My most recent favorite would have to be Rick Jackson by Banadin. OTT, but tempered with humor and just enough believability to make the whole series very enjoyable.
My most recent favorite would have to be Rick Jackson by Banadin. OTT, but tempered with humor and just enough believability to make the whole series very enjoyable.
There are so many on SOL that it's difficult to choose, but I have to agree that the tongue-in-cheek nature makes Rick Jackson a very strong candidate.
AJ
I'm a big fan of Mike Stewart from The Defenceman series by Cold Creek.
He goes from never having played organized hockey to one of the best college players in the country in less than a year while simultaneously becoming a model and a better martial artist than anyone in the British special forces.
Please forgive my ignorance, but as I'm not a writer, can you explain the "Mary Sue" reference in the thread title? Thanks.
can you explain the "Mary Sue" reference in the thread title?
From Wikipedia.org:
A Mary Sue is an idealized and seemingly perfect fictional character, a young or high-rank person who saves the day through unrealistic abilities. Often this character is recognized as an author insert or wish-fulfillment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue
A Mary Sue is an idealized and seemingly perfect fictional character, a young or high-rank person who saves the day through unrealistic abilities. Often this character is recognized as an author insert or wish-fulfillment.[1] Sometimes the name is reserved only for women, and male Sues are called "Gary Stus," or "Marty Stus"; but more often the name is used for all sexes.
Great, then mine would have to be Chuck Johnson of Dual Writers "Florida Friends" series. He goes from a disabled vet to a US Deputy Marshal, to having a psychic power, to being a billionaire with tons of women. Can't really beat that. LOL
Chuck Johnson of Dual Writers "Florida Friends"
I like the way that the women are really the ones pushing for more women and seem to always win that battle. Sure he wins but who is actually running the household and making major household decisions. Most harems the men seem to be in total control. I love those types where the control is turned around especially where its not obvious.
Stupid Boy. Incredible football player, model, movie actor and so many girls you need the cast list to keep track of all of them.
This topic is a potential minefield.
'Mary Sue' is a derogatory term, normally associated with novice writers.
I expect some authors to be mightily peeved if their characters get named and shamed here.
AJ
That is why I mentioned how in DW's series the MC shows two different personalities. They are shown as being in control yet also shown as being controlled by the other circumstances. Chuck Johnson is a prime example in control but lost that control in the very first story before he became the Deputy Marshal among other work titles. I can only imagine how much skill and understanding it takes to make both personality traits to come across so well in any story.
authors to be mightily peeved
If your character fits the description, you created them. Seems like a high percentage of the MCs in SOL stories meet or come close to meeting the definition.
A lot of people may look on the term as derogatory. I think of it as close to the epitome of wish fulfillment. Wouldn't we all like to be like those ideal characters to at least some extent.
I expect some authors to be mightily peeved if their characters get named and shamed here.
Technically and under the definition, the main character of my story is sort of a Mary Sue. But since I'm writing a fan fiction based upon a video game ... isn't that sort of expected? I'm certainly not peeved or shamed by it, and I'm not doing it for wish fulfillment of my own, any more than any other RPG player does. All I started doing was writing a play through of the game - with some variations based on a history of a previous game.
Heck, just about ANY story where the main character has unusual abilities would qualify, then.
Here's a famous one - Sherlock Holmes. Tell me that his powers of observation, combined with his scientific skills, don't mean he's a "Mary Sue". How about James Bond? Or Alex Cross? Maybe Belisarius in the Eric Flint / David Drake novels?
Here's the first line of the story description of one of my favorite stories on here - "A teenage boy's life goes from awful to all-powerful in exponential steps, when he learns how to use déjà vu to merge his minds across multiple parallel dimensions. "
It's sort of like any other trope or stereotype - there's a reason WHY the stereotype exists. That people try to minimalize others by applying the stereotype or trope is simply human nature. You can SAY that the main character is ONLY a Mary Sue, but if it's a good story, who gives a damn?
There are many other possibilities as well. Among them is that sometimes the MC makes us want to be a better person. Other reasons are also valid. The reason they are stereotyped is they work for many reasons and not all of those reasons are obvious.
