#walter gardner

[7cfc00]

happy pride... couldn't draw everyone so this is all! my little bugs... <3

[fitsofgloom]

Following the big '60s Monster Boom, there was a neat little literary micro-trend back in the '70s and '80s that had Famous Monsters either cast in alternative sympathetic lights or posited them as living figures setting the records straight by dictating their own autobiographies à la "Interview With The Vampire."

[felixcosm]

LIEUTENANT / MICHAEL: Feels good to be put back together again. And out of that godforsaken dome! Yeehaw! OUTLAW: Yeehaw! SLY: Yeehaw! MATT: Yeehaw! JAM: I think you set off a chain reaction. MW: Yeah yeah, yeehaw.

[sandybrett]

A quick internet search yields conflicting results on how long it takes an olive tree to start bearing fruit--anywhere from two to fifteen years, it seems.

Which means Mikey must have sent olive seeds back in time purely so he could annoy Jamilla by harvesting olives in their yard.

[ketxup-kid]

shoutout to season ten of WOE.BEGONE

gotta be the least confusing of them all, the most gut-wrenching (except for season 9’s ep 99. The Bear is Dead), and honestly my personal favorite.

*cowboy voice*

this here’s the ballad of cowboy jaAMM

who didn’t know they were a cowboy yet

[travelingcryptologist]

Cover art by Walter Velez for "Aliens Among Us", a science fiction anthology series edited by Jack Dann and Gardner Dozois published by Ace Books (2000)

[nicklloydnow]

“In 1932, Adolf A. Berle Jr. and Gardner C. Means wrote a book entitled The Modern Corporation and Private Property. A critique of corporate management for being aloof and complacent, out of touch with the consumer and irresponsible to the stockholder, this volume became the bible of Marxists, left wing intellectuals and interventionist politicians. Under the banner of separation of ownership and control, the Berle-Means thesis led to an attack on the corporate structure from which today's top executives are still reeling.

With this background, one would have thought that the people urging a greater role for the public sector would have welcomed the advent of the corporate raider. For this new breed of capitalist has sent shivers down the spines of the denizens of the boardroom. Swooping down, launching "unfriendly" or "hostile" takeover bids, these corporate raiders have succeeded in replacing management from coast to coast in dozens of industries, and in frightening thousands of other out-of-touch chief executive officers into greater responsibility.

At least under the theory of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," it might have been expected that critics of the marketplace, noticeably the followers of Berle and Means, would have rallied `round the cause of the corporate raider.

In the event, however, this expectation has remained unfulfilled. Not only has the activity of the corporate raider been deprecated by the champions of government interference in the marketplace, but it has been roundly condemned by practically all pundits and commentators on public policy. In 1987, the left-leaning film director Oliver Stone distilled the common image of the corporate raider into the supposedly loathsome Gordon Gekko, brilliantly portrayed in an Oscar-winning performance by Michael Douglas. And this is the image of Gekko under which the corporate raider must labor in the present day.

Yet, despite this all-but-universal criticism, the unfriendly takeover bid has benefited consumers and stockholders, and served notice on complacent management across the board. In one celebrated case that unfolded shortly before Stone's film Wall Street was released, corporate guerrilla Carl Icahn put in a bid for a block of shares of Phillips Petroleum. Stung by Icahn's bid, Phillips' executives offered to improve a recapitalization plan they had been forced to put forth in response to an earlier planned takeover, this one by T. Boone Pickens. As a result, Icahn walked away with a cool $50 million, Pickens registered a profit of $89 million on a resale of his holdings to the company, all Phillips' shareholders gained from the better offer, and the oil firm itself was left far leaner and meaner than before.

Needless to say, neither Icahn nor Pickens nor any of the other masterminds of "the 1980s takeover boom," were publicly thanked for the good they had done. On the contrary: both men were not only mocked by Oliver Stone, they were also robbed of the opportunity to do any more such good by a rash of anti-takeover statutes adopted late in the decade. Henry Manne reported that hostile takeovers had "declined to four percent from fourteen percent of all mergers."

