joe never can leave well enough alone; he always gives us something more, just under the surface -- there, if we are just willing to see it. In this analysis, I hope to examine what I believe I see flowing in the undercurrents of these stories and others. Something which speaks of possible pain, forgiveness, and loss of innocence in the future for two very important characters in the story: Delenn and John Sheridan.
DELENN AND RESPONSIBILITY
My reviewing of Babylon 5 to date has shown me several important new things about the characters in this wonderful epic. In particular, I've been drawn to the number of clues we've been given about Delenn's hidden fears and, more specifically, her hidden past.
From the start, we've known that there is far more to Delenn than we were told in dialogue. In "Babylon Squared," we learn that she is so respected, so admired by her people that they decided to make her their leader. By virtue of dialogue in that episode, we learn that the level of potential power she possesses is so great that she can summon the Grey Council and reject their offer of leadership. This is amplified by the actions of her fellow Satai at the end of that same episode, when he trusts in her destiny such that he presents her with one of the three holiest of objects to the Minbari: A Triluminary.
Later, in "Points of Departure," we learn (via flashback) that Delenn had authority enough to pause the assault on Earth and request that a human be taken aboard the Grey Council cruiser for examination and interrogation. This evidence goes a long way toward showing us that Delenn has been held in high regard within the leadership structure of the Minbari for some time.
In "Severed Dreams," we learn, though Delenn's own words, that she was chosen of Dukhat to replace him. Her authority on that Grey Council cruiser just after the dying Minbari leader, a person extremely well respected by his people, named her his heir, must have been immeasurable.
In just the next episode, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark," we learn of the madness that filled the Minbari upon Dukhat's death. But, more importantly, we also learn that the Minbari follow one person and act as a whole. It's strange for Delenn to make reference to the Minbari people following one person when she describes their war against the humans. If one person were in a position to lead the Minbari people at that time, who would it have been? Delenn.
When Delenn spoke of her people going mad together, I believe she must've been speaking of her own madness at the time -- a madness brought on by the death of her mentor, her friend, her leader. When she spoke of waking from that madness, I got the impression that she, herself, awoke from her own madness at that time. Perhaps we witnessed that awakening in the flashback in "Points of Departure."
SHERIDAN AND FORGIVENESS
In "Passing Through Gethsemane", John is presented with a situation in which forgiveness plays an integral part. Brother Edward spoke of forgiving his murderers for doing what they had to do. In the tag of that episode, we hear John and Theo discuss forgiveness:
"Where does revenge end and justice begin? Forgiveness is a hard
thing, isn't it, Theo?"
"I don't think anything can ever be more difficult."
And later in that same scene, after seeing Edward's murderer in the guise of the new Brother Malcom, Theo reminds John of the pain of forgiveness:
"You must excuse the Captain, Malcom. You interrupted his train
of thought. I believe you were saying that forgiveness is a hard
thing, but something ever to strive for. Were you not, Captain?"
"Yes . . . yes, I was."
Sheridan is being taught a very important lesson about forgiveness: That while painful, it brings with it a new start and a new hope for something better. Life is terribly precious, and it's wrong to squander it on hatred and revenge.
Given what we know of John's reaction to his wife's apparent death at the hands of the Shadows -- his decision not to take out revenge on Morden or act rashly against the Shadows, but to let Morden go, to keep the secret, to do the right thing -- we know that he was already inclined not to follow the destructive path of revenge and hatred. He may well be faced, soon, with more than one situation in which he is forced to choose between hatred and forgiveness.
DELENN AND FORGIVENESS
In "Passing Through Gethsemane", we see Delenn and Michael Garibaldi discuss his beliefs about capital punishment. When he states that he's an "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth kinda guy," she equates it with a belief in a system that would leave everyone blind and toothless. She feels a bit smug in her analysis of what she believes to be the wrong attitude toward forgiveness, until Garibaldi returns the comment with, "Not everyone. Just the bad guys."
