Category: Culture

The King In Yellow

One of the books I’m currently reading is titled The King In Yellow. It was first published in 1895, which makes it young in comparison to some of the books I read.

What’s interesting about it (among other things) is that it’s a kind of sci-fi/horror anthology of stories that are all loosely connected by a play they all mention. The title of the play is "The King In Yellow," and it is a most remarkable play. We only get a few snatches of dialogue from it and only the vaguest hints of what it is about, but the characters who read it in the stories have the unfortunate tendency to either go completely insane or suffer a horrible doom of some sort.

The author of The King In Yellow was Robert W. Chambers. It is his best-remembered book and is highly thought of by horror authors, some of whom included references to it and things it mentions in their own works. Unfortunately, they have somewhat less regard for some of Chambers’ later works. Apparently he decided that it was better to be a well-fed best-selling author rather than a starving artist, and he ended up turning his literary output in a more commercial direction.

I don’t know what Chambers’ religion was, but there is a surprising amount of positive material in it about the Catholic Church (so far), and Catholic themes are prominent in several stories (including, obviously, "The Street of Our Lady of the Fields").

It’s interesting reading sci-fi from 1895. The first story in the collection ("The Rapairer of Reputations") is set in 1920, and it’s interesting to see a turn-of-the-century perception of what the futuristic year 1920 would be like. (Among other things, they have euthanasia chambers on public streets in major cities.)

It’s kind of interesting, though, that everybody in 1920 is still riding horses. Chambers didn’t anticipate Henry Ford’s unleashing of the automobile on America. Which brings to mind some

REMARKS MICHAEL CRICHTON MADE.

Chambers also probably didn’t envision (a) that someone in 2005 would be reading his book and (b) that they would be reading it in the way I am: I downloaded the text from the Internet and ran it through my speech-synthesizer to output it as .mp3 files that I can now listen to on my computer or via my iPod or in my . . . pickup. (Sorry; horses don’t typically have .mp3 players installed on them.)

READ THE KING IN YELLOW–IF YOU DARE! (WARNING: There is some material in it that can offend modern sensibilities.)

No B5 Movie . . . For Now

B5 J. Michael Straczynski has been hinting for some time that there was a Babylon 5 movie in the offing, titled Babylon 5: The Memory of Shadows.

Rumors emerged earlier this year that he was having problems with Warner Brothers over the casting of the movie. Some roles (such as Technomage Galen) were apparently under pressure to be cast with different (and more popular) actors.

Now JMS tells us that the movie deal is off . . . for now. And that he can’t use the script he wrote for it should a movie deal be revived with someone else. (Makes me glad that he, apparently, didn’t tell the story of the Telepath Crisis–as I was hoping–in this script).

JMS writes:

The rule of thumb in Hollywood is that for every thousand scripts that get written, only a few dozen get into development, and out of those, only one will ever get made…if that.

A little over a year ago, I was approached by a company that wanted to make a Babylon 5 movie. They optioned the rights, and commissioned a script. (It’s worth mentioning that I, not WB, own the rights to a B5 movie. When we were negotiating the original B5 deal — by whose terms I will never see a dime in profit — the one thing they did let me have were the movie rights, figuring they’d never be worth anything in the long run.)

Anyway…on December 27th of 2003, the script for "The Memory of Shadows" was turned in, and the process began of trying to make the deal work with all the various forces involved. It is, to say the least, a very difficult process on any movie where the studio does not directly take the financial reins. In terms of B5, Warner’s position was esssentially, "We only do big-budget movies with big names, so you’re on your own." If there were big-name movie actors in the film, they’d get behind it; without that, things become very problematic, especially as far as the financing was concerned. You much have to put together a consortium of international interests and business plans rivaled in complexity only by the Allied invasion of Normandy Beach.

Nonetheless, every attempt was made by the people involved to get this deal in place. This was not being done by Doug or myself, but rather by the company/individuals who approached us and optioned the rights. At times, it seemed we were inches away from a deal…stages were reserved at Elstree, actors were contacted, a director was in place, the script went through many revisions, a few key staff were hired, again not by me…it was really a year-long roller coaster ride. During that time, the people involved, with every good intention, tried very hard to pull the necessary pieces together on the deal. The option expired in late December 2004, but I renewed it without cost, to give those involved more time to try and make things work.