Here's a famous one - Sherlock Holmes. Tell me that his powers of observation, combined with his scientific skills, don't mean he's a "Mary Sue". How about James Bond? Or Alex Cross? Maybe Belisarius in the Eric Flint / David Drake novels?
Sherlock Holmes - definitely. The stories don't contain enough information for readers to solve the crimes.
James Bond - definitely. By the ten year rule (it takes ten years of dedicated training/experience to become an expert in any field), James Bond should be well over 100 years old.
Alex Cross - I don't think so. He bumbles along, making mistakes. His only superpower is to have incredible luck when it comes to the showdown with the bad guy.
I've never read any Belisarius stories so I'm not qualified to hold an opinion.
AJ
'Mary Sue' is a derogatory term, normally associated with novice writers.
Pfft! We are novice writers. Don't take it too seriously.
But yeah, I'd have to go with Stupid Boy as well. Top Football player in the country, model, actor, harem-builder, and all before he learns to drive!
I'd think, for most stories, if there wasn't a touch of Mary Sue in the story's main character the author wouldn't have enough interest in the story to write it.
I'd think, for most stories, if there wasn't a touch of Mary Sue in the story's main character the author wouldn't have enough interest in the story to write it.
I think that's true to some extent. Authors tend to write what they know, and the US need for a feelgood factor requires something out of the ordinary from the protagonist.
IMO, some beginners go way over the top. They keep on giving their protagonist more and more superpowers and eventually they become just another superpower that the protagonist never actually uses. In that respect they're somewhat similar to harem stories where the latest wife starts out with a life and a personality, then as soon as she's inducted into the harem, she becomes an identikit member, devoid of a life or separate personality, and rarely mentioned in the story.
AJ
Authors tend to write what they know, and the US need for a feelgood factor requires something out of the ordinary from the protagonist.
OH!
So, you are saying that Authors other than US Authors don't need that feel-good factor from their protagonists.
So, you are saying that Authors other than US Authors don't need that feel-good factor from their protagonists.
'Need' is the operative word. There are many examples of films having their endings changed to meet to feelgood needs of US audiences. I don't imagine there's much of a US market for Scandi-noir.
AJ
'Need' is the operative word
Ah, it appeared that you were saying something else.
Just to make sure I understand what you are actually saying: your explanation leaves me with the impression that the people who make films and write stories pander to what they think of as a US need by giving Americans the ending that they think we want.
Edited to add: P.S. Awnlee, I have a very long-handled shovel if you want to borrow it. :)
the people who make films and write stories pander to what they think of as a US need by giving Americans the ending that they think we want.
No, the ending that US audience research tells them they want.
Read an article not too long ago about how film companies shoot several different endings then get test audiences to rate them. Europeans provide a mixed response; some prefer the book's original ending, others prefer it to be sugar-coated. US audiences invariably prefer the sugar-coating.
AJ
get test audiences to rate them
Yeah, that is pandering to your audience's preference rather than relying on and using the actual ending that the author wrote.
Have I jerked your chain enough? :)
It's true. Happy readers/audiences are more profitable.
My chain is unyanked.
Also a "happier ending" to a movie means that the MC and most of the key supporting characters are probably still around and viable. Which means sequels are an option, and as an already established IP entity, it means the sequel machine can be spun up and they can potentially start churning out a bajillion more derivative stories under the same banner. See also: Fast and the Furious.
They discovered marketing sequels is cheaper than marketing a new property/franchise, particularly when you start trying to localize/translate that marketing for foreign markets. Further, factor in the aversion production studios have towards risky ventures, and sequels look even more appealing on popular titles because they're more inclined to expect a "guaranteed audience" who is likely to want to watch it.
I'd think, for most stories, if there wasn't a touch of Mary Sue in the story's main character the author wouldn't have enough interest in the story to write it.
First, a good author can make anything work -- including a Mary Sue.
Second, there are couple of ways people use that term. For some, it's possible to have a "good" Mary Sue character -- one that has challenges, limitations, or has to work hard to gain those extra abilities. An interesting character, but one (that ends up as) greater than the average Sue.