You can see the internal torment on her face as she tries to give a little smile in response to Garibaldi's come-back. She realizes that he may well consider her one of the "bad guys," if he were to ever discover her secrets. Both in regard to the Shadows and her role in the Earth Minbari War, in which he was a soldier.
And later in that episode, in the most dramatic and poignant moment of all to me, Delenn listens to Brother Edward explain the defining moment of his belief: Christ's night in the Garden at Gethsemane. As he describes Christ's anguish and ultimate self-sacrifice, look at Delenn's face. Look at her reactions. She's not so much thinking about Christ as she is about herself. When Edward says that he doesn't know if he would have had the courage to wait for his fate -- to accept his responsibility, you can see in Delenn's eyes that she's been wondering the same thing.
In a very short and touching scene in "A Late Delivery from Avalon", a scene in which not a word is spoken, but pages of dialogue are said, we see Delenn forgive the human who fired the shot that killed her mentor, her friend, her leader: Dukhat. It's clear from that act, and from all of Delenn's behavior to that point, that she understands the importance of forgiveness.
Later, in "Sic Transit Vir," we see a Delenn so crushed by the feeling of responsibility that she willingly faces G'Kar, alone and defenseless, and admits her part in the deception that cost G'Kar's people their world and millions of innocent lives. While she admits her responsibility, she desperately wants G'Kar to forgive her for her actions. He doesn't, and she's visibly shaken.
It's quite clear that Delenn will be forced, soon, to ask for forgiveness yet again. This time, for keeping secrets about the Shadows, secrets about the likelihood that Anna Sheridan is still alive, and secrets about her role in the Earth Minbari War. To whom will she look for forgiveness? We can only wait and see what Straczynski will present to us.
jms replies:
That was really excellent. Let me explain to you how excellent it was: I was taking a break on CIS because I was trying to work through the heart of a scene between Delenn and Sheridan in script 403. It was a little fuzzy there in places, and I usually log off and putter around rather than trying to write it when it isn't all there yet in my head. Your analysis helped me clarify something in my own mind which was there in the first place but hadn't yet racked into focus yet. It would've done so eventually, it always does, but you may have saved me an hour or two of going back over their relationship in my head and pulling out the emotional and thematic undercurrents of what's been established over the last couple of seasons.
Good stuff.
jms
*****
I don't think there's really a difference. (Also, philosophically, I think one can be experienced and still retain a certain measure of innocence, but that's another discussion for another time.) I think we all have that part of ourselves which wishes to believe, needs to believe in a cause or in other people , however many times experience slaps us in the face with the contrary position...and there is always the part which is tired and weary and burned out and refuses to trust again. We are all these things at different moments. The difference with writers is that we must be those different things on command, and articulate those feelings through the voices of our characters as they experience them in new contexts.
jms
*****
...The important thing is this: at its best, B5 consistently exhibits an
attention to detail and a respect for the tragic elements of life that
ST,for all of its improvements over the last season, too often fails to
represent. I suspect B5, like TOS before it, will not only survive but
transcend its shortcomings and thrive in spite of them. Here's why...
At its best, B5 represents an uncertainty about how much worse things will
get rather than a comfortable belief in things eventually returning to
normal over smiles, quiet laughs and hot cocoa after the battle's over.
It's about slowly wading through the thick muck of ugly tensions instead
of backslaps and handshakes between the warring parties when an individual
episode comes to an end. It's something beyond antiseptic portrayals of
main characters visibly confident that they'll survive the season no matter
what happens.
B5 is not about
two-ships-passing-in-the-night-firing-slow-intermittent-glorified-cannonballs-at-one-another.
Its about several swarms of metallic worker bees degenerating from fixed
formations into chaotic interactions along three dimensions.
B5 is a relentless barrage of painful hesitations, difficult
judgements,terrible miscalculations, aborted detentes, paralyzing fears
and grudging resignation to the demands of necessity. It's a man biting
his lower lip as he pulls the trigger.
