it to another FIDO zone they've my permission to do so, so for all I know it may
be in zone 2 now, and just nobody's posting.)
Anyway, here's the "what is filk" part of the FAQ.
What is this stuff called filk? My own favorite definition is simply
"the folk music of the science fiction/fantasy fan community."
For a more detailed description, see below:
WHAT THE HECK IS FILK MUSIC?
by Nick Smith (of LA Filkharmonics)
Well, it's sort of like folk music. It is a mixture of song parodies
and original music, humorous and serious, about subjects like science
fiction, fantasy, computers, cats, politics, the space program, books,
movies, TV shows, love, war, death. . .
Filk music started off forty or fifty years ago, at science fiction
conventions, where people got together late at night to have good
old-fashioned folk music song circles. Well, late night circles being
what they are, some folks got a little silly and started singing song
parodies about their favorite SF books and authors. Fans started
writing song parodies about themselves or each other. Some started
composing serious songs about favorite topics. Some authors started
composing original songs for their books. If the author didn't list a
tune, fans made up one. Sometimes two. Sometimes several.
Eventually, Filk songs wre written for just about every major science
fiction or fantasy work. Some of them were actually good enough that
people wanted to learn them, or just listen to them more than just at
conventions. At that point, song books and recordings started being
made.
Over the last decade, Filk Music has reached the point where there
are entire Filk Music gatherings, conventions, recording companies,
and publications. Filk Music includes song parodies, original songs,
and slightly musical poetry. It's a fun way to indulge in a little
musical creativity, especially if you are a science fiction or fantasy
fan as well as musically inclined. If you are only a fan, but not
musical, you can still listen. Filk circles aren't pushy about
requiring you to play or sing. If you are only musical, but not a
fan, no one will hold it against you. Remember, we're in this thing
for fun!
[Written for flyer for distribution at California Traditional Music
Society Annual Summer Solstice Dulcimer Festival and other local Los
Angeles folk music events and stores.]
What Nick didn't tell you is that the name started out as a typo of
"folk"
and was gleefully adopted by all and sundry as a term for what is
after
all a somewhat unusual subset.
Kay Shapero, Moderator/Designated Topic Cop, FILK echo
--- msged 2.06
* Origin: StormGate Aerie: Home of the FILK echo (1:102/524)
Д [19] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДД SFFAN Д
Msg : 218 of 284
From : Darre LuAllen 1:3637/1 .он 19 .ев 96 11:21
To : Christian Raven
Subj : Re: Star Trek
ДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДД
On 02-13-96 Christian Raven wrote to Darre Luallen...
>>>>>>> PART I <<<<<<<
Let me begin by letting you know how much of an arrogant fool you truly are.
I do not pretend that my opinions are correct and totally factual. Nor
do I say that you do not have the right to your own opinions. However, you
are not even beginning to look at the facts. You wish to debate, then be
prepared to provide FACTS to support your statements. You can not call on
history to support YOUR statements then dismiss it when I use it to support
mine. You are just proving to everyone here how closeminded you really are.
So, I now return to rebut your arguments.
CR> different species than man. however, they ARE
CR> intrinsically and generally different in many, many ways,
CR> both psychologically and physically. this is quite
CR> obvious, as (a) there has never been a female president in
CR> the leading country of the world, and (b) there has NEVER
DL> Queen Victoria? Queen Elizibeth? Boadicia? Cleopatra?
DL> Catherine the Great? How many world history classes DID you
DL> sleep through. (assuming I understand your "female president"
DL> statement)
CR> huh? time to lay of the drugs, friend. i do not believe
My recreational habits are my business, and I'll thank you not to
speculate upon them.
CR> that QUEEN Victoria was a president.. nor was QUEEN
CR> Elizabeth... and i was referring to the United States...
CR> where both you and I live... most likely the pinnacle of
CR> freedom in the world.. the country where (at least at one
CR> time, when feminism was seen for the angry outcry that it
CR> is) people have had the ability to create what they can of
CR> what they are.
No, in fact she was a world leader who wielded REAL power, unlike the
castrated office of President of the US. The reason the US has never had
a world leader is fairly complicated, but mostly harkens back to our
Puritan origins. This nation was founded by people who felt, as you seem
to, that their opinion was the correct one (the Puritans) and that GOD
would damn everyone else. Oh, and if you think that we are free here in
the US, open your eyes (but this is another subject). What exactly do you
mean by your last statement above? Your are trying to imply something, but
I want your words plan, so that we have no misunderstandings.
CR> been a female weight-lifter even NEARLY as strong as a
CR> male. women are physically weaker, and mentally less
CR> rational, the latter which could be obviously argued to a
DL> Do you think that fighting someone to the death just because he
DL> insulted you is very rational? Or perhaps the rounding up of fellow
CR> yes. at the time when this occurred, it was very rational. if you were
CR> to show to others that you were woman-like (i.e. run to the
CR> corner and cry) then you were of no use to the society. do
CR> you think that worrying about make-up is very rational?
