home : news : reviews : features : fiction : podcast : blogs : t-shirts : wtf?
 

Subspace: Now With More Pulp
Hosted by Kenn McCracken

Greetings, mortals. For those who don't know me, I am Galactus, Eater of Worlds. And I hunger...

Subject: cowboy bebop on CN

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!! What, isn't that a clever enough response? (what.body.part.are.ya.gonna.put.for.this.now?@revolutionsf.com)

Mortal, there is no response clever enough to save your planet. As you read this, my herald arrives, clearing the way for your imminent doom (and my imminent dinner).

Subject: Episode 2- Attack of the 50-Foot Killer Clones

(Note: What follows is from lack of sleep and an overdose of caffeine.):

OK, I have a request. Could they have paid a writer an extra $50 to come up with a better title for Episode 2? I mean, you know that whoever came up with that one was pissed that they ordered lunch out from Taco Bell that day. Isn't it bad enough that Lucas has taken an Imperial piss on all his fans with the last one? Now he's making fun of it himself. What's it going to turn into, a series of James-Bond-like movies? ("Darthfinger" and "OctoJabba" come to mind).

Anyway, if he really wanted to make it more 'pulp', I recommend having a scene where Samuel L Jackson shows up at Jar Jar's apartment, comments on the 'tasty burger' that Jar Jar was eating, quotes Ezekiel 25:17, and then blasts him into a million pieces. That would be more 'pulp' and more satisfying to fanboys all over. (rhythman1234@hotmail.com)

Galactus has a better title; I believe you will like it. It is called "Movie that humans will never see, for they will serve as tasty appetizers for Galactus this evening."

You'll thank me for it, I'm certain.

Subject: Dumb should mean mute, not stupid

Why is it that men don't fall silent instead of stupid when they see a beautiful woman? Actually, I'd like to see a man get struck sarcastic by a woman's beauty. That'd be a much more entertaining reaction.

Kenn, I loved your commentary about creators, but I felt that you sould have also noted that frequently the opinions espoused by an authors characters are not at all the opinions of the author (or other creator). The best characters have a life and style all their own, which can't always be politically correct, just like people. That's the point isn't it? Too often criticisms of authors are based on opinions or situations expressed in the context of the story. I mean, look at the people who think Huckleberry Finn was racist, when that couldn't be further from the truth. A lot of what you get out of a story is based on what you bring into it. Maybe the critics should think about that while they're pitching stones at their own glass prison. The moral of this rant: don't assume that the main character or characters necessarily represent the authors opinions. Maybe it was just funny. (sirens_lair@hotmail.com)

Galactus feels that the best stories, as well as characters, write themselves, and it is mortals that get in the way of the story. Those who allow public perception to get in the way of the telling do nothing but impede the tale.

For the record, Galactus looks forward to saving Kevin Smith for dessert.

Subject: Kevin Smith- Bane to be GLAAD

I was going to shut up for a while, but I did have a question for Kenn, re: Kevin Smith and his problems with GLAAD. You'd think they would've said something when 'Clerks' and 'Mallrats' came out? Oh well, I'm done for now. But I'm sure Smith's problems will work out in the end. No pun intended. (riddiman1-4@hotmail.com)

Phew -- thought I'd never get rid of Galactus. Fortunately there's a Popeye's down the street, and World Eaters loooooove fried chicken.

At any rate, I almost wonder, now that I've thought about it for a bit, if this isn't a work. Smith's brother is gay; so is one of his best friends. We all know that protests like this only bring more attention to whatever's being protested, and... Nah. Nevermind. I've obviously been watching too much X-Files lately.

Subject: Re: I can see your house from here

Kenn, I have to both agree and disagree with your article, and here's why: First, I don't see anything wrong with boycotting an artist's work if you're so vehemently opposed to their beliefs or practices that you simply can't tolerate being around what they've created, however, I would also seem to think that if you're so opposed to how they think, you'd probably not like their creations in the first place. But then again, my prevailing opinion of the two is one that is based on experience, and that would be my love of the Cthulhu Mythos and Lovecraft's writings. Why is this? I consider myself a fairly 'left' individual and this pretty much necessitates that bigotry based upon religion, race, beliefs, ancestry, sexual orientation, etc., is pretty much out the window with me. I don't like it. I do, however, like Howard Phillips Lovecraft and the mythos that has spawned from his slightly mad and terribly creative brain. The difficulty here lies in a letter I read about Lovecraft written by his wife/ex-wife (I don't know if they ever divorced, but she did survive him) detailing his extreme hatred of jewish people. Extreme. I believe the letter said that he would get terribly upset if he knew there was a jew in the same room as he -- something that I wouldn't tolerate in a friend or even a casual acquaintence of mine. Needless to say, if dear ol HPL was around today with the same kind of mindset, I wouldn't find him to be a man that I'd want to spend any sort of time around, or say any kind words about. Does this change how I look at The Rats in the Walls? The Lurker at the Threshold? Through the Gates of the Silver Key? I considered this when I had read his wife's letter. How does this effect how I see this brilliance in weird fiction, since I know the author was a complete and utter ass? The answer: it doesn't. I've decided that I can love the fiction without loving its creator. Even now, I respect HPL for his brain and its utter genius in thrusting the world into a new and incredible world of writing, and I can separate that from my discomfort with his views on race and/or religion. (runewitch@hotmail.com)

