-
<font face="georgia"><font color="red">I know there are B5 short stories which were published in various magazines such as the B5 Magazine, Amazing Stories, and maybe other publications. I (and I can't be the only one) have not been able to track all of these down. Is there any chance that these could be collected and published in a single book?</font>
Somebody would just have to make that deal with WB, that's all.
jms
<hr width="75%">
<font color="red">I'm hoping that _Acts of Terror_ will be one of the TZ stories included, since I've been meaning for some time to ask you where I could get hold of a copy of it. (In fact, do you have anything to say about where one could find _Acts of Terror_?)</font>
Just in the original Twilight Zone book.
jms
([email protected])
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)</font>
-
<font face="georgia"><font color="red">My buddy thinks he saw you at Golden Age today (Wed). Did he?</font>
Yup. I went in to pick up some copies of the Midnight Nation graphic novel, which hit stores that day, and they asked me to sign what was left.
Read the thing over last night, and I'm really very, very proud of it. I've never previously read it straight through like that. One interesting thing, when I picked up the book, I hadn't known they were goin to omit the front covers in between issues...meaning, usually you hit the end of issue one, there's a cover/title page for issue two, so you know there's a transition. Here, they ran it straight together, with the cover pages as a bonus at the end.
When I saw this, my heart skipped a beat for a second, because I wasn't sure if it would play that way, if the jump from one issue to the next without any kind of warning would look jarring or confusing. So I went through the whole book, page by page, issue by issue, and sonuvagun, it all lines up fine even without the transitional pages. I was actually kind of surprised, because even though they were written as an ongoing series, they weren't *intended* to go up against one another that tightly.
So yeah, I was there, and yeah, I am most pleased.
jms
([email protected])
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
-
Wizz, Thanks for posting all of this stuff. Have a margarita on me wil ya?
-
<font face="georgia"><font color="red">Listening to the narration, this show's theme was to show off all of the new tech that WILL BE USED in the IMPENDING war with Iraq that WILL BE TAKING PLACE SHORTLY!
No qualifiers. No ifs, ands or buts. Much to my surprise, the war has already started.</font>
Of course it has.
Lemme break this down a bit....
First, we've been carrying out an increasing number of air strikes and sorties against Iraqi targets toward the North for over a year. So in that sense, we're already in action.
Second the sheer cost factor in moving a couple hundred thousand troops from here to there is so huge that you can't and don't do that unless you intend to use them. You don't put that much force in place and then not use them.
Bush and company are going in no matter what is or isn't found in Iraq. And they'll go in next month, almost certainly. Because, as noted, this has really little or nothing to do with terrorism; the intent is to redraw the map of the Middle East. Nothing more, nothing less.
The "war" will last maybe a couple of weeks. If that.
The repercussions...those will go on for decades.
As a Brit once said of World War II, "The duration's gonna be a lot longer than the war, mate."
jms
<hr width="75%">
<font color="red">With the closing of DV, what other kind of promotion might you end up doing for this release? Might you do other local book signings, or something like the UCLA Festival of Books or BEA at the end of May? Just wondering, as I know this is a smaller press, so the book won't be as easy to find as some of the big publishers stuff. And, as usual, it's always nice to see you, and promoting your written material is more relaxed then one of your shows.</font>
It's a smaller press, but it's distributed by Simon and Schuster, so my understanding is that it'll be in all the major chains, like Borders and Barnes and Noble and others.
Have literally just signed the thing, so we haven't had a chance to talk PR.
jms
([email protected])
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
-
<font face="georgia"><font color="red">Given Sheridan's knowledge of the future from this episode, how is it that he is unable to put two-and-two together in Season 5 when it is learned that the Centauri are behind the attacks on Alliance ships AND that left-over Shadow technology is involved? How come he was unable to realize that the future he saw 3 years ago was now beginning to take place? Why wasn't a force sent right then and there, to drive away the "dark servants of the shadows" that Londo spoke of in the WWE time-flash?</font>
First and foremost, he had actually very little information to go on; the viewers have more, and that's where it can get confusing as to why he doesn't act upon return. Our knowing isn't the same as his knowing.