The conventional wisdom holds that this outcome is a good one for investors, but the facts show otherwise. No story of the corporate raider can ignore the role of the heroic Michael Milken. Assume there was a hotel worth $20 million as a present discounted capital value. Given an interest rate of 5%, this concern should throw off roughly $1 million to its owners. But stipulate that due to inefficiency, or general avarice, or to the fact that the CEO salary was far higher than justified, or a combination of all such phenomena, the owners were earning far less than that in dividends. And, guess what? The stock was trading at a lower value than might have prevailed, had these tape worm factors not been in operation.

Enter the "evil" Michael Milken. He swoops in, purchases enough of the stock in this corporation to kick out the old board and replace it with his own nominees. This is considered a "hostile" takeover by a corporate "raider." From whence springs the hostility? All Milken did was buy up a mess of stocks. Did he threaten any of these stock owners that they would walk the plank if they did not sell to him? No, of course not; we are talking arm's-length stock market deals here. We can logically infer that the owners of these stocks preferred the price offered them by the "raider," otherwise they would not have sold out. No, the "hostility," instead, stems from the CEO and his cronies who were mismanaging this hotel into the ground.

The Milkins of the world are akin to the canary in the mine; they are the Distant Early Warning Line for the economy.

When they get active, it is in response to something rotten that is going on. And what was the public reaction to this corporate raider? Instead of hoisting him up on their shoulders and holding ticker tape parades in his honor, he was given the back of the public's hand to his face. To wit, he was prosecuted by the Securities and Exchange Commission for insider trading, violations of U.S. Securities Laws and other financial felonies. He pled guilty only after the authorities threatened to go after his ailing brother. For shame.” - Walter Block, ‘Defending the Undefendable II’ (2013) [p. 41 - 44]

[mrparable]

jam and mike friendship supremacy

[izukuer]

THE BALLAD OF COWBOY JAM IM GOING TO SOB AND CRY AND DIE AND FALL DOWN A FLIGHT OF STAIRS AROGUGHHGHGHGHGGHGHHHHH

[ufonaut]

Why “The Crimebusters”? Well, as you know, this country hasn’t had an organization of masked adventurers since the Minutemen disbanded in ‘49.

Before Watchmen: Nite Owl (2012) #1

(J. Michael Straczynski, Andy & Joe Kubert)

[erstwhile-punk-guerito]

[gogandmagog]

thus further confirming my opinion of you as the person with the Most Correct TM Montgomery opinions, I saw your ff.net bio that the superior AoGG tv show is the PBS one and that you have everlasting beef with Kevin Sullivan---SAME. When he nails it, he really nails it (I think all of his stories have more charm than any of the new shows) but also some of the choices he made...sir....I simultaneously want to shake that man's hand and also make him answer for his crimes. On that note, if you could have a faithful adaptation of any of other Anne books like the PBS show, which would you choose? (we don't talk about the continuing story in this household)

Are you me????

KEVIN SULLIVAN is basically a full-on level-nine cuss word in this household. And I’m pretty sure it’s a cuss in Megan Follows’ household too. If Kevin Sullivan has a million haters, I’m one of them. If he has 1,000 haters, I’m still one of them. If he has 1 hater, it’s me. If he has 0 haters, it’s because I’m dead. ‘An iron has entered my heart.’ You surely never asked, but you have to let me tell you... when I say it’s on sight with this man!

Certainly, the first mini-series he did was a film masterpiece! Casting was on point (I used to google ‘Jonathan Crombie wife’ when I was eight, and get this rush of relief when it said he was unmarried and just be all like YES HE’S STILL SINGLE, and be all YEAH BUDDY I know why too, it’s so obviously because he hasn’t met me yet! Haaaa, fast forward to growing up, and catching on to all the musical theatre and then being like oooooh), the scenery was so lush and gorgeous, and there was hardly a single line that strayed from the books. 10/10, chef’s kiss, all the heart eye emojis imaginable.