B5 is a long, drawn out camera pan over a landscape of battered carcasses
at the end of an undesired firefight; B5 is a confrontation between an
organized conspiracy of insecurity and a disorganized, insecure conspiracy
of competing interests; B5 is a council leader whose gesture of greeting
is welcomed with weapons fire; B5 is a dying emperor and a targeted
president entertaining wild and pretentious ambitions of a peace neither
will survive; B5 is a command staff in command of very little, anxious,
confused, bewildered, in mild disarray; B5 is a head of security unable
to protect himself; B5 is a medical officer suffering from an illness he
cannot treat; B5 is an ambassador and a people wildly chasing vague hopes
of an elusive grandeur to will fill the voids of moral decay; B5 is an
ambassador whose efforts at strengthening the ties that bind two species
are rewarded with the scorn of both; B5 is a war-hardened diplomat-soldier
cowering like a baby against the wall of a hallway, tears in his eyes,
fragile hopes betrayed, disheveled, demoralized...angry; B5 is a
submissive, hesitant and otherwise insignificant subordinate with a rare
courage to vainly declare the unspoken, mitigate the irreprable, and speak
to the face of an enemy the words "I'm sorry."
B5 is about the death of important characters; it's about the lingering
threat of impending death hovering over *all* of the main characters
*all*of the time; it's about people succumbing to petty selfishness; its
about consequences, repercussions, enduring tensions, irony, things going
bad just when characters thought they couldn't get any worse. It's about
quasi-protagonists who, more often than not, act as recalcitrant puppets
reluctantly dancing to the tune of forces beyond their control. It's about
the frayed-yet-sturdy conviction of an individual where institutions have
failed. It's about the universe as you once knew it going straight to
hell.
Its about the primacy of fear, prejudice and self-interest over
last-ditch, heartfelt appeals to reason, open-mindedness and sacrifice for
the greater good. Its the loud, united thunderclap of euphoria celebrating
a signed treaty contrasted with the quiet, lonely sobs signalling the
wake of its failure. Its about dealing with life as it is, not life as we
wish it could be or life as we may have once envisioned it. B5 is about
severed dreams-- the death of grandiose visions-- and the effort to adjust
and build new ones. B5 is about the turmoil of the human condition and
the struggle to transcend it- about a long twilight struggle against the
lesser angels of our nature.
Make no mistake. B5 is no "line drawn against the darkness;" it is no"line
in the sand" drawn against some dark and nefarious nemesis, some
well-defined and unabashedly evil enemy, some clear, present and external
danger.
B5 is a near-hopeless holding action against the bland and indifferent
avalanche of inevitability. B5 won't die. Babylonians, armed with weapons
of telecommunication that TOS viewers and Roddenberry himself could have
only dreamed of, simply wont let that happen. Any possibility of
cancellation would engender a viewer movement for reinstatement unseen in
the world of television since...say...the 1960s when the first ST series
was experiencing some of the same travails. B5's strength is beyond
numbers, beyond ratings, beyond pragmatic and jaundiced assessments of
its commercial viability.
It's bigger than you. It's bigger than all of us. Frankly, it's bigger
than JMS, himself.
This is about an immense yearning (however inchoate) heretofore untapped,
for a serious, organic, well-integrated, meaningful, realistic portrayal
of the struggle of life with sci-fi as the metaphor, vehicle and medium.
This is about the exploration of archetypes that have helped us to define
the human condition. This is about a sci-fi novel with moving pictures.
It's a deliberate focus on the painful duality of human nature and the
incredible darkness underlying it.
It is not about a mere agglomeration of television episodes or some
line-item on a ratings list or about a mere collection of aliases on an
internet newsgroup or about some staff stationed in Hollywood.This is a
leviathan, immensely bigger than the sum of its parts.
My fellow Lurkers, this...thing...is alive.
*****
"Here's a different kind of question for you: When you sit down to work, I know you're not entirely in charge - the characters are - but how do you participate? When I write fiction (admittedly not often), it either flows out onto the page as though someone else were using my hands on the keyboard, or nothing happens at all, no matter how long I sit there. You don't seem to have any "nothing" time. Did you *develop* a sustainable creative process, or were you just always this way? In short, can you train - or at least successfully invite - the Muse, and how do you do it?"