That flash took place 20 years down the road. How does that tell him the Shadows are there now, 20 years in the past? They could have come within the last 10 years, for all Sheridan knows. The Cenauri have always been an aggressive race, they were aggressive even before the Shadows, there's no direct tie there. Nor is there any tie in what Londo says to Sheridan and the attacks on Alliance ships in the present, 20 years earlier. He can't connect all the dots because all the dots aren't there.
The notion of the audience having information that the characters don't is key to a lot of Greek tragedy, and that's kind of the mode I was going for here.
jms
<hr width="75%">
<font color="red">Why do most people don't see Saddam as a threat?</font>
There's threats and there's threats. To his own people? Sure, same as any tyrant in any country around the world. To the US? Again, no more than anybody else, and probably less, given that his military is in a shambles, his economy is a mess, there hasn't been one shred of evidence to support the thesis that he can hurt anybody outside his own borders...on and on and on.
<font color="red">He has violated every resolution the UN gave him.</font>
As others have pointed out, the US has violated UN rules, ditto for Israel and any number of other countries. In addition, the US has removed itself from the World Court, broken the Arms Limitation Pact with Russia, has announced it plans to start testing nukes again in violation of the Test Ban Treaty, I could go on and on. Should we invade ourselves?
<font color="red">He is a threat to Israel. </font>
Lots of governments are. So why are we taking on this one? Is that the reason for the invasion? Because he's a threat to Isreal? That hasn't been said by our government. If that were the reason, then we should be invading Palistine, Lebanon, Iran and so on. Why is Iraq being singled out?
<font color="red">He does not like the US government.</font>
I didn't know that was a requirement for not being invaded. Are we therefore free to invade anybody who doesn't like us? Because that would entail most of the world as matters stand right now, which is ironic since after 9/11 a lot of the world was was standing *with* us until we squandered that good will and antagonized countries that would normally be our friends. But again, we're not invading all or any of them, why Iraq?
<font color="red">Yesterday the UN inspectors found 12 chemical warheads in great condition.</font>
No, they found 12 *empty* warheads, that could be used for chemical charges, in a box covered with dust and rat droppings that had been sitting in a corner for god knows how long. Shall we go to war for 12 empty shell casings? Other nations have shell casings, some empty, some full of chemical or biological agents, numbering in the hundreds. Why Iraq and not them?
<font color="red">That's in violation of the new resolution because he was to destroy them or list them on the 12,000-page declaration last month. </font>
There's some debate apparently as to whether or not these were in a previously declared document. Bear in mind also that most of the weaponry, chemical and missile, was sold to Iraq by the US.
<font color="red">He almost once killed an ex-president.</font>
That's been alleged but never substantiated. Nor has a shred of evidence EVER been presented tying Iraq to 9/11. Not one. Powell and Bush both came forth saying that such proof would be forthcoming, but to date not one bit has been supplied. Instead, we have Rumsfeld saying things like "the absence of proof is not the proof of absence." This is the same Rumsfeld who was quoted talking to one of his staff as saying "can we tie this to Saddam?" within hours of 9/11. They were looking for a reason to go after him.
When Kennedy was prepared to go to the wall over Cuba, he declassified high resolution photos of the missile sites under construction in Cuba. The moment he did that, there was no longer any argument over the rightness of the cause. If Bush has the evidence, he should produce it. Instead, he says, as he does in the new Woodward book, that the president doesn't have to prove or explain himself to anybody.
<font color="red">We don't want Saddam to be the next North Korea. </font>
Except, of course, we *do* have North Korea being belligerent, threatening nuclear war, which *does* have nukes or the potential to make them, which *has* been exporting missiles to Yemen...and that seemingly much greater menace is being treated with diplomatic kid-gloves by the Bush administration. Why the double standard? Are they afraid to make trouble because they know that North Korea really *is* a threat, but Iraq *isn't*? If so, then again, I ask, why single out Iraq?