In the end, however, the deal could be put together, and it did not look as if that was going to change at any point in the foreseeable future. So the option has reverted, and to all intents and purposes, the project has dead ended. Nor do I think this particular incarnation will arise again at any point in the future, though prognostication has always been a tricky art, especially if you have to do it without the benefit of hindsight.

This was not the first time someone’s taken a run at a B5 feature film, and it will not be the last. Eventually it will happen, because such things are simply inevitable. If they can do a Brady Bunch movie, you can be sure that sooner or later, somebody’s going to do a B5 movie. The only thing I can say without equivocation is that when that day comes, as the rights-holder, I will make darned sure that it’s done right, because I’d rather have no B5 movie than one that doesn’t live up to what fans and I myself would want to see.

To that end…I can wait.

Anyway, just thought you should know the story.

jms

[SOURCE.]

Mel’s Next Film

What do you do for an encore if you’ve made The Passion of the Christ?

I read one interview where Mel Gibson talked about making a film version of the books of Maccabees. (Lotsa blood n’ gut in that saga.)

But now a British magazine is reporting that Mel’s next film is slated to be about

THE THIRD SECRET OF FATIMA.

Specifically: It is reported to be an adaption of the novel Stealing from Angels, which came out late last year. The novel is a fictionalized account of a man from New York who gets swept up in European intrigue and comes into contact with the Third Secret and the assassination attempt on John Paul II’s life back in 1981 (presumably the novel is set back then).

In-teresting. Could be a good movie. Mel might still changes his plans, though, (or the report might be wrong) but this sounds like it could be both right up his alley and a commercial success (though not on the same level as TPOTC).

GET THE STORY. (Cowboy hat tip to the reader who sent this.)

Want spoilers for the movie?

GET THE BOOK. (Caveat emptor: I haven’t read it.)

Mel's Next Film

What do you do for an encore if you’ve made The Passion of the Christ?

I read one interview where Mel Gibson talked about making a film version of the books of Maccabees. (Lotsa blood n’ gut in that saga.)

But now a British magazine is reporting that Mel’s next film is slated to be about

THE THIRD SECRET OF FATIMA.

Specifically: It is reported to be an adaption of the novel Stealing from Angels, which came out late last year. The novel is a fictionalized account of a man from New York who gets swept up in European intrigue and comes into contact with the Third Secret and the assassination attempt on John Paul II’s life back in 1981 (presumably the novel is set back then).

In-teresting. Could be a good movie. Mel might still changes his plans, though, (or the report might be wrong) but this sounds like it could be both right up his alley and a commercial success (though not on the same level as TPOTC).

GET THE STORY. (Cowboy hat tip to the reader who sent this.)

Want spoilers for the movie?

GET THE BOOK. (Caveat emptor: I haven’t read it.)

Masonry Book Recommend

A reader writes:

Thanks for all you do, God is smiling on you! Since Relevant Radio has move C.A. spot to 2pm I rarely get a change to hear your wisdom any more. I caught a bit last week, a listener asked about free masonry and you refer him to a book by Fr. Whelan at Ignatius, I think! I went to the Ignatius web sight and can not find it. Did I remember the information incorrectly? I appreciate any response.

The book was CHRISTIANITY AND AMERICAN FREEMASONRY by William Whalen.

Given the sensationalistic nature of most books on Freemasonry, this is the only one out there that I can recommend at present.

Book (Etc.) Recommends

A piece back a reader wrote to suggest that I do a permapost on book recommendations drawing together the various recommends I’ve made from time to time (a la what I do with Lent questions in Annual Lent Fight). I’ve decided to do so, so here goes.

(I’m not sure if I’ve got all the recommends, so if anybody finds ones that I’ve missed in the archives, e-mail me. Thanks!)

This list will become more organized over time.

So Now We ALL Know!

. . . Or at least all of us who want to know.

Here’s the explanation for why Klingons in the 23rd century were human-appearing, while those before and after are forehead-ridgers.

The episode of Star Trek: Enterprise that establishes the on-screen explanation should have aired in everyone’s town by now, but lest anyone not want to know, I’ll put the spoilers in white-on-white, so you have to select the text (by swiping it or hitting Ctrl-A) to see it.