Hard to say...it's like any muscle, the more you use it, the easier it gets to use. I think a part of it stems from the fact that I have very little in the way of barriers between me and the writing. Too many people who want to be writers feel that when they sit behind the keyboard, they have to do something different or other...that somehow WRITING has an overlay of some sort, that it's different than talking. But in many ways, it ain't any different.
The best writing (IMO) is natural writing, where the words on the page flow very naturally, very smoothly. Every once in a while, you pull out all the stylistic tricks, you thunder and lightning all over the page, when needed for effect...but it's the writing free of artifice that seems, for me, to work well. If you hang out with writers long enough, the really *good* ones, you learn soon enough that most of them talk exactly the way they write.
Lemme give you a forinstance...when Asimov was first struggling as a writer, he had lunch with his agent one day. He was having a hard time describing things, using language to paint pictures. The agent said, "You know how Hemingway would describe the sun rising in the morning?" No, Asimov said, leaning in...how? "The sun rose in the morning."
There's virtually nothing between my brain and the keyboard; I'm hardwired that way, which is why I can't dictate scripts...I write through my fingers. I write pretty much the way I talk. A lot of folks hereabouts have seen me at conventions, and they've noted that the me you see here is pretty much the me they see there, and the me that's just *there* all the time.
If you stop thinking about *trying to write*, and just write...the way you have to stop thinking about the next step you make, and just *dance*...the way you have to forget about technique and just make love...it all comes together. You don't Try To Write. You just write.
As for story ideas...it's just nothing I've ever had a problem with. As long as your characters are all distinct personalities, the stories you write will be as distinct and different as they are. Find out who the character is, what he wants, how far he'll go to achieve it, and how far somebody else will go to stop him...and the rest takes care of itself.
jms
*****
That's the hard part, the doing. Lots of folks have ideas, but they flit, or they don't have the discipline to sit down behind a keyboard and just *do it* for the requisite number of hours per day. And that's the one thing neither I nor anyone else can help or advise with. It's what Marcus said: patience, determination, direction and strength.
And to quote somebody else, sometimes some people mistake a passion for reading for a desire to write. They're wholly different impulses.
Writers write. It's what they do. If you're struggling to do it, maybe it's part of your brain throwing roadblocks in front of you to try and tell you something. Maybe it's a lack of discipline, or attention span, or something deeper, a concern about finishing, or some other area.
I dunno...this is one area where I can't advise worth a damn, because I've never had this problem. It's Heinlein's (and Ellison's) rules of writing: you must write, you must finish what you write, you must put it on the marketplace, and you must keep it on the marketplace until sold. Sometimes we get caught by the *idea* of a story, but to actually finish writing it, the *execution* of that idea, takes a great deal of work, and if the basic idea is already down there, the impetus to write it, the steam feeding the machine, evaporates quickly. Only a conscious decision to finish the damned thing can carry you the rest of the way, a commitment to follow through on the craft of the STORYTELLING.
It's the difference between two kinds of people who talk about how they met their respective spouses. One says "at a party," the other says, "at Bob's part in Toluca Lake, and she was wearing a red dress, and I couldn't take my eyes off her until I got her alone for a minute." Idea vs. execution, telling the idea vs. telling the *story*.
jms
*****
It's a fair question. I'm going to try and deal with it as best I can. The problem, first and foremost, is trying to explain the craft of writing to someone who isn't a writer. This isn't intended as a slight; if a brain surgeon tried to explain his work to me, I'd be about as much in the dark. I have no idea where music comes from; I can sit with Chris Franke for hours, trying to understand that process. I never will. I'm not hardwired that way. I *am* hardwired for writing. So it's not a judgment, just a minor truth.