The second way is always pejorative -- so if a character works well despite extra talents or abilities, she is, ipso facto, not a Mary Sue.
Of course Rick Jackson is a Mary Sue. I don't give him any super abilities and I make him work for his skills, but he still is a Mary Sue. I try to make any single incident possible, but the sum total is impossible. Heck anything past two incidents is improbable. This is not great lit for the ages, it is me having fun at the keyboard. Psst if anyone takes all this serious I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to show you, I need a quick cash infusion as my wife is going shopping this afternoon.
Ban
This is not great lit for the ages, it is me having fun at the keyboard.
And, thanks to the tongue-in-cheek approach, you pull it off brilliantly. Thank you.
AJ
And, thanks to the tongue-in-cheek approach, you pull it off brilliantly. Thank you.
Ditto!
James Thurber's "Walter Mitty" longed to be a Mary Sue. I think there's a little Walter Mitty in all of us. Pocketa-pocketa-pocketa. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1939/03/18/the-secret-life-of-walter-james-thurber
James Thurber's "Walter Mitty" longed to be a Mary Sue. I think there's a little Walter Mitty in all of us.
Since the term 'Mary Sue' actually comes from the early 1970's, I think we could actually say that Walter Mitty not only predated Mary Sue by several decades, but that technically it should be a Walter Mitty, not a Mary Sue.
Walter Mitty, not a Mary Sue.
I would say not. Thurber's Mitty was a daydreamer. The Mary Sue the trope is named after was an OTT character in a satirical Star Trek fan fiction. Mary Sue always saved the day while Mitty never prevailed in his daydreams and was something of a tragic character. I do not see Walter Mitty as a Mary Sue type at all, although he wanted to be the hero.
In his dreams he was the hero, even if they never happened. It's simply a one-step removed, because wasn't it said before that a Mary Sue can be wish-fulfillment for the writer? So Thurber was writing about Mitty and HIS dreams.
Just did a quick re-read of the story to refresh my memory. Basically it's a whole lot of yellow incomplete and inactive thoughts - the man is trying to escape from the doldrums of his life, imagining himself in all sorts of adventures because his real life is boring. He doesn't have to see them to conclusion, but simply being larger than life in those dreams makes him a Mary Sue.
pocketa-pocketa-pocketa :)
Sorry to interrupt you all - but what is "happy end"?
We have learned from old Greek tradition that tragedy is very important, they have written a lot of them.Romans have them too, mythology of (almost) all our ancestors is full of tragedy.
Tragedy is teaching us something very important - so why you americans are constantly sticking your heads in the sand?
Tragedy is teaching us something very important - so why you americans are constantly sticking your heads in the sand?
Tragedy was Patton being killed (or assassinated, your choice) shortly after the surrender of Germany. The REST of his life was the American ethos - we love a winner. Plus we have Lou Gehrig for tragedy - a hero cut down in the prime of his life and career by a disease.
Thus the happy ending - the boy gets the girl, the cowboy rides off into the sunset (or at least until you get into the argument of whether or not Shane was fatally wounded and died on his horse), the cavalry rides to the rescue - all that sort of stuff. Just part of our culture.
Just part of our culture.
Culture?
You are calling this culture?
Sory, this is pure and simple sticking your heads in sand.
Even such evil mind as Beria didn't done this to our ancestors, as you alone and your Holly-wood teams are doing to your self (btw. - what is holly there?)
what is holly there?
Apparently it is a growth somewhere in southern California that produces films that are considered by many to be entertaining and have a major financial impact on many countries economy and people.
Welcome to those of us who do not agree that these films are entertaining.
Thank you.
You don't know how good is to see somebody with healthy outlook.
Reading this toppic I was starting to think that I went thru rabbit hole :D
Welcome to those of us who do not agree that these films are entertaining.
I wouldn't say they weren't entertaining, but feeding audiences sappy endings stifles thought rather than provokes it.
AJ
say they weren't entertaining
You may consider foul language and conduct that presents a poor role model for people too young to differentiate between conduct in the real world and what they see in a movie to be entertaining, but I don't.