Here goes:

  • In the late 20th century, a group of scientists created a "master race" of genetically altered humans, among them Kahn Noonien Singh. This led to the Eugenics Wars on Earth in the 1990s.
  • In the 22nd century, scientific genius Arik Soong (played by Brent Spiner) incubated and birthed a number of embryos from this time. These embryos, because of their augmented DNA, were known as "augments." They had the increased intelligence and aggression of the key players in the Eugenics Wars.
  • When Arik Soong unleashed several augments in the 22nd century, the Klingons perceived it as a threat.
  • Subseuquently, when several augmented embryos fell into their hands, they exploited their DNA to create Klingon augments to compete with human augments.
  • One Klingon augment had a virus that combined with the human augment DNA.
  • This virus spread to other Klingons, making them not only have augmented abilities but also to appear more human.
  • By the 23rd century (the time of Star Trek: The Original Series), this virus had spread throughout the Klingon race.
  • By the 24th century (the time of Star Trek: The Next Generation), this virus had been cured, making Klingons of that era profoundly uncomfortable in discussing why their appearance had temporarily temporarily lurched human-ward a over hundred years before.

So there!

That explains:

  1. Why the difference existed.
  2. Why characters in Enterprise’s time had the forehead-ridge appearance.
  3. Why characters in the TOS period had the human-looking appearance.
  4. Why characters from the beginning of the movies onward were back to the forehead-ridge appearance.
  5. Why characters introduced as human-looking in TOS were forehead-ridgers later on.
  6. Why it seemed to affect the whole race.
  7. Why Klingons were embarrassed to talk about all this with outsiders, and:
  8. Why the human-lookers were so . . . human . . . looking.

CHECK YOUR LOCAL LISTINGS

for this week’s episode, which spells it out in more detail.

"The Moral Question"

Recently I posted on the legal aspects of copying music and several asked me to go into more detail about the moral aspects of doing so.

Live to serve. Here goes:

  1. Private property is not an absolute right. According to the teaching of the Church, the goods of the earth have been given as a common gift to mankind. As a result, no individual has an absolute right to any particular piece of property (CCC 2403).
  2. Theft is thus defined not as "usurping another’s property" but as "usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner." The Catechism then notes: "There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods" (CCC 2408).
  3. The orderly functioning of society requires us to have laws to regulate the flow of goods and services, and the State is the entity charged by God (Rom. 13) to oversee such matters. Therefore, "Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good" (CCC 2406).
  4. One must presume that the entities charged by God with performing a task are performing it correctly unless the contrary is shown. Therefore, one needs to give the laws of the state regarding the regulation of private property the benefit of the doubt.
  5. If you can show that, in a particular case, these laws are contrary to the common good and that the costs of violating them (to oneself and others) are less than the benefits of doing so then one can, in principle, deviate from them (in which case one bears one’s punishment if one is caught).

Now let’s apply this to copying music. There are two aspects that need to be covered (a) copying music where it is not permitted by the civil law and (b) refusing to copy music when it is permitted.

In regard to the first:

  • Artists have a moral right to be rewarded for their efforts in creating works of music to entertain and edify us. So do the record company employees that invest in and promote artists in hoping of earning a living.
  • It must be presumed until the contrary is proven that the civil law adequately expresses these rights.
  • To show that in a particular case it is morally licit to make uncompensated copies of a song one will have to show that in that particular case the requirements of the civil law are contrary to reason and the common good required by the universal destination of goods. This is going to be much harder to do than in the typical example of a starving man needing food that he has no money to pay for.
  • In particular: It means showing that there is some reason why you need that song right now and you can’t pay the 88 cents needed to download it from Wal-Mart or another service. (Wanting to make a mix disk for your friend isn’t a good reason since you can pay for the burns you need to make of individual songs and then give the resulting disk to your friend.)
  • In the old days it may have been easier to show such things, but today, with all the ways we have available to us to get music in a way that compensates the artist and record company, it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so.
  • The only way I can see to argue for widespread uncompensated downloading would be to argue that copyright law is fundamentally contrary to the common good, which seems plainly incorrect (and contrary to the Bible’s teaching that artists need to be compensated for their labor; as in "the worker is worth his wages"). Also, if there were no copyright laws then fewer artistic works would be produced because there would be no profit in them, so such laws seem to foster the common good.
  • While one could argue something other than copyright as a way of ensuring compensation for artists, such systems are hypothetical. Copyright is what our society is using now to compensate artists.
  • The general damage done to society by widespread disregard for the law and the scandal done if others are aware of your covert variance of the law also must be factored into the above decisions.