The creative process is fluid. Has to be. Consider for a moment the position in which I find myself. Let's say I'm writing a novel. I start with a fairly clear notion of where I'm going. Six chapters in, I get a better way of doing something, so I go back and revise chapters 1-5, so it now all fits; you never see what went before. Now, compare that to a situation where you're publishing each chapter as you go, and you can't go back and change anything. (This is pretty much the situation Dickens found himself in, as he published his works chapter by chapter; you can never back up, only go forward.)
At the same time, because we're using actors who have real lives of their own, to whom things happen -- broken limbs, health problems that may preclude appearing in a given episode, sudden career changes, you name it -- you have real-life obstacles constantly in your way.
The closest thing I can compare this to...is if you're on stage, in front of a large audience, and you have to do a very elaborate dance...and all the while people are throwing bowling balls and chainsaws at you. You either learn how to accommodate all that, and keep pretty much on rhythm, or you're dead.
This show was originally conceived in 1986/87. About 10 years ago. Back then, all TV episodic stuff was done pretty much from one person's point of view, your nominal hero. Yes, you'd occasionally dive outside that for a quick scene with other characters, usually to set up something, but for the most part, it was about that one person. In MURDER, SHE WROTE, Jessica Fletcher was always at the heart of every episode; you had the occasional guest character with whom she'd interact, and the recurring supporting cast, but none of them ever changed, and none of them ever really took center stage for more than a few minutes at a time. That's how TV has been done up until now.
Novels, on the other hand, are often omniscient in narrative structure, and you blip in and out of multiple points of view. THE STAND, for instance.
Now, I've done both; I've written novels and I've written TV. When it came time to pull together B5 initially, you go into the "okay, who is the TV point of view character" question. Which was Londo's narration, and which was the way I'd learned to write TV all these years. Once the series got going, it quickly became apparent that I'd have to learn a whole new way of writing TV that was a lot more like what I'd been writing in my novels, which were multi-POV huge stories. It's a kind of writing that's never really been done before for American TV; and I had to somewhat invent that style or form of writing as I went, in front of millions of viewers.
You can't prepare for something like this, as much as you try, because it's never been done before.
(On reflection, probably the closest thing to what I've been doing here was the miniseries The Winds of War, in terms of the multiple viewpoints involved.)
Also, in the last 10 years, I've become a better writer, learned more about my craft, added more tools to my toolbox. That means being able to perceive better ways of doing things now than I could've seen before.
So here we are. I sit at my word processor with my notes from 1986, and I see a better way of doing something from those notes...do I go with what's there, or do I strike off and do the better approach, PROVIDED that it still takes me where I want to go in the arc? To ignore it is to be inflexible.
I've stayed fluid. It's the same way I write a novel. You're just seeing the *process* acted out right in front of you, a process which normally the public never gets to see. That, I think, is some part of what you're reacting to.
Also, you have to be careful in how you define an arc. There have been definite arcs of character all through this. Look at Londo when we first met him...and look at him now. Same for G'Kar, Delenn, Franklin... look at Sheridan when he first arrived: happy go lucky, smiling, glad to be there, fresh fruit and a hot shower, able to take care of anything and everything, how bad can it be?...and look at the dark, haunted, almost overwhelmed figure we see now.
The story has also arc'd, peeling off layer by layer. The Minbari war leads to the secret of the Grey Council, which leads back to the first shadow war, which leads to the current shadow war, each really on a direct line one from the other. The slow corruption of Earthgov, the death of President Santiago, the rise of Clark, the fall from Earth...all of it a very definite arc.
It's not just a matter of "living in interesting times." What makes a story is *causality*. A sequence of linked events. "The king died, and then the queen died" is not a story. "The king died, and then the queen died of grief" is a story. It is an arc, however small.
Finally, I'd just note the posts -- public and private -- from folks who have sat down and watched the *whole show* as a unit, once per day, or several per day...and the linked aspect, the real *arc* of the show, becomes far more apparent when watched that way right now. It's there.
jms
*****
(From Agent at BVL)
Took AOL a while to show this group on their newsreader, but it finally
came through today. Some preliminary thoughts tossed out for discussion,
for the record, for the heck of it.