CR> and please, don't come back with a "well, there are some
CR> women who do not wear makeup" because this is quite
CR> obvious. on a similar line, there are some men who
CR> naturally are born with breasts. obviously, in an issue
CR> like this, we must speak *generally*. please keep this in
CR> mind.
I didn't ask for how they felt. I asked if YOU thought it was rational.
Hitler and the Germans of 1933-1945 felt it rational to destroy an entire
ethnic group. Does that make it okay by our standards? Do you agree with
it because they thought it was okay? (No need to answer. This is an
extreme example given so that you will understand my point.)
Men have always preformed irrational actions. Case in point, head butting.
The part of the body that is the most sensitive to damage is the brain. It
controls the body, keeps you alive. Any damage to the brain is permenant.
Brain tissue regenerates so slowly that your lifespan would be up before
you healed. Yet, men take chances with so delicate an organ? Two football
players get excited and begin to smash heads. Yes, the helmets provide some
protection, as does the skull. Yet, here they still are taking a chance.
And for what? A male bonding ritual. Rational?
In the same time period you are discussing, MEN wore make-up and wigs.
They dressed in silken clothing and carried perfumed handkerchiefs up
their sleeves so that they could very daintily dab their faces. Before
you say anything about this, I'll warn you that this is my speciality.
I'm a writer and I write swashbuckler fiction. I've studied the time
period.
Darre LuAllen
___
* OFFLINE 1.56 * "That's entertainment." - Vlad the Impaler.
--- Maximus/2 3.01
* Origin: Cumberland BBS TN 615/526-3347 V34 (1:3637/1)
Д [19] SFFAN (2:463/2.5) ДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДД SFFAN Д
Msg : 219 of 284
From : Darre LuAllen 1:3637/1 .он 19 .ев 96 11:22
To : Christian Raven
Subj : Star Trek Sexism
ДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДД
On 02-13-96 Christian Raven wrote to Darre Luallen...
>>>>>> PART II <<<<<<
CR> yes, *some* women in *some* societies have been burdened
CR> with *some* of the male's responsibilities, but not many...
CR> for instance, women, whether african, or indian, or many
CR> other cultures, were never taught to hunt. some cultures
CR> even PROHIBITED women from hunting, for fear that their
CR> fragility might be threatened.
DL> "fragility" - I'm not a woman, so I cannot speak from experience (nor do
DL> I want to be able to). However, have you even considered the pain and
DL> suffering encountered due to childbirth? I've had nasty injuries, but
CR> no, i have not considered this. nor do i particularly
CR> care. the vagina is an organ which was meant for 3 basic
CR> purposes: a) release of urine, b) fertilization, and c)
CR> childbirth. although i would not personally like to have a
CR> baby, i find this irrelevant to the conversation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gee, this evidence is irrifutable, so therefore I will ignore it. Good job.
Are you a televangelist or a politician. You state the woman is more
fragile, yet here is an example of something that a majority of women
most endure in order for the species to survive. So, you cannot ignore it.
Also, if we men are so tough, then why do women live longer. Don't say
because we do all the work. Scientist have proven that men's brains
deteriorate three times faster than women's. So, who's the fragile one.
DL> smaller bodily openings. Frankly, I don't think that I could take it.
DL> And if you think that you could do it and keep smiling, then you're a
DL> superhuman mutant or a fool.
CR> whatever. i made no refreneces to the fact that i could
CR> have a baby and smile simultaniously.
Yet, but stating that men are "better" physically, you imply that you can
preform ANY physical action that a woman could do and do it better. Let's
forget that you aren't wired for childbirth. Do you think that you could
do it better than a woman? If not, then men are not necessarily better,
just different.
DL> Most of the cultures you elude to have a strict policy of keeping the
DL> people necessary to creating the future food gathers out of the path of
DL> wild animals. Stop to think what would happen to a village if all the
DL> women were killed off because some stupid hunter caused the animal to
DL> women were killed off
CR> ahh! you have finally caught my drift (well part of it anyway). yes,
CR> you are absolutely right. but you just put your foot in your
CR> mouth by agreeing with me and therefore contradicting
CR> yourself... as i had said, WOMEN WERE NOT ALLOWED TO HUNT.
CR> "why" is not something which pertains to anything i have
CR> said.
Here is where your arrogance shows itself. I know exactly where my foot is.
And it is no where near my mouth. Besides, you've used the phrase
incorrectly. So, let me begin. You state that women are weaker, thus
they are not allowed to hunt. I reply that no, in fact women are not
allowed to hunt because they bear the children and gather the non-meat food.
Now, you state that I agree with you and the reasons why are not important.
Hum... I think you are practicing a little revisionist history. The reason
IS important, since it is the SUBJECT of the debate. I'm sorry if I'm not
able to support your bold generalizations, but do not dismiss the arguments
just because you can't support your point.
As someone else on this echo has pointed out, the work of gathering the
so important veggies and fruits is just as hard and dangerous as hunting.
