h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

OK. You asked for it.
A6498895

This was as far as I took it in 'straight' form (the lyrics are in there too, if you need them).

I entertained the idea of doing it as a patchwork of voices as though interviewed, intercutting them to make a biography. I had five people who knew her (and arguably used her) in mind, and they'd be unnamed but tentatively identifiable through research - in the same way that the song hints at real people.

Done that way, I could envisage getting several levels of (maliciously satisfying?) subversion into it :
- everyone in the piece would assert that it wasn't their fault, and damn themselves in the process
- the slants could swivel on it : if fictional, it must be perilously near slander (almost but not quite presenting made-up testimony as the excuses of real, living people). If true, then it must be plagiarism
- it would have a barely-concealed misogyny about it that might offend hootoo's cohort of self-pitying harpies

Then I decided I'd prefer to be a nicer person than that, and dropped the idea.

I always thought of you when I was toying with Edie, though. I think of this as your time, and your kind of scene. I think of you as being thoughtful enough and brave enough to write about it all touchingly, and with a spark of optimism in spite of the darkness. And I imagined that your wistful and whimsical slant would be a far better treatment than my cruel one.

I don't think you were cruel. Possibly a tad judgemental but honest too.
I would like to see the song punctuated more as you had in mind. It has promise. Perhaps from a whimsical slant I would be interested in the men in her life. Not so much their careers but their persona,what made them tick? What were they looking for in life and why did she add something to the time they were together? Did she? Why did they use her? Just because she was beautiful? Did any of them truly love her? Did she in fact truly love any of them? What was she so desperately looking for that she allowed the sex and drugs to take control? Was it all a game? What was she like, really like...apart from beautiful and fragile? The facts are all there for everyone to read but the thing that came across most in the other bio was her Monroe quality on film. Did she have any friends? So many questions.

No it really wasn't my scene. Just born a little too late and still haven't learned how to be that out of control... maybe I should work on it, but suspect I'm too cynical now!
Take care
Boots

I didn't write this stuff intending it to be the actual copy. Well, I don't think so, anyway. It's like a few stretching exercises before you work out, isn't it? That, and trying to find the character.

Did they love her? Not a chance, I would say. They were charmed by her, and proximity made them lust her for her, but she was less than what she appeared to be. There's a moral in that for the telling, of the shallowness of a time (and its people) that pretended profundity, but presenting it sympathetically would be a challenge.

(I think you only fall in love with what you find within, long after this silly attraction phase. The idea of love at first sight is a cruel deception, demeaning the reality)

I don't subscribe to the Monroe comparison either, except in the reaction she provoked in the men around her. In 'Ciao! Manhattan', she is a cut-out figure in two ways. In the 60s B+W shots she is immature and iconic, a stylish and soulless catwalk thing. By the colour 70s ones, her mind is shot away, leaving only a kind of pitiful yearning for fame.

Monroe, I think, yearned to be normal, and loved for what she thought herself to be instead of what others made her.
Sedgwick was exploited and liked it. Once she was discarded, all she knew was crawling back to it.

Keep talking, right? The right telling might well condense out of this.

Keep going, that's good.

I would argue that it is possibly not just the shallowness of a time but of the arts creative bubble. Is Geldoff so different to them?
'Listen to me! I will show you the way!'

Then it was soft focus and 'wow man' now it's angry words and posturing.

Within the shallowness of their worlds I think some truly believe. The hangers on can too, but love to bask in the reflected glow of celebrity and adulation. (The need to be loved)

Still think you're being hard on her.
Monroe was talented and not stupid. She fought her way from the ugly Duckling to become Monroe and by and large her career was a success. Her weakness was men and wanting to be loved and as you say 'live a normal life', when she was surrounded by men who wanted to achieve.

If what you have said about Sedgewick is as I have read, she is not in any way shape or form clever. Does that preclude her from sympathy?
Yes she was exploited but how was she to know it was exploitation given her background?
The puppy that keeps coming back for the whipping because it craves the occasional careless pat, or a morsel of food, and doesn't (unlike the cat) know where else to find it? And has no sense of self and no means or adequacy of learning?

Should one be condemned for a bad draw in the gene pool?

There's a bit of guilt about Geldof. The 60s were pretty much pure hedonism. The next two decades were to be more self-conscious about their vacuity.

There's a world of difference between a need to be loved and a hunger for adulation. Only fools subscribe to the latter, IMO. They make a bad choice, and so they deserve everything they get. It has nothing to do with the gene pool.

I'm judging Edie on the film. I try not to be judgemental, but there's one human trait I can't help but loathe. It's self-pity. I want to shake everyone who succumbs to it. That's why I find it hard to feel sympathy for Edie.

It's also why this story has such power for me, boots. I've only ever seen two things really f*ck someone up. The one was heroin. The other was self-pity.

OK I can buy the last para BUT I disagree that the choice over love or adulation has nothing to do with the gene pool. (in this case)

The girl was fed drugs for breakfast for heaven's sake! B2 was her weetabix.