Yes, the new group is now moderated. But no, that should not be taken or
interpreted by anyone as inhibiting constructive criticism. We learn by
doing. That means sometimes we make mistakes. When that happens, it's
not just a Good Idea to let us know, it's *necessary*. If you can point
to something in an episode that doesn't work...then point. If it's an
objective goof, then it's something we can learn from. If it's a
subjective opinion, then it opens up discussion from all sides.
During the whole moderation discussion, I tried to be as quiet as I
humanly could, to avoid influencing the decision. People have to vote
their conscience, nothing more or less. Those who voted for or against
the group did so because they felt it was the Right Thing To Do. Nobody
should have a problem with that.
This group, fundamentally, is for the users. For all those who felt they
had to stop posting or just drop out of the prior group, and those who
stayed in the original group and want some options. The purpose, as I
understand it, is to moderate those situations where you have someone who
is chronically abusive to other users, engaging in personal attacks.
Simple truth is we're all gonna lose our temper from time to time, use
terms in the heat of an argument we probably shouldn't...but it's my sense
that this shouldn't be interfered with until and unless it becomes a
chronic problem.
That said, however, I leave these determinations to the moderators,
suggesting only that a light hand is better than a heavy hand. If along
the way some of my messages get blipped as we feel our way through this, I
don't have a problem with that. (This to those who said it would be a
problem.)
(An aside: I heard that some were arguing that this was about "control."
And they were right. But not the way they wanted to be right. To control
means to limit your options. The few who used this argument did so
because they knew that if you want to participate in B5 discussions on
Usenet, without paying for one of the commercial services, there's only
been one game in town. You had to go there and listen to them, and put up
with their abuse. That is as much a form of control as anything they were
railing against. Now, users have options, choices. You can go either
way, enjoy whichever environment you prefer.)
The purpose of this, from my side, is to continue the experiment in
interactive television that's been going on on-line for several years.
I'd hope that folks take advantage of this to find out more about how
television is made, how this kind of story gets produced, to help
demystify television so that in the end we can get better choices by
knowing what to ask for, and understanding the medium. In a way, the
answers and information I give are only as good as the questions that get
asked; I'll try and anticipate questions and areas of interest, but it's
up to you to mold this forum as you see fit. Make it something that fits
your needs and interests. Don't lurk. If you have a great question, put
it out where everyone else can profit from it.
The welcome mat is out, the porch light is on, and there's lemonade over
by the front rail. I hope you'll all sit for a while and hang out. Looks
like it's gonna be a nice night....
jms
(4/3/96)
*****
Where it came from was really a thought experiment...how would I design an
SF saga *specifically* for television, that could really be told no other
way (except for maybe a 5-volume series of novels). I considered the many
quality mainstream shows that had a base of operations where the story
came to you (St Elsewhere, LA Law, others) instead of going off in search
of the new planet of the week. That led me to the notion of a space
station.
Then I kinda got into some of my thoughts on where we've come from as a
people, where we might be going, some political, social and historical
extrapolation, and one day...bang...it just slammed into my brain like a
.44.
And now here we are....
jms
*****
"Does our brain work like a computer putting tasks into background mode?
How many times do we rack our brain for an answer that eludes us, only to
have it pop out sometime later when we've totally forgotten that we were
ever thinking about it in the first place? Like the chemical messages have
taken the round trip to Jupiter to get to where the answer's stored. Like
the core story of B5 just popped into JMS' head one day. The way I go home
from work with a nagging problem and find the answer pops into my head
when I wake up the next day."
Absolutely. Often I'll hit a snag in a script, and I'll go away and
deliberately *not* think about it, letting the subconscious chew at it
like a dog worrying a bone. Then, usually about the time my head hits the
pillow -- having finally relaxed -- the answer comes back as if of its own
volition. Same thing happens in the shower.
I nowhere "saw" this process at work more clearly than when I fell prey to
Tetris (from which I'm still trying to recover). I'd often play it late
at night, just before going to bed. As I closed my eyes to sleep, I'd
still be seeing those damned green and yellow L-shapes, the blocks and
lines...my brain was still adjusting the pieces, seeing ways of making
them fit that I'd overlooked before. Because my brain had a visual
referent, I could *see* it happening behind my eyelids.