You've got the right idea -- boycott. If you don't like something, don't support it. Tell your friends, and ask them not to support it. That's fine -- take away enough support, and the product/artwork/whatever will lose funding and disappear back into the underground that spawned it. That's fine.

My problem, as Galactus stated above, is people that want to eliminate all things that they disagree with. Let's say that you were so offended by HPL's anti-semitism that you, in your goddess-like state, banned it from existence; no one can enjoy it anymore. What gives you the right to determine what I can or can't see? More to the point, what if your opinions start HPL on a path of questioning everything he writes so that henceforth (I'm speaking from past-tense, obviously) his material is watered down, smothered in self-doubt?

I think the thing that most bothers me is that creators allow themselves to get riddled by the public, and thus begin to stand in the way of the creations. The truest art already exists, and simply needs a medium through which it can be birthed; if the medium begins to get in its way, the end result is cheapened. So feel free to boycott it; just don't assume that your way is right, or even that your beliefs matter to the rest of us, or to the overall grand scheme of things. To each his or her own.

Or, one man's garbage is another man's art. But that's for later...

Subject: Patrick Stewart playing WHO?!

Screw that. If they get Patrick Stewart to play Spider Jerusalem, I'm going to have to take a drive to Hollywood and kick some royal ass. IF we're sticking to normally bald actors, I would think that the natural choice for Spider Jerusalem would be John Malkovich. Is that NOT the obvious choice? The man is bald. The man is sexy and psycho, and I'm positive he wouldn't have a problem walking around in his bare tattoo-covered bum for a few minutes of film.

Sheesh. Do I have to think of everything here? (runewitch@hotmail.com)

Sweet -- a Runewitch ass-kicking. I wanna be there for that. However, Spider Jerusalem can be played by only one man -- me. That's my last word on the subject.

Subject: Patrick Steward as Spider

NO, NO, NO, NO 1. He's too old 2. He's too authoritarian 3. Spider is more than just bald

The one to be Spider is Steve Buscemi Younger, thin and plays a really good psycho (mused@idirect.com)

Oh, crap -- Galactus is back. And he looks like he's worked up an appetite -- ooh, and he's got some damned greasy hands! Gotta run and find that Ultimate Nullifier -- anyone remember where I left it?

km


Kenn McCracken is Eater of Worlds (and Comics Editor) for RevolutionSF.

 
Recommend Us
  • Send to a Friend
  • Digg This
  • Reddit It
  • Add to del.ic.ious
  • Share at Facebook
  • Discuss!
  • Send Feedback
  • Whichever one was the George Lucas one
  • The Machete Order
  • Roundtable 137 - Elfquest!
  • Subspace Forum
  • Related Pages
  • Print This Page
  • Graphic Language : Transmetropolitan, Avengers, Hellblazer
  • Graphic Language : Alias, Black Panther, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
  • Warren Ellis is on the Global Frequency
  • Search RevSF
  • New on RevSF
  • Book Probe: Talon, English Ghost Story, Radiant
  • Book Probe: Cult Horror Movies, Post-Apocalypse Movies
  • RevoltionSF Roundtable Podcast : The Flash
  • Movie Probe: Ecstasy of Isabel Mann, Malevolents, Hollows Grove
  • RevSF Home

  • Things to Buy
    Yes, YOU can get more from the brains behind RevSF.


    Blood and Thunder:
    The Life and Art of Robert E. Howard
     
    RevolutionSF RSS Feed
     
    Search RevSF


    Random RevSF
    The Middleman

     
     
     
    contact : advertising : submissions : legal : privacy
    RevolutionSF is ™ and © Revolution Web Development, Inc., except as noted.
    Intended for readers age 18 and above.