Do you really consider the plot and characters presented in most of today's movies to be though provoking. Look at today's listing of the top movies and tell me which one's you consider to be thought provoking.
Perhaps Beauty and the Beast? It did stir up a great deal of controversy regarding whether two male characters were engaged in homosexual activities.
Do you really consider the plot and characters presented in most of today's movies to be though provoking.
No, that's the opposite of what I said - sappy endings stifle thought.
It seems the term I should have been looking for is 'alternate ending'. Various such sites list a number of films which had their endings changed to appease American sensibilities. Some have even been released with different endings in the US versus the rest of the world.
AJ
sappy endings stifle thought.
I have to disagree, that a bleak/tragic ending is necessarily any more thought provoking than a sappy ending.
We pay money to go to movies to be entertained. We don't pay money to go to movies to be preached at.
With a few exceptions (mostly known for pushing the boundaries of current special effects) preachy movies tend not to do particularly well in the US no matter what the ending is like.
Some have even been released with different endings in the US versus the rest of the world.
There have been a few attempts to release Chinese/Hong Kong or European films with bleak endings in the US without changing the endings. They have all been commercial flops.
I have to disagree, that a bleak/tragic ending is necessarily any more thought provoking than a sappy ending.
The most thought provoking actually seem to be the ambiguous endings, like Blade Runner. But I think the double tragedy of Romeo and Juliet and its various clones is more thought provoking than if both protagonists had lived happily ever after.
AJ
But I think the double tragedy of Romeo and Juliet and its various clones is more thought provoking than if both protagonists had lived happily ever after.
I didn't say that a tragic ending can't be thought provoking, just that a tragic ending isn't automatically thought provoking.
In my opinion, tearjerker tragic endings designed to pull at the audiences heart strings are in general no more thought provoking than sappy happily ever after endings. Strong emotional responses, good or bad, are not conductive to provoking rational thought.
It is also possible to have a positive ending without being sappy or "happily ever after".
It is also possible to have a positive ending without being sappy or "happily ever after".
As an aside, I seem to recall 'Braveheart' and 'Titanic' both having historically inaccurate pregnancies written in to offset their male protagonists dying.
AJ
As an aside, I seem to recall 'Braveheart' and 'Titanic' both having historically inaccurate pregnancies written in to offset their male protagonists dying.
The Patriot had the woman pregnant and then having a baby, I don't recall one from Braveheart. And what would you call a historically inaccurate pregnancy? One that the character didn't have in the book, or one that just violated the societal norms of the time?
Just because our ancestors didn't discuss a lot of their sexual activities as openly as we do now doesn't mean they weren't out rolling in the hay or the back of a Renault, even though it was probably shipped inside a crate.
And what would you call a historically inaccurate pregnancy?
One that didn't happen in the real-life events on which the films were based.
I have to admit I've never watched Braveheart, but I read an article about how history was changed to make for a better story. IRL, the woman became pregnant about three years after the protagonist died.
AJ
I have to admit I've never watched Braveheart, but I read an article about how history was changed to make for a better story. IRL, the woman became pregnant about three years after the protagonist died.
Yeah, forgot about the ending, how the main female was knocked up with Wallace's child, since her husband didn't like women. I'm getting old, memory is the second thing to go, I forget what the first is ...
What's the comment, Braveheart is a film that sacrifices all historical accuracy for an epic adventure? Meh, welcome to screenplays. Heck, after watching it, I'd like to go to Scotland. After watching Lord of the Rings, I'd like to go to New Zealand, too. I don't think I'll find too many hobbits there, though. (Although I work with one - seriously, guy at my work is from New Zealeand.)
And what would you call a historically inaccurate pregnancy? One that the character didn't have in the book
You are overlooking the sequence of events.
The Author writes the book. The Critic reviews it and tells us what is wrong with it, and the movie's Script Writers fix what they see as the book's flaws or just add/modify/delete something to make it better.
Script Writers fix what they see as the book's flaws or just add/modify/delete something to make it better.
Uh, what? What movies do you watch. Script writers almost never "make it better".
Uh, what? What movies do you watch. Script writers almost never "make it better".