Which is exactly what we all do in problem solving.
Humans is funny critters....
jms
*****
"do you ever find your characters almost outright refusing to go where you
want them to? this happens to me from time to time, where I want her to
go one way, and she decides to go another. It's rather annoying."
Yes, but it means you're doing it *right*.
Yeah, it happens. Every once in a while, a character will go left instead
of right in my head, and I'll try to yank him back, and he'll refuse to
go, and I'll get into this sort of weird mental dialogue trying to find
out what the hell's wrong and what's going on. I've now created the
characters sufficiently well now that they're alive, and I've come to that
point now where, if a character says "I want to do X" in a script, I'll
tend to go with it, figuring it may work and take me in some new
directions. Every once in a while, we'll get to the end, and it won't
work, and I'll have to backtrack to where we went off the road...and,
natch, the character just sits sullenly in the back of the car, refusing
to admit he read the map wrong.
But when it *works*...the character surprises me, and if I'm surprised,
the odds are good that you're going to be surprised.
jms
*****
A number of the Minbari prophecies were written down by Valen himself, at
the time when he called together the Grey Council and led the last great
war against the shadows. They have somehow tended to be quite
astonishingly accurate.
jms
*****
sorta kinda spoilers, I guess....
"So, to sum up, has it been hard making these changes after you and all of
the fans have gotten to know them? Or is it simply a matter of:
"Well...it's their time...?"
It's both, kinda. In the case of one character, who's been with us a long
time, and who...shall we say delicately, is en route to becoming an
ex-character by the end of this season...it was hard knowing the actor,
because the actor said, "Was there something I did wrong?" To which you
can only answer truthfully and say no, not at all, just the opposite...you
did a GREAT job, that's why we're offing you. If you'd been just
mediocre, nobody'd CARE."
In another case, also later this season, it was *very* difficult for me
personally to do it, very emotional...and I wouldn't probably have done it
at all if the character hadn't basically grabbed me by the lapels and
dragged me kicking and screaming to that point of the story and said,
"Look, this is right, you know it, I know it, now DO it." So I did. (And
the cast and crew were equally stunned. Of everything that's been done on
the show to date, THAT one thing got the biggest reaction; nobody'd eat
across from me for two days at lunch after that.)
Bottom line...you've got to go where the story leads you. That *has* to
be your first and foremost obligation. If it's anything else -- catering
to the audience's expectations, or your own preferences -- rather than
doing what the cold logic of the story *demands* you to do...you're
finished.
jms
*****
Y'know, it ain't often that a question stops me and leaves me staring at
the screen for ten minutes trying to decide what the hell to say....
I guess the answer isn't a good one, Stef.
Everything in my life is subsumed into the work. Especially for B5. You
must understand, this isn't just a show for me, isn't just a job, some
bucks. This show means almost everything to me right now. My personal
life, my health, my relationships, everything comes second to the work.
And someday, there will be a reckoning for that.
I'll likely revisit this subject at some point in the future...but not
tonight.
jms
*****
"If you had to do it all over again, what would do you do differently, or
would you even do ANYTHING differently?"
Professionally? No. I wouldn't change a thing.
If "it" includes the personal side...
(he looks off, a long moment, smiles sadly and shakes his head)
There are an infinite number of moments I would like to rewrite, words I'd
recall, opportunities lost I'd give a right arm for one more chance to
take...five minutes when I would've stopped going through my life like a
man late for a bus, missing the moments, because in the final analysis,
the moments are all we have.
Would I do some things in my life differently? Yes. Most definitely.
Goes with the territory.
jms
*****
"This statement above sounds a lot like Londo in "Signs and Portents".
This is about the fourth or fifth time, I'm sure there have been more,
where I've heard your characters voices welling up through your messages."
Yeah, that line kinda blurs sometimes...they're all somewhat different
pieces of myself, peeled off as necessary.
