Thursday, July 9, 2009

Oh My...

Here's a passage from Ed Wood's novel Killer in Drag to increase your excitement over the full upcoming post on the book I guess I'll have to write because I said I would:

A moment later Glenda stepped out of the bushes. She went to the fallen man and roughly stripped him of his long underwear and with the overalls she rolled them up in a ball and took them to the car where she threw them on the floor in the front. Then she went back to the fallen man. She stripped off her own panties, urinated in them and threw them across the man's face.

"At least you'll come out of it with the smell of things," laughed Glenda. "Dry them out and maybe you'll get home somehow. You filthy bastard."

So then. That's how it's going to be, I guess. Not exactly what I signed on for, but them's the breaks.

Oh, and no, I have no idea what "dry them out and maybe you'll get home somehow" means, either.

[This has sort of been a part of The Spirit of Ed Wood Blogathon, hosted by Greg of Cinema Styles]

40 comments:

Ed Howard said...

Whatever else you do, I think you should definitely post LOTS of excerpts. Wow, that was hot.

Uhhhh... did I say hot? I mean gross. That was gross. Disgusting. So disturbing I need to read more so I can fully gauge my outrage.

Fox said...

Wow... I really need to start reading books if it's gonna have stuff like that in it!!!

She stripped off her own panties, urinated in them and threw them across the man's face....

Don't fight it, Ed. That was hot. There's no shame in liking watersports.

bill r. said...

I suppose Wood was going for something that would perk up the watersports crowd, but the scene in question involves Glenda getting unpleasant retribution against a man who would have treated her badly.

Also, Glenda's real name is "Glen". I don't know if that makes it more or less hot for you guys.

Greg said...

Bill, thanks for alerting me to this! I checked early yesterday, saw the poster post still up, come back this morning and there's this from yesterday. Dude. Hosting a blogathon is more nerve-wracking than a TOERIFC hosting day so I need some help. Definitely let me know when the full review goes up. Meantime, let me link this.

bill r. said...

Are you being sarcastic??? Because I won't have that on my blog!

Ed Howard said...

Oh yea, cos this blog never has any sarcasm.

Greg said...

What's sarcasm?

bill r. said...

You know who sucks? You two guys.

Ed Howard said...

I'm the guy who sucks.

bill r. said...

Ed, I remember that one! I so want to have an "I'm the Guy Who Sucks/Plus I Got Depression" t-shirt. I really do.

Ed Howard said...

Yeah, I'd totally get that shirt. And then, like Roast Beef, never wear it because like 2 people would get the joke and everyone else would just think I was really weird.

Uh, weirder than they already think I am, anyway.

bill r. said...

Roast Beef is one of my favorite characters ever.

God, I love the alt text for that one, too: "Is this hard for him?"

Ed Howard said...

Yes, who would think a crudely drawn cartoon cat could be so poignant? And the alt text on those strips often adds a whole 'nother level to the humor -- one of the things that makes Achewood a uniquely Internet experience.

Fox said...

WTF is going on here?!? Roast beef talk?!? Is that another sexual metaphor, as in "open-faced roast beef sandwich"?

I hope Ebert and Sarris don't decide to stop by here today and see our comments and dismiss us forever.

Ed Howard said...

See what I mean about only 2 people getting the joke? Leave it to Fox to think we're talking about dirty stuff though... I hate to imagine what he thinks a "roast beef" means in sexual terms.

Roast Beef is the name of a perpetually depressed cat in the comic strip Achewood, which I linked to above. Because I'm the guy who sucks.


Word verification: "purcat"
You can't make this stuff up.

bill r. said...

Word verification: roast beef!!

Okay, I just made that up.

Greg said...

Word verification: I'm at home watching Bullshit on Netflix. Mount Rushmore is Bullshit. So is the ADA. And hybrid cars. Now I'm watching the one on Anger Management. I assume that's Bullshit too. I'll let you know.

Goddamn that was a long word verification.

bill r. said...

Why is Mount Rushmore bullshit? Is it not actually a mountain?

I watched the episode on conspiracy theories, and while I agreed with the point of view, I thought they could have been a lot sharper and devestating than they were.

Greg said...

They're more entertainment for the choir than hard-hitting skeptical inquiry. I like them because for the most part I'm the choir but for thorough analysis I'll turn to someone like Michael Shurmer, Ophelia Benson, Phil Plait and others, depending on the topic.

The Mount Rushmore show was actually an indictment of blind patriotism in which they used Rushmore as a jumping off point. I can't really remember much of the Rushmore stuff outside of it being a deification of leaders more in tune with less democratic countries. Something like that, then they lurched headfirst into the patriotism issue.

They have had some good ones but as the seasons roll on some of them (one on good manners for goodness sake) are pretty weak.

bill r. said...

I used to like Penn and Teller a lot (especially as I'm a semi-magic geek -- one with no skills in that area of my own, by the way), but now I only sorta like them. When they go after psychics -- the kind of stuff they reall know inside and out -- they're right on target. Otherwise, I don't think they're that on target. On some matters, like God and religion, they're very smug, and they ignore the erudite arguments from very well-educated believers that they're not smart enough to refute (they're like Bill Maher in this respect, although nowhere near as odious). Which is not to say that no atheists can intelligently debate those points, just that Penn and Teller can't, and their choice to ignore them makes them look like a couple of schmoes.