Now for refusing to exercise all of the copying options that the civil law affords:

  • Again, the provisions of civil law enjoy the benefit of the doubt.
  • Therefore, if civil law judges a particular act of copying as licit, it should be presumed to be morally licit as well.
  • Thus if the civil law allows for the copying of a broadcast piece of music then it is to be presumed to be licit until the contrary is shown.
  • If one wants to argue against this, one could argue to the particular case or in general.
  • The only way I can see to argue against it in the particular (i.e., it is wrong to copy this particular piece of music when the law says you can) would be if doing so would gravely harm the artist (i.e., he really badly needs the two cents he would make off the copy if you bought it) or if the song itself will have bad effects on someone else (e.g., it’s going to tempt you to sin).
  • Arguing against taking advantage of copyright law’s fair use provisions in general also seems problematic. First, fair use provisions exist in order to protect the common destination of goods that the Church teaches to exist.
  • Second, many of the cases of fair use copying are actually compensated indirectly, removing the need for direct compensation. For example, if you’re copying a song from a broadcast service then the service from which you are copying it is compensating the artist and record company. The service then expects to make its money back from its audience either directly (e.g., by subscriptions, as with cable or sattelite radio) or indirectly (e.g., by advertising, as with broadcast TV and radio). The value added premium on blank recording media also contributes to this (Cowboy hat tip to the reader who provided the link in the comments box on the original post!).
  • Thus the money to sustain the system still flows from the audience to the service to the record company to the artist, it’s just handled differently. If it weren’t the players in the system would stop performing their function in it. If it weren’t profitable for them, they’d go out of business or find another line of work.
  • Third, and related to the former, the artists and record companies that have bought into the system have chosen to do so. Sure, they might like to make more money, but the fact is that they have chosen to do business under the conditions afforded by the civil law. If they don’t like that law, they can lobby to change it, but their decision to do business under the terms of civil law establishes a presumption that, while they may not like all provisions of civil law, they feel it better to do business under these terms than otherwise.
  • It is true that the Church recognizes that the consent of the worker is not a sufficient condition for the moral licitness of an arrangement, but this does not mean that the consent of the worker is not relevant to the moral licitness of the arrangement. The Church’s teaching on this point is meant to protect workers who are impoverished and virtually enslaved to their employers. It is not directed to multi-millionaire recording artists or multi-billionnaire record companies. When they consent to an arrangement, it is because they feel it is profitable for them to do so, not because they will starve if they choose to make money another way.
  • I thus see no problem in relying on the civil law’s provisions for fair use copying as a general matter.

“The Moral Question”

Recently I posted on the legal aspects of copying music and several asked me to go into more detail about the moral aspects of doing so.

Live to serve. Here goes:

  1. Private property is not an absolute right. According to the teaching of the Church, the goods of the earth have been given as a common gift to mankind. As a result, no individual has an absolute right to any particular piece of property (CCC 2403).
  2. Theft is thus defined not as "usurping another’s property" but as "usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner." The Catechism then notes: "There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods" (CCC 2408).
  3. The orderly functioning of society requires us to have laws to regulate the flow of goods and services, and the State is the entity charged by God (Rom. 13) to oversee such matters. Therefore, "Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good" (CCC 2406).
  4. One must presume that the entities charged by God with performing a task are performing it correctly unless the contrary is shown. Therefore, one needs to give the laws of the state regarding the regulation of private property the benefit of the doubt.
  5. If you can show that, in a particular case, these laws are contrary to the common good and that the costs of violating them (to oneself and others) are less than the benefits of doing so then one can, in principle, deviate from them (in which case one bears one’s punishment if one is caught).

Now let’s apply this to copying music. There are two aspects that need to be covered (a) copying music where it is not permitted by the civil law and (b) refusing to copy music when it is permitted.