In their minds they did, and as long as the producer and director agree they get away with it.
Apparently it is a growth somewhere in southern California that produces films that are considered by many to be entertaining and have a major financial impact on many countries economy and people.
It's a 20th century real estate developer publicity stunt that got way out of hand. On the plus side, at least he didn't his get wish of having it signed as Hollywoodland.
Even such evil mind as Beria didn't done this to our ancestors,
You're talking about NKVD Beria, right? As in, right hand man to Stalin who killed millions of his own countrymen? That's not exactly someone who'd I say was a great role model.
I think you're confusing things. Liberals have their heads in the sand. The rest of us - what I call the adults - don't. And I'm not talking about the entire production of drek that comes from Hollywood, either. A lot of that truly is junk, I agree. Probably about the same as what comes from Bollywood, too.
But there are classics that point out the truth about us, which is that we're generally optimists. It's not that the glass is half full or half empty, it's that we have half a glass.
Keep in mind that I've a different perspective than most. Since you mentioned Beria, I'm going to presume you're Russian. I studied the language in college, the people and culture while in the military (especially since I expected to have to fight against you in Germany for many years). We're all products of our environment, but think about this.
One of the key things that tended to cause more defectors from the KGB to our country was something that we take for granted here - grocery stores. About the only lines you'll see in a store here are people waiting for more rotisserie chicken to come from the oven. Other than that, we are a land of plenty, not a land of rationing. You want fresh fruit year round? Just go buy it - it's not reserved for the leaders or the elites.
Do we still have poor and hungry here? Do we still have some divisions? Sure. But to quote Men at Work, I come from a land of plenty. We've had plenty of tragedy here in real life. Heck, I live near where Tom Joad did. (Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath.) But we don't let our past define us. We'd rather strive to succeed, to be ever better. Which means that while you can rightfully criticize Hollywood for such dreck as Thelma and Louise, you also have to applaud it the Wagon Train to Space, Star Trek.
And if I'm rambling, apologies, it was a long day and I've indulged in several ounces of adult beverage.
Do we still have poor and hungry here?
Out of curiosity, can you explain why so many religious missions and aid organizations have to go out of the US to find poor, hungry, and ill people to help. We certainly have enough here in our borders. Why don't they help our people first?
Out of curiosity, can you explain why so many religious missions and aid organizations have to go out of the US to find poor, hungry, and ill people to help. We certainly have enough here in our borders. Why don't they help our people first?
Because the need is greater elsewhere. Where those missions go, the people would stand in line by droves to live like the poorest of our poor.
Yes, we have people who are undernourished by medical standards, but there are places in the world where people starve to death. I doubt you could find a single case of someone who died of starvation in the US in the last 50 years that wasn't the result of either slow motion suicide (hunger strike) or homicide (forced deprivation(.
I doubt you could find a single case of someone who died of starvation in the US in the last 50 years that wasn't the result of either slow motion suicide (hunger strike) or homicide (forced deprivation(.
How would Karen Carpenter factor into this? She died due to health complications as a result of anorexia, IIRC. Which basically translates into starvation. Except it wasn't a hunger strike/suicide thing, or someone (else) deliberately depriving her of food.
Except it wasn't a hunger strike/suicide thing
Except it kind of is, as she deliberately self denied nutrition.
The point is, she didn't starve because she didn't have access to enough food.
How would Karen Carpenter factor into this? She died due to health complications as a result of anorexia, IIRC. Which basically translates into starvation. Except it wasn't a hunger strike/suicide thing, or someone (else) deliberately depriving her of food.
That happens to lots of people. My mother had Alzheimers, and basically starved to death, because at that time there was not enough of her left to have any reason to force feed her. I was a little upset that the coroner put down as cause of death starvation. While true, the proximate cause was the Alzheimer's. Even if she had been force fed, she would have died soon because of brain deterioration. And I don't want to get into a discussion of whether or not not force feeding here was murder. Wait until you have to make that decision, then we can talk.
Inability to swallow is a common symptom of advanced Alzheimers. As you suggest, there is no good option.