<font color="red">Also note most of the Middle East is ruled by tyrant rulers.</font>
Okay, so do we now invade all of them too? It's also worth noting that most of them don't like Saddam. Further, most of the Moslem leaders aren't big on Saddam because he's kept a secular rule in place despite religious pressure...which makes any thought of an alliance with Bin Laden even more suspect, since he's dead against a secular state.
<font color="red">They considered a threat for having a democracy in Iraq.</font>
This sentence doesn't parse. Try again.
Point is, is it the business of the United States to initiate first-strikes to topple other governments, however much we don't like them, through invasion and warfare? Do we start knocking over governments just because we *can*?
Even the CIA stated that they didn't think Saddam would or could be a menace to the US unless invaded and pressed into a corner. So again, why invade?
Real simple. Because the supply of oil is shrinking, because they control one of the largest supplies of oil on the planet, and Bush and his oil-company buddies want control of that, and the right to re-draw the map of the Middle East in ways they prefer.
And I don't think that's a valid reason for one sovereign nation to go to war with another.
If there were even a single piece of proof that there was any tie between Iraq and 9/11, if there were any direct attack on US soil by Iraq, I'd be right there saying let's get 'em. But there's not.
We abhor the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, intended to disable our military so that we would not be a threat to their interests in the Pacific. They say they gave us plenty of warning, even a letter saying that was that and they were moving. But the act stands as one of the most shameful events in military history.
We should know better than to go down roads trod so often to shameful places by others before us. We should be better than that. We should learn from history.
Saddam is a thug. He deserves to go down, and he will, but it should be through the actions of his own people, not through an invasion and a puppet government.
He's a creep.
But that doesn't make what's happening right.
War should be the last resort of people of conscience, not the first resort.
jms
<hr width="50%">
<font color="red">Those protesters last Saturday were Socialist Anti-Americans. </font>
This will be my last word to you, because as far as I'm concerned, you have just disqualified yourself in this discussion with that remark.
This is the same kind of bullshit red baiting we saw in the McCarthy period. There are those who support the Administration on one side, traitors or spies on the other, nothing in between.
There is such a thing as the loyal opposition. We are *supposed* to be able to dissent, that's how a democracy (or a republic in this case) is supposed to work. If disagreement = being branded a traitor, then we are no longer what we were fighting for in the first place.
Your statement is a disgrace to what the founding fathers intended, and a dishonor to the country. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Mark this as my last reply to you.
jms
<hr width="50%">
<font color="red">I recommend that you study the subject further, if you read the chart on the bottom you can clearly see that the US nuclear force has decreased over the years.</font>
The study you cite was in 1998, talking about where things will be in 1999. So it's WAY out of date.
Also, the Bush administration has stated publicly that it intends to awaken and expand its work on nuclear devices in warfare. The statement included more work on tactical nukes, the development of bunker-buster nukes designed to irradiate areas deep underground, and other niceties. And it may return to a more rigorous schedule of underground nuclear testing.
jms
<hr width="50%">
<font color="red">As a Quaker, I stand completely against war, especially this one. I have to agree with all of your reasons (and pretty much felt the same way even before I read your post).
But, after reading it, I have one question (actually two).
People are showing disapproval of the war by marching on Washington and other cities. There are protests and letters to our representives in congress. However, Bush doesn't seem to care about anyone's opinion but his own.</font>
I don't know if it's that he doesn't care about anyone's opionion but his own, as much as he cares about catering to the extreme right wing of the party. (How else to explain such things as nominating to the Presidential Advisory Commissoin on HIV and AIDS Jerry Thacker, a Pennsylvanian marketing consultant who has characterized aids as "the gay plague" and called such alternate lifestyles "deathstyles" while saying they could be cured by faith and that condoms do nothing to stop the spread of HIV. He's done similar things to commissions on the rights of women and other areas.