"You must be one deep, complex person to have all these different aspects
of yourself that you pull out and use for your characters."
Or deeply schizophrenic.
:I'm in awe, envious . . . and a little frightened."
You and me too, bunky....
Actually, a tad more seriously...we all have these aspects, it's just
being willing and/or stupid enough to do so in front of people, or when
writing. And by virtue of being Eastern European in my origins, I tend
toward the morose to *begin* with, so it's all downhill from there.
jms
*****
Without giving anything spoilerish away....
When I wrote the script, I wanted there to be a snow globe not because of
any allusion to Citizen Kane, which really hadn't occured to me, but
because I knew I wanted something to smash, to shatter, to visually convey
the emotional content of something that just happened. A snow globe not
only breaks, shatters, it splashes...nicely visual.
When time came to prep that episode, the art department went around and
tried to find a good snowglobe. They brought back, I think, 3 different
ones we could use. Of the three, the lighthouse one seemed the most
appropriate given what was going on in the story. I file this one under
ABA, Art By Accident. (This is the one area academics never get into,
because it's totally random, not easily reductible...a nasty little
X-factor in their literary equations.)
For me, the interpretation part of the viewing experience is a synthesis
of what happens on either side of the screen. There is the author's
intent on the one side, and what the viewer perceives or responds to on
the other; art is what happens in the space between those two. For
instance, an artist can say, "The ball is blue." That is a simple
declarative sentence, theoretically accurate about the ball in his hand.
The viewer sees it, and if all conditions permit agreement -- a good TV,
not color blind -- says yes, the ball is blue.
The author's intention is absolutely clear, the interpretation either
non-existent or in simple agreement of fact (whichever way you want to
phrase that)...but is it art? Does it *resonate* or simply *inform*? A
news item about 17,000 more homeless people in a given city this week
*informs*. An interview with a homless mother, her child beside her,
crying...*resonates*.
The key is to communicate your statement as clearly as possible; you must
know what you intend to say, and to a large extent judge your success or
failure on the degree to which the audience correctly perceives your
intent. But to do so in an artful fashion. To somehow tie emotionally in
with the viewer, so that it causes a sympathetic vibration, the way a
tuning fork can make a champagne glass vibrate at a similar frequency.
The viewer should feel what YOU felt when you wrote it.
This is why I tend to gauge if my script works by whether or not it
affects me; if it makes me laugh out loud, I'm reasonably sure it's funny.
If I start to mist up at a scene, then it's probably going to do so to
others. It's the only yardstick I've got.
(On the other hand, there will *always* be some who just Don't Get It.
There are some who look at certain kinds of modern art and just weep for
the beauty of it. I see a triangle and a ball and a black smear, shrug
and move on. You just have to hope that you're sufficiently In Tune to
get the majority of people who are exposed to your work. As another
writer once said, "A book is like a mirror. If an ass looks in, you can't
exactly expect an apostle to peer out.")
Someone else once said, of art, "To define is to kill, to suggest is to
create." That part, the suggestion, the interpretation, is the place
where art happens.
jms
*****
"If you and associates like John Copeland and Doug Netter were in a
position to acquire the rights to a property by an author whose work you
respected (Harlan Ellison's screenplay for *I, Robot* comes to mind),
would you consider investing your time and energy to bring that work to
fruition (be it in television or cinema) as a *producer* rather than as a
writer?"
In a word...no.
Being a producer is a pain in the butt of mind-bending proportions. I
never had any desire to be a producer, and frankly still don't. It's not
an ambition or a career goal. The ONLY reason for wearing this particular
pointy cap, for putting up with the grief and the nonsense, is to protect
my words. That's *it*. I'm a writer, first and foremost. Producership
is just an insurance policy for the story. I would have no interest in
producing someone else's work.
I'm not a producer...I just play one on TeeVee.
jms
*****
I have known writers who feel that their work, their scripts, have been
fouled up by somebody rewriting them. And it happens. What power do you
have? None, really, if you're a freelancer. They can do whatever they
want to the scri