How can you tell the difference between love and adulation if you have never been shown the former and the gene pool didn't give you the brain to work it out? Maybe she thought that adulation was love.
Pin don't go intellectually snobby on me!

Now had she been born with an intellect then I am entirely in your camp.

But

Imagine, a beautiful face, no love to identify with in her childhood, a craving for something she doesn't even understand, how easy would it be to confuse adulation for love and to get hooked on that as easily as she did on drugs, which as I have said were her breakfast cereal.

60's pure hedonsim? Not from my experience. Lots of angst and insecurity (certainly from the girls) cloaked with a veneer of sophistication that forced/coerced/encouraged sexual promiscuity.
Question. How many of the 60's babes came through it without drug rehabilitation or therapy?

An awakening, yes, but a painful and expensive one. I think the 70's and 80's had the benefit of hindsight to contemplate (and redesign) their vacuity.

Walk a mile as they say!

Boots (the devil's advocat )

I wouldn't dare go Intellectually Snobby on you, boots.

And I'll defer to your view of the 60s, though I know a lot of "60s babes" who didn't need rehab. Mind you, they're Northeners

We can make this work with the two views, though. We can make it a dialogue.

It's a fascinating question, whether or not people really have their life-choices to make for themselves. Soft upbringings don't seem to teach individual responsibility, do they?

Anyway - you coming to the Masquerade later?

I actually believe that soft upbringings are a deterant to individual responsibilities...

Ok that was too glib.

Hard upbringings IMO polarise future perception and make the accepting or denying of responsilbilty relatively simple.
I.E I want to improve my lot ergo I will....
I think this is unjust ergo I will......


Soft upbringings means the person has to (within their given potential...back to the gene pool ) make decisions. The choice is wider, (exposure to more than one view etc) and therefore can be more difficult.
I don't know what it is all about but I belive in.....
I listen to both arguements and feel (today) that X wins the case....
I love shopping in Harvey Nics but I don't think you should wear fur....
I hate poverty in Africa...Oh my gosh are there really people starving in Tooting? Isn't that on the Northern line?

Hard upbringing comes down to survival, whatever hand you got dealt from the gene pool.
Soft upbringing means choices and they have to be guided by the hand you were dealt and the family you were born in to.
I don't think Eddie had a hope. No intellect and no guidance and not even a tenuous hold on love and caring.
I could be very wrong but I don't think so. Just a case of the wrong beautiful body being born into a family and a time she hadn't a hope of contributing to and being drawn and dragged into a world that couldn't offer her a way out.

Wow.
Well, I can accept that in one sense only - that she was (possibly) genetically predisposed to mental illness.
But in the case of someone who isn't mentally ill, I can't buy it. What have you possibly got to lose by stepping out of that world of your own free will? That you're reduced to the lot of the rest of society?
You expect me to feel sympathy with someone who can't deal with that?!?

Anyway. Last ask. You dancing, or what?
(I must be losing my touch or something)

Dancing as in writing? Definitely.

Off to Old Bailey this morning for Jury Service.....Shall I be Pin? or Boots? Or listen to the facts and try and balance the scales!
Tap soon
Boots

You thick or sumt'n?
Dancing as in dancing.
The Masquerade, remember?

I *know* you're writing...

Meanwhile, I just got stood up by a hound

Sorry didn't realise I was being asked to dance

just off to borrow outfit from actress friend who came to my party on Sat as a dominatrix bat! I thought all the boys were going to fall over and snap something!

She shouldn't be allowed out like that!

Sounds perfect.
Now, who's taking you?

You can have Pinniped himself (who has a hangover and some apologising to do).
Or Speak.
Or, if you're feeling exceptionally irresponsible, Roofle or Ilmarinen.

Alberta probably didn't ought to go out on Halloween, on account of having too many undead acquaintances. Plus the gender issue.

Orchid is too distraught...

Now hang on a minute mate, thought I'd go as a free spirit. Can't have the 'lets look after her brigade' cramping my style. On the plus side think Alberta would be a good entrancee, we can always hit the punch ... or punch the hit... and at least I understand teenage angst!

So what are you waiting for?

Hey boots

You signed out a bit quick back there from the Trout thread. I was just playing with the seal being bad-tempered, you know?

No offence my way - hopefully none yours...

Pin

Hey so not signing out phocoid! Engaging young man, engaging! I re-read Trouts first piece and believe he is trying to challenge us. He doesn't want conversation, he wants a story!
One year on and we will all have changed a little, hopefuly for the better, almost certainly for the wiser.
The Mutt has grown up a bit, Pin; not running away just changing the play pen into a slightly more adult arena. Lets explore minds this time rather than destinations.
'Dear god Boots you're only saying this because you have finally given up all your vices and are turning into a boring prig! I would kill for a cigarette!'

Take care off to look at thread.
Boots

Wo boots.
How are you?

Hi Pin
Not bad and you?