In regard to the first:

  • Artists have a moral right to be rewarded for their efforts in creating works of music to entertain and edify us. So do the record company employees that invest in and promote artists in hoping of earning a living.
  • It must be presumed until the contrary is proven that the civil law adequately expresses these rights.
  • To show that in a particular case it is morally licit to make uncompensated copies of a song one will have to show that in that particular case the requirements of the civil law are contrary to reason and the common good required by the universal destination of goods. This is going to be much harder to do than in the typical example of a starving man needing food that he has no money to pay for.
  • In particular: It means showing that there is some reason why you need that song right now and you can’t pay the 88 cents needed to download it from Wal-Mart or another service. (Wanting to make a mix disk for your friend isn’t a good reason since you can pay for the burns you need to make of individual songs and then give the resulting disk to your friend.)
  • In the old days it may have been easier to show such things, but today, with all the ways we have available to us to get music in a way that compensates the artist and record company, it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so.
  • The only way I can see to argue for widespread uncompensated downloading would be to argue that copyright law is fundamentally contrary to the common good, which seems plainly incorrect (and contrary to the Bible’s teaching that artists need to be compensated for their labor; as in "the worker is worth his wages"). Also, if there were no copyright laws then fewer artistic works would be produced because there would be no profit in them, so such laws seem to foster the common good.
  • While one could argue something other than copyright as a way of ensuring compensation for artists, such systems are hypothetical. Copyright is what our society is using now to compensate artists.
  • The general damage done to society by widespread disregard for the law and the scandal done if others are aware of your covert variance of the law also must be factored into the above decisions.

Now for refusing to exercise all of the copying options that the civil law affords:

  • Again, the provisions of civil law enjoy the benefit of the doubt.
  • Therefore, if civil law judges a particular act of copying as licit, it should be presumed to be morally licit as well.
  • Thus if the civil law allows for the copying of a broadcast piece of music then it is to be presumed to be licit until the contrary is shown.
  • If one wants to argue against this, one could argue to the particular case or in general.
  • The only way I can see to argue against it in the particular (i.e., it is wrong to copy this particular piece of music when the law says you can) would be if doing so would gravely harm the artist (i.e., he really badly needs the two cents he would make off the copy if you bought it) or if the song itself will have bad effects on someone else (e.g., it’s going to tempt you to sin).
  • Arguing against taking advantage of copyright law’s fair use provisions in general also seems problematic. First, fair use provisions exist in order to protect the common destination of goods that the Church teaches to exist.
  • Second, many of the cases of fair use copying are actually compensated indirectly, removing the need for direct compensation. For example, if you’re copying a song from a broadcast service then the service from which you are copying it is compensating the artist and record company. The service then expects to make its money back from its audience either directly (e.g., by subscriptions, as with cable or sattelite radio) or indirectly (e.g., by advertising, as with broadcast TV and radio). The value added premium on blank recording media also contributes to this (Cowboy hat tip to the reader who provided the link in the comments box on the original post!).
  • Thus the money to sustain the system still flows from the audience to the service to the record company to the artist, it’s just handled differently. If it weren’t the players in the system would stop performing their function in it. If it weren’t profitable for them, they’d go out of business or find another line of work.
  • Third, and related to the former, the artists and record companies that have bought into the system have chosen to do so. Sure, they might like to make more money, but the fact is that they have chosen to do business under the conditions afforded by the civil law. If they don’t like that law, they can lobby to change it, but their decision to do business under the terms of civil law establishes a presumption that, while they may not like all provisions of civil law, they feel it better to do business under these terms than otherwise.
  • It is true that the Church recognizes that the consent of the worker is not a sufficient condition for the moral licitness of an arrangement, but this does not mean that the consent of the worker is not relevant to the moral licitness of the arrangement. The Church’s teaching on this point is meant to protect workers who are impoverished and virtually enslaved to their employers. It is not directed to multi-millionaire recording artists or multi-billionnaire record companies. When they consent to an arrangement, it is because they feel it is profitable for them to do so, not because they will starve if they choose to make money another way.
  • I thus see no problem in relying on the civil law’s provisions for fair use copying as a general matter.