At the risk of introducing controversy, I've heard many people say that we treat animals better than the elderly since we're prepared to give them a quick and painless death to avoid more suffering :(
AJ
Just went through this with my mother at the first of the year and something somewhat similar with my father a few years ago. The only current solution is having a strong living will in place so the dependents, or those with medical power of attorney know what the wishes of the patient are in reference to supportive medical care. When we went through this with my mother she had seen what dad had gone through and she was adamant about no NG feeding, respirator, or invasive life support. When she went into hospice care it was only a matter of days before she passed on. Dad took about a week. So neither passed from starvation.
Personally, I'd rather have the option of assisted suicide if I were terminal or non-responsive, but with the way the laws and politics are in the US are it is very unlikely, mostly because of religious objections and the lobbying power of the major life insurance companies.
with the way the laws and politics are in the US are it is very unlikely,
The laws are changing.
Here in California there is a Right to Die law, which makes it legal for a person to kill themselves. Doctors, friends, and family can help setup the means of killing yourself, but you have to take the action to initiate the process that kills you.
Here in California there is a Right to Die law, which makes it legal for a person to kill themselves.
I can think of a few elected officials in California that should use that law. :)
At least before you totally suicide as a state. It's commonly touted that California has the 7th largest economy in the world - what's not mentioned is that a huge chunk of that is due to hyper-inflated property values. A home that literally anywhere else in the country would sell for maybe $200,000 goes for $2 million, or more.
My wife has relatives there - they've said that no one in California buys a home expecting to pay off the mortgage, they just plan on flipping it in a few years. They want to leave but due to assorted obligations, they're stuck there for a few more years - and while they love the climate, they hate every other bit about living there.
I can think of a few elected officials in California that should use that law. :)
I can think of a few million more politicians we should ship to California from around the world.
Personally, I'd rather have the option of assisted suicide if I were terminal or non-responsive,
What many people fail to consider is the terrible toll an illness like Alzheimers takes on the people who have to care for the victims and resume their lives afterwards.
The callous UK government has recently ratcheted up the cost of Power of Attorneys, an unwanted expense in a time of need :(
AJ
an unwanted expense in a time of need
Sounds like a self-perpetuating prophesy to me.
Man has financial problems that cause him to consider suicide. Government intervenes to stop man from committing suicide. They increase the cost of a Power of Attorney the man wants to put in place to give someone the legal authority to help him. That increases the man's financial problems, which in turn, pushes the man toward suicide.
the cost of Power of Attorneys
Um, they're anywhere from free to around $200 here, depending upon how much legalese you need. What are they there?
Weirdly, I can't find a definitive price, but a carer's support group claims anything from £220 to over £1000, depending on how much legalese is needed. If anyone here has been through the process in the UK, perhaps they could supply a better answer.
The old system came in about half that.
AJ
My wife and I had a Living Will drawn up by (a well-known Internet organization), and they charged us several hundred dollars for their service. It was one of those Boilerplate Living Wills. You go through their Q&A form and they send you a completed will. The Boilerplate will that we received did not conform to the intent that we specified in completing their questionnaire.
When we questioned the content of their will, our point of contact made it clear that the company's representatives were not allowed to give ANY legal advice or opinion. DAH, that was part of the service we were paying them to provide. The Contact then proceeded to tell us the type of will we were preparing (there were several options), explain the legalities of that type of will, and what we could and could not do in terms of disposing of our possessions.
The service also included a very short telephone consultation with one of their licensed attorneys. The attorney said our Contact was wrong about the type of will we were preparing and wrong about many of the things the contact said. Evidently, the company gives their representatives some training on the products they sell, but not enough to know to provide the information the customer needs. We completed the will according to the directions of the Attorney.
So beware of what you purchase. You may not get what you pay for.
We completed the will according to the directions of the Attorney.
So beware of what you purchase. You may not get what you pay for.
I definitely agree with that second paragraph. As for the first I have had to deal with attorneys, lawyers, solicitors in various countries and have a very very prejudiced view of the majority.
There are one or two I would trust - lawyers who admitted they didn't know the answer to some knotty problem and asked (even if it embarrassed them) and those where I have not had to query something they did.