The Sequel? Like... okay, we’re sliding downward, because we’re missing out on some wonderful, imaginative, sometimes hilarious Montgomery characters. Ginger the Parrot, Mr. Harrison overall, the AVIS, Paul Irving and Miss Lavendar. Charlotta the Fourth. We miss out on Phil Gordon, and Stella, and Pris! And maybe worse, now Gilbert is given actual Theodore Laurence lines. Literally word for word from the original Little Women film (Sullivan didn’t even try to change it), same proposal, and I could almost stomach it if I hadn’t been a book reader, knowing that the real, shining, sweet Gilbert only met with rejection with grace and kindness, instead of a cold “I hope he breaks your heart.” Those suit Laurie just fine, because Little Women readers know that Laurie is a spoilt trust-fund baby with some super not-cute anger issues (issues totally downplayed in every production, to make him more likeable). And the cherry on TOP, man, was this absent-father (tbh, it’s giving weird 19th century sugar daddy), one old enough to be Anne’s own father, being cast as a Roy Gardner replacement. But in the end, we get some beauty, too. I loved seeing John Blythe and Marilla’s interactions, I loved how Rollings Reliable was done, and even the matter of Dolly the jersey-cow, even I loved that Anne went to Gilbert in the height of his illness. So I could forgive much, on account of that! 8 out of 10.

UNTIL two things happened

First, of course, is the Continuing Story. I have never been so affronted by a movie in my liiiiife, lol. Total L. It quite sincerely achieved something that I did not think was possible in that it made me not like Anne. Utter character assassination. (I realize that by this point, LMM’s family was disinterested in working with Sullivan after the mess he made of the Sequel. Which was fair, for them. I get that, and support that for them.) Jack was a goofy, philandering dudebro, and his whole ‘international spy’ arch was so contrived and cheesy. It fell so flat. And the sheer notion that Sullivan sat there and thought, “Yeah, Anne could fall for this guy” is laughable, betraying instantly that he doesn’t understand her as a character. BUT OH WAIT, we can’t forget that Anne, whose kind doctor husband is out there risking his life while saving the lives of others in the middle of a world war... ACTUALLY engages in an emotional affair with this man. She slapped him when he published their book without her name. But what does Jack get, when he says, “Your husband is probably, most likely dead... but on the flip side, now WE can be together”? NOTHING. Anne hugs him. Pfft. PFFFFT. BE SO FASTIDIOUSLY FOR REAL. I get so mad when I think about it, lol. The whole movie just screams “male gaze” to me, because Kevin Sullivan is so incapable of seeing and realizing or transmuting the Montgomery magic. Best part of the whole thing was when Jack was shot. I felt nothing. I give this whole production .5 stars, because we did get a couple cute deleted scenes, lol.

The second thing that happened that took back all my Sullivan forgiveness was watching lengthy and/or recent (within the last five years) Megan Follows interviews. I learned so much! She doesn’t speak to Sullivan anymore, but she mentions the Continuing Story often enough, and that she had to fight Sullivan, because he wanted Anne to kiss Jack. THANK GOD she was successful. Megan’s also noted for saying that the reason the first series was such a success was because Sullivan had ‘help’ and basically nothing to do with the script. (Bonus reason to despise this man, in case we needed more: Megan mentioned that they filmed three separate endings to the first series, because Sullivan wanted Anne to hit Gilbert for giving up the Avonlea school for her. I… I can’t.) When Sullivan was approached about making a sequel, he said he read all the remaining books and thought, keep in mind this is REAL quote, “Gee, no thanks!” He goes further and says that the thought basically they were dull, and that he wanted to do his own version. Could you be more short sighted??? Again, to me, this just proves that this man places no value on quiet, lovely, non-noisy (if that makes sense) stories that are centered in the home, and around women. I think it’s that same interview where we learn also that Kevin based Morgan Harris on his own father, who was something like apparently 25 to 30 years senior to Sullivan’s mother. And that? Was the sound of my last Sullivan-tolerant--nerve breaking into a million pieces, lol. HOW DARE YOUUUU, Sir.

I AM SO SORRY THIS IS LONG. 😭

All this to say, lol, that Kevin Sullivan does not deserve your hand shake! You are too wonderful, and thoughtful, and so insightful, and that man doesn’t get up to your ankle! He deserves no less than a life sentence in literary jail.

