Re: Lone Star Lionhearts

[woj@remus.rutgers.edu]

pat - thanks for acting as the medium between the net and the lonestar.
i have just a few comments on ben's original response and kevin's response
to him. i'd appreciate it if you could forward them to kevin. thanks...

(i've cc'd this to love-hounds as well for the hell of it)

-----

kevin--

apologies for not respondng to your original note. i was under a large
amount of work and, well, just didn't have the time to reply. however,
i did want to. and with ben haller's comments and your reply to them, i
figured i'd do it all at once.

this is what you orignally wrote way back when...

>     Unfortunately, it is the "give me something for nothing"
>attitude exhibited by those on the Love-Hounds network (subsidized
>by their employers, for the most part), who would rather pirate
>information and circulate it privately rather than actively support
>the fanzines (i.e. subscribe themselves) that makes it so difficult
>for the established Katezines to remain economically viable.

>   --Kevin Hendryx

you seem to have both a case of sour grapes and some valid points. 
allow me to explain. on one hand, you have a point that there is a 
concern regarding copyright with respect to articles that are
reproduced on the net. that is an issue which has been and is still
being wrestled with (though the general consensus is that reproduc-
tion with out consent of the author is a no-no).

however, disseminating information via the net if it is paraphrased
or summarized is not wrong. it is the same as if i were to call up
vickie mapes and tell her about something that i read in a fanzine.
what the net does is act as a much more effective medium for distri-
buting that information. and as long as there is no copyright viola-
tion, there's nothing wrong with it.

honestly, you sound like you are whining in the message above. i can't
help but feel that you want to blame the demise of the 'zines on the
network. that is a silly proposition. the majority of the people on 
the net are not people who would subscribe to the 'zines. sure, some
do (i have a sub to little light and homeground myself), but if the
net was not here, there would not be a large increase in 'zine subs.
most of te people who join love-hounds were unaware that there were
other KaTefans around in the first place. how can you expect that they
would thus be the savior of the hurting 'zines? 

i'll ignore the attack regarding the "subsidized by their employers"
comment (which i do perceive as an attack actually - why should i be
blamed for something that is a service available to me courtesy of my
employment? and in the case of a university student, there is something
called tuition that you have to pay first).

finally, i consider your generalization of love-hounds as a group of
freeloaders and theives (which you imply) to be rather wrong. the people
here are knowledgable, informative, opinionated and worth the time re-
quired to read each digest from love-hounds.

on to ben's comments:
>  Oh, yes, but you people with printing presses are making life very
>difficult for all the scribes who used to copy KaTe news by hand.  Please,
>get with the times.  Electronic distribution is the wave of the future.
>Why not get with it rather than bemoaning the inevitable changes that
>are making your current mode of existance useless and untenable?  

i found ben's reply rather acerbic and confused as well. electronic
dissemination of information may be the wave of the future, but it is
not feasible now (as you implied in your reply to him). i feel that 
electronic distribution is yet another resource to be used. and there
is nothing like the feel of paper in your hands or artwork or the 
feeling of a 'zine in the mail. electronic networks should augment
not replace.

and your reply to him:
>     When the electronic net is able to provide the level of news
>coverage, musical analysis, artwork, and serious discussion provided
>by the better Katezines, only then can their members claim to be the
>"wave of the future."  Too much of the space in the nets is taken up
>with rumors, gossip, flames and ad hominem attacks that would not be
>tolerated in the mainstream press or a serious musicological
>publication (which, by and large, _LSL_ attempts to be, behind our
>breezy facade--we do not take ourselves _that_ seriously, after all). 

okay. here's where i have disagree with you again. love-hounds can not
be compared to any of the 'zines because it is a fundamentally different
beast. love-hounds is first and foremost a *forum for discussion*. i see
the 'zines as a medium for news and discourse. additionally, love-hounds
is *immediate* as opposed to coming out once per month or whatever. cos
of those two major differences, you can not compare the two. love-hounds
serves as a place for people all over the world to discuss KaTe-relaTed
material in practically *real-time*. if you got a group of people to-
gether for a discussion of KaTesTuff, you'd get a good approximation of
what love-hounds is. sure, it serves to disseminate news and info, but
it is also a medium for interaction - something that lonestar can never
hope to be. and as such, you have to deal with the flames and nonsense
just as you would expect arguments in a room of KaTefans.

as for your contention that love-hounds can not hope to be the forum
that lonestar or any of the other 'zines are, i feel that you are again
patently wrong. at the time of the release of _the sensual world_, love-
hounds had figured out that "the sensual world" was a glossed over version
of molly's speech from joyce's novel long before i saw it printed in any
'zine. there have been some incredible essays written about KaTe's songs
here that are on par with the essays that appear in the 'zines. and i have
heard KaTenews here long before the 'zines get printed. like i said, cos
this is a *discussion* before it is a journal, you have to put up with
the foibles and idiosyncracies of realtime human communication. but that
is easy to do. and to not do it would be silly for there is a wealth of
information and news to be garnered here.

>     I am often disturbed by the elitist attitude exhibited by
>certain of the electronic "haves" of the world.  They are too quick to
>regard themselves as creatures apart from and superior to the majority
>of people without the resources or desire to participate.  Many people
>are unable (or find it unnecessary) to invest in expensive
>computer/communications equipment, and those who can have no right
>to force their lifestyles or attitudes on others.

i agree with you here. those of us online have to realize that what we do
have is special and try to encourage it to spread to those of us who are
not online. however, i think that the superioity complex you claim us to
have is stretching it a bit. enthusiastic new netters often have those
characteristics as they are overwhelmed by the amount of information avail-
able here, but in general, i think that you would find us to be reasonable
people with  an understanding that not everyone can have this connectivity.

>     This is especially hypocritical on the part of those who do
>indeed "pirate" their computer time from their school or their place
>of work (a subject you finesse).  

i've already responed to your pirating comments. i suggest that you take
that chip off your shoulder before you fall over.

>     I suspect the authors and publishers of the KB collector's guide
>would hold similar opinions.  People who invest their money in making
>a product available are entitled to a fair return, and disseminating
>information _gratis_ is theft from Godwin and his publishing
>company--they lose sales, and if people can't sell Kate books, we
>cannot complain if, eventually, there are none made available to us.
 
yes, they deserve their rightful due, but again, how many people do you 
think would actually have known of this book or even bought it if they 
did not have love-hounds available to them? i know that this argument is 
really just a smokescreen, but still it needs to be said. 

in summary, i think that you do have some valid points, kevin, but at the
same time, your delivery, attitude and prejudices do them no justice. 
--
rob woiccak (woj)