(But I digress.)
<font color="red">So -- What are you doing (if anything) to take a stand against the war? </font>
Well, this is part of it. I think that democracy works best when all sides are free to talk openly about their concerns. It's only in open discourse that the truth wriggles free. Raise questions. Pursue the news past the gloss of CNN. Read the USA Patriot Act, don't just go from the synopses.
<font color="red">And do you have suggestions for actions that are not run-of-the-mill that could actually have an effect on whether or not Bush orders an attack on Iraq?</font>
In my opinion, and this is only my opinion, there is nothing that can be done at this point to stop an attack on Iraq. You don't move nearly 200,000 troops halfway around the globe and not use them; it would be a huge loss of face for Bush.
That boat has, literally and metaphorically, left the docks.
What we can do is to remain an informed and quarrelsome electorate, and when the time comes to exercise our rights as citizens to vote, to side with the president if our conscience dictates we do so, based on the evidence, or vote for the opposition, based on the same evidence.
For me, thus far, the truth of this current situation is this: Iraq is a target of opportunity, not a target of conscience. We're hitting there because we can find Iraq on a map, whereas we can't find Bin Laden (of whom Bush & Company haven't uttered a word of late) on any extant maps.
jms
<hr width="75%">
<font color="red">As was Babylon 5, but you planned it for 5 seasons. So, for how many seasons did you plan the arc of Jeremiah?</font>
Five.
jms
<hr width="75%">
<font color="red">As a long-time fan of B5[1], I wish to contribute back to the community in some respect. I wish very much to create a fansite of some kind (the exact details are blurry) and was wondering if it were permissible to use still images from the episodes for discussion and comparison[2].</font>
As far as I know, as long as proper attribution is given (i.e., (c) 1993 Warner Bros) it shouldn't be a problem.
jms
<hr width="75%">
<font color="red">I've wondered for a while, why are directors not attatched to TV shows for seasons or longer runs?</font>
They often are. X-Files and other shows have resident directors who direct as many as half or one-third of the episodes, and work with the outside directors on visual continuity. You can't have one director doing more than that because you have to prep one episode while another is shooting, and that means having at least two directors.
jms
<hr width="75%">
<font color="red">Wow Joe!
Until I saw the eariler posts, I didn't know you went to SDSU. I also did my undergraduate work there, and remember The Daily Aztec quite well. I spent two years in Zura Hall, and one year as an RA in Olmeca. So I take it you probably recall the various staples of the campus such as Monty's Den, and Square Pan Pizza ? I graduated in 1982. B5 and Jeremiah has always bode my deepest respect for your writing and heart felt stories, but this just increased that.</font>
Yeah, I hung out in all those places. (I also worked there during two summers as an orientation counselor, helping new students adjust.) It was a pretty good college, all things considered.
jms
<hr width="75%">
<font color="red">I just read [Tony Kushner's]_Angels in America_ for the first time, and for some reason I
pictured the Angel as a Vorlon!!
[img]smile.gif[/img]
Do you like his work?</font>
Haven't read it.
jms
([email protected])
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
-
<font face="georgia">
<font color="red">What's the current status of the B5/Crusade graphic novel?</font>
It's in need of some spare round tuits....
jms
<hr width="75%">
<font color="red">You "ain't just whistling Dixie." The primary reason I voted against Gore was that I wanted a vacation from the previous 8 years of worrying about my Second Amendment rights.</font>
Too bad they're not being as sancrosanct about the remaining amendments in the Bill of Rights...
jms
<hr width="50%">
Of course, the whole irony of this discussion, in light of recent events -- and when the topic turns to guns the whole thing basically devolves from that point on -- is that the current administration, for the alleged sake of combatting terrorism, has surveyed libraries to find out who's been checking out what (16% of the National Librarian's Association report having been contacted and provided information), who's taken pilot courses, who's taken scuba courses (with one school refusing to turn over its records), but not one inquiry into who's buying what guns, even though guns are more likely to be used in a terrorist attack than library books or scuba gear.