BUT BUT BUT, to answer the question… I struggle. I would be happy with any, to be fully honest. But if I got to pick, and they said “you can only have one” I’d be flipping a three-sided coin between Anne of the Island, House of Dreams, and Rilla. 🥺 We could skip Windy Poplars easily (sorry Rebecca Dew, and Katherine-with-a-K), even though if I won the lottery, I’d personally pay for start-to-finish-by-the-book production. HOW ABOUT YOU?

[vintagehollywood1]

Walter Chiari and Ava Gardner

[felixcosm]

I love Mikey and Jam trying to protect each other in Season 10. Jam trying to resist H and Eagle threatening them for as long as they could before they had a nervous breakdown, and Mikey lying to H about who tipped him off, or repeatedly asking Edgar if Jam was going to be okay even though Edgar was here to kill him.

[lizabethstucker]

The Year's Best Science Fiction, 12th Annual Collection

3.5 out of 5

A collection of twenty-three of 1994's best science fiction stories as selected by editor Gardner Dozois.

The book begins with Dozois' extensive summary of the year in science fiction and his concerns for the future of science fiction as a genre. Reading his 1994 observations in 2024, thirty years later, is both jarring and sad when you consider how many of the magazines mentioned no longer exist. I know most genre fiction (mystery, science fiction, fantasy in particular) go through moments where writers, critics, and anthologists are worried/predicting its destruction. I can remember hearing that worry in the late 1960s (science fiction), the 1970s (fantasy), and pretty much every decade for mystery. It never really happened, although there were always growing pains as the tropes changed. I've stopped worrying about it.

There's a fair mix of humor and angst, tragedy and farce within these pages, which I personally appreciate as it keeps the reading experience from becoming monotonous.

Contents

"Forgiveness Day" by Ursula K. Le Guin, 4 out of 5. "The Remoras" by Robert Reed, 4.5 out of 5. "Nekropolis" by Maureen F. McHugh, 3 out of 5. "Margin of Error" by Nancy Kress, 4.5 out of 5. "Cilia-of-Gold" by Stephen Baxter, 2.5 out of 5. "Going After Old Man Alabama" by William Sanders, 3.5 out of 5. "Melodies of the Heart" by Michael F. Flynn, 5 out of 5. "The Hole in the Hole" by Terry Bisson, 3.5 out of 5. "Paris in June" by Pat Cadigan, 2 out of 5. "Flowering Mandrake" by George Turner, 3 out of 5. "None So Blind" by Joe Haldeman, 3 out of 5. "Cocoon" by Greg Egan, 4 out of 5. "Seven Views of Olduvai Gorge" by Mike Resnick, 4.5 out of 5. "Dead Space for the Unexpected" by Geoff Ryman, 3 out of 5. "Cri de Coeur" by Michael Bishop, 3 out of 5. "The Sawing Boys" by Howard Waldrop, 2 out of 5. "The Matter of Seggri" by Ursula K. Le Guin, 4 out of 5. "Ylem" by Eliot Fintushel, 3 out of 5. "Asylum" by Katharine Kerr, 4.5 out of 5. "Red Elvis" by Walter Jon Williams, 3 out of 5. "California Dreamer" by Mary Rosenblum, 3 out of 5. "Split Light" by Lisa Goldenstein, 3 out of 5. "Les Fleurs du Mal" by Brian Stableford, 3 out of 5.

Some of my favorites include: "Margin of Error" which had a particularly satisfying revenge; "Melodies of the Heart" almost killed me emotionally; and "Asylum" which is frighteningly close to what we are facing in 2024.

A few of the stories disappointed me greatly, having such wonderful plots, terrific flow, and interesting characters, only to crash and burn the endings. No matter how great a story might be, if you can't stick the ending, it's all for nothing. Despite that, I'm still glad that I picked up this collection at the Friends of the Library store.

[roseshavethoughts]

Earthquake (1974)

Earthquake (1974) #Review

Synopsis- An earthquake occurs while a couple is fighting over their marriage. The lives of all the residents of Los Angeles are tragically hit by the largest earthquake that the city has ever witnessed. Director- Mark Robson Cast- Charlton Heston, Ava Gardner, Richard Roundtree Genre- Action | Thriller Released- 1974 ⭐⭐⭐⭐ Rating: 4 out of 5. Released in 1974, “Earthquake” is a disaster…