Greg said...

I haven't seen the Maher Religulous thing or the Penn and Teller show on religion or believers but do you think it's possible that you feel that way because you're a believer and they're arguing against your side? I'm just asking. Maybe I would feel the same way watching a theologian and I might see him as smug while you might see him as reasonable.

Ed Howard said...

do you think it's possible that you feel that way because you're a believer and they're arguing against your side?

I think that's always, or almost always, a problem with trying to debate spirituality. There's so little common ground between believers and non-believers that it's almost like speaking in different languages. If you believe in God, there's no way someone's gonna convince you not to, and if you don't believe (like me, incidentally) it's hard to imagine an argument that would suddenly make you see the light. I'm not gonna say either you believe or you don't and that's it, because people do change their minds in one direction or the other all the time, but trying to "prove" your case is pretty much a lost cause.

Greg said...

and they ignore the erudite arguments from very well-educated believers.

The better question for me would be what were those arguments, but then that would require you to remember and quote and write it all down, so never mind. Only seasons 4 and 5 are on instant viewing and neither of those seasons has any religious stuff so I'll just have to wait for them to be made available because I don't feel like wasting an actual DVD rental on it.

Greg said...

but trying to "prove" your case is pretty much a lost cause.

Well, yes because there's nothing to prove on either side. It's either a matter of belief or disbelief. People can change though, even if rarely. William Murray was raised an atheist and became a Baptist preacher and Michael Shermer was a fundementalist Christian who became an atheist. So it does happen from time to time.

bill r. said...

Well, first, I'm really an agnostic. While some people would say that they have faith, for myself I've found that it's much more accurate to say that I have hope.

Second, sure there are theologians who can be smug. What I'm saying is that people like Maher and Penn and Teller walk into these arguments with an apparent ignorance of the true depth and breadth of the argument in favor of belief, and act as though anyone who believes in God does so only because they were raised to, and they go to church blindly. That's true for some, but not all.

I've heard some atheists (Douglas Adams, I was disappointed to learn, being one of them) say that they won't associate with people with religious faith, because it signals to them an intellectual deficiency (Maher said that he thinks Obama's Christianity is just an act, because Obama's clearly to smart to be a Christian). So these people would never associate with C. S. Lewis? Or G. K. Chesterton? Or Desmond Tutu? Or Martin Luther King? Or Gandhi? Or Abraham Lincoln?

Anyway, you see where I'm going. As with so many other issues these days, sides are chosen, assumptions are made about those occupying the side you're not on, and the shit starts flying.

Just yesterday, I saw on another site a guy make a comment that conservatives are all social Darwinists, and then someone else said that the fact that he can't stand people who don't believe in evolution but who embrace social Darwinism. So an assumption was made based on nothing, onto which a separate assumption was added. 2x0=0.

Greg said...

Bill, all excellent points. I don't really have anything to disagree with there so... well, that's that. I would agree with Maher about Obama but not for the same reason. I think he was raised an atheist by his mother and knows that shit don't fly with the electorate. So I don't think he's too smart for it, I think it's intentional political calculation. The guy is a Chicago politician after all.

bill r. said...

The better question for me would be what were those arguments, but then that would require you to remember and quote and write it all down, so never mind...

Thanks for giving me that out. At my most "There is no God" moments, I've come across arguments to the contrary that have stopped me cold, but to try and recall and restate them with enough accuracy to do them justice would be pointless.

I wish my brother was here. One of my many brothers occasionally comments here, and he could unquestionably do those arguments justice (and provide some stunning ones of his own).

Or Rick. Where's he? This is his wheelhouse!

Greg said...

If your brother or Rick showed up it would do no good. I believe these things are best done one to one and in person. Prefereably over the course of days or weeks. Definitely not back and forth comments on a blog.

Greg said...

I mean, your blog's great and everything you understand.

bill r. said...

What things are best done one on one? Theological discussions? That's probably true, but it can't hurt to try.

Also, my blog IS great. This thread alone went from watersports to a discussion of modern debate and opinion by way of the question of God. That's not bad!

Greg said...

I've seen better.

bill r. said...

Where??? At Tractor Facts!? Not likely!!

Ed Howard said...

I'd say going from watersports to theology was a regression... bring back the pee-soaked panties!

Greg said...

If I hadn't been home watching Penn & Teller's Bullshit this comment thread would've died. Someone needs to thank me - Now!

bill r. said...

Ed - You disgust me.

Greg - This thread would have been just find without you. I have lots of friends. Lots.

Greg said...

Just find? Find?

You need me more than you know.

bill r. said...

Oh really? Well, earlier, you wrote the name "Phil Plait"! Hey, dumbass, it's spelled "Phil Collins"!

Robert Pattinson said...

Fox already said all of this stuff on TRACTOR FACTS when he reviewed Religulous. I'm surprised you guys didn't know about it, because it was pretty much the most influential post of 2008.

Rick Olson said...

Or Rick. Where's he? This is his wheelhouse!

I'm here.

Rick Olson said...

And by the way, Greg's right: I think discussions theological are better done face to face, particularly over a cold beer. Or two.

Followers