Not advocating anything here, just pointing out the contradiction....
jms
([email protected])
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
-
<font face="georgia"><font color="red">Why are there no new B5-novels? And why there where never any "Crusade"-Books? Why not continue "Crusade" in novels "based on an original outline by J.M.S."?</font>
All that's required is for a publisher to make a deal with WB.
jms
([email protected])
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
-
Hey Wizz (or anyone else),
I've seen a similar reply before, but neither time has he indicated that WB might be interested in that, or what might make them interested, or even if he might be interested in approaching them about it. Or even if it's been attempted and shot down by all the available publishers. Any ideas on what we as Fans could do to encourage WB to give us more books?
-
Knowing the WB, I doubt an email campaign will work. Although, since their DVD season sets sold so well, maybe it will be brought up in the near future.
-
<font face="georgia"><font color="red">What are the dates of the Morden/Anna trip? </font>
Per the B5 Chronology by Terry Jones:
2256:
"Thursday December 3rd. Before the Icarus departs Station Prime on it's 6 month scientific and archaeological expedition to the Rim, Anna Sheridan transmits a full mission inventory to her husband John. The Icarus departs Station Prime to begin it's journey in hyperspace."
2257
"Sunday January 3rd. The Icarus lands on Z'ha'dum and the survey teams which include Anna Sheridan, Morden and Justin, begin to explore. Unknown to those on Earth, some of the survey team are captured by those Shadows already out of hibernation and given the choice of serving them or death. Morden is manipulated by the Shadows into becoming a willing emissary and receives a cranial implant to facilitate communication between him and the Shadows. Anna doesn't agree with what they are doing, so she is merged with Shadow technology along with other team members. The Icarus is set on automatic and the engines overloaded to blow as it reaches orbit.
"Revelations, In The Shadow Of Z'ha'dum, Knives, The Shadow Within and Z'ha'dum outline what happened to the survey team and the Icarus. The Passing Of The Techno-mages:Summoning Light reveals Morden has an implant in his skull.
Probes set up by the Vorlons to monitor Z'ha'dum record the events on the planet's surface and the information is transmitted to Ambassador Kosh's ship en route to Babylon 5."
jms
<hr width="75%">
RE: Shuttle lost
It is a terrible, terrible tragedy. I've been locked in my office writing all day, and din't hear about this until late.
We become so used to the sight of astronauts climbing skyward on the shuttle and drifting back to earth that we forget the dangers involved, that these people are riding controlled explosions going up, and blasting back at mach six with little or no fuel coming back, using technology that is nearly twenty years old, and ships that have taken multiple beatings on lift-off and re-entry for all of those years.
If the government really wants to show respect for the lives lost, they should inject some of the money otherwise being spent on bombs into creating and repairing and refurbishing the remaining shuttles, or otherwise paying more than lip service to the space program that has given so much, and so many lives, in return for so precious little funding from Washington.
jms
<hr width="75%">
RE: Sky Full of Stars
<font color="red">
Some of the imagery and storyline in this episode seem to allegorize the C.S. Lewis Narnia story "The Silver Chair", Sinclair filling th Prince Rilian role, and the cybernet device being remiscent of the chair of enchantment itself!
Furthermore, the title seems to echo the words of Puddleglum near the end of the book, when the witch is trying to enchant him he says he has "seen the sky full of stars" in defence. Is this mere coincidence, or is there more in it? I have also noticed that Delenn says something very similar to what Professor Digory Kirke tells the children at the end of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, in "War Without End".
Is this a tip of the hat to C.S. Lewis, or just the wild imaginings of a hapless Briton who can't see a cigar for what it is?</font>
Since I haven't read that one of Lewis' books, I'd have to say the latter.
jms
([email protected])
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
</font>