I agree; don't trust the internet / mail order outfits - they are there for the money (like most of us) and often employ people of lesser competence.
Wills are outside my area of competence but reading legalese I can do. When my wife and I went to highly recommended lawyers to rewrite our wills we were passed over to a fully qualified solicitor and promised perfection! On top of that we were promised that a senior partner would read any document before it was sent to us.
The stupid cow got names of beneficiaries and amounts wrong despite my having drafted a document - it went back NINE bloody times for correction of gross stupidities - AND the girl was said to be qualified. If I hadn't spent twenty years of training and writing legal documents my wife and I would have been fobbed off with inaccurate rubbish.
Write down EXACTLY what you want clearly and legibly. Include any questions, any problems you want to avoid, any rumours or old wives tales you have heard and read the final document five times slowly. Go back to your original list of queries, old wives tales etc. and get the lawyer to show the answers, and think about what they say before signing.
For the same reason the UK spends billions on Ethiopian pop groups etc but can't manage to provide proper nutrition to all of its elderly and disabled. It provides a better feelgood factor for the 'liberal' elite :(
AJ
Since you mentioned Beria, I'm going to presume you're Russian.
Thank you but (again) no cigar :)
Now it's not so funny - for me this shows that you also are not reading with understanding, and can't remember two separate posts on this forum :(
For Beria - I mentioned his name to show you that "Marketing" is not concentrated only in in US/western Europe capitalism or some kind of "SS land" like Germany was before and during WWII.
I could put there Mao Tse Tung (Mao ZeDong for you) or any of his top comerades, or "most belowed" duo of Goebbels/Himmler, or your countryman Edward Benars, or any of many other "great bullshitters".
And - to put ball on the floor - how many of you americans have failed to see bullshit from one ordinary criminal like Charles Ponzi or any of his successors?
They all were and are poisoning us, making us to stop using "this small gray point between our ears", no matter for ideology they were or are serving for.
We have learned and are remembering even now - do not believe anybody who is trying to sell you some "Brooklyn bridge".
This knowlwdge has great cost for our ancestors and for us, and is going to cost our children even more.
Have you learned this?
Or you like to think that you live in La-La land?
Have you learned this?
Some of us follow the rule: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Thus, those of us who failed to learn from history had to relive it.
Thus, those of us who failed to learn from history had to relive it.
What's the quote?
"Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."
I guess it's a good thing that many Americans and Europeans alike seem to be convinced we're living in something of a post-historical society so most of the conditions that lead to "all those mistakes of the past" no longer apply, and thus don't need to be learned about.
those of us who failed to learn from history had to relive it.
The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
can't remember two separate posts on this forum
No, that presumes I've read every single post on this forum. Which is a no.
And I didn't watch La-La Land, the subject matter of being a self-congratulatory movie didn't appeal to me.
Edward Benars
Who?
As for Ponzi - it's quite simple. PT Barnum was the one who put up the sign, "This way to the egress." What you fail to address is that the common mass of people are just that - the masses. To use a more recent phrase, sheeple.
Mel Brooks said it best in, of course, a movie (one that could not be made today due to the horror of political correctness). "You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know… morons."
As for Ponzi - it's quite simple. PT Barnum was the one who put up the sign, "This way to the egress." What you fail to address is that the common mass of people are just that - the masses. To use a more recent phrase, sheeple.
I think his other famous statement was there is a fool born any moment. Goes along with the statement often attributed to Lincoln about fooling some of the people all of the time.
Tragedy is teaching us something very important - so why you americans are constantly sticking your heads in the sand?
Consequences are for other people.
Some good nominations there so I'll suggest one.
I nominate Peter Moore in The Reset Manifesto. Young kid goes up against Uni professor and wins, goes up against drug dealers, Chiefs of Police, corrupt politicians, thugs and more and comes out smelling of roses, has no technical knowledge but experts reckon he is one of the world's top ten computer hackers ......
I'm undecided about this one. The story is a parable, with everything exaggerated for effect. And I'm not convinced Peter Moore represents self-insertion, although 'nerd makes good' does seem to be a recurring motif in Lazlo's stories.
AJ