Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



La Guera ([info]laguera25) wrote in [info]fandom_wank,
@ 2005-01-11 12:33:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
I found this while reading Neil Gaiman's blog. Not so much as a wanky argument as a wanky idea.

Apparently, Margaret Atwood, tired of actually attending book signings and interacting with the unwashed rabble that is her fanbase, has invented an Automatic Kissing Machine and Booksigner. With this baby, there is no need for her to be anywhere near the book signing. Nope, she can just interact from her home through the use of a video screen.

What does the lucky fan get out of this? Why, a mechanically reproduced signature and a printout commemorating the "meeting."

Whee.

Now, instead of getting that pesky Carpal Tunnel Syndrome by signing all those books, she can get it by wanking to her own greatness.

The Wank-O-Matic 3000

(Post a new comment)


[info]pyratejenni
2005-01-11 07:48 pm UTC (link)
Atwood's machine sounds like a ironic piece of performance art.

I hope that's what it is.

Please?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]mistressrenet
2005-01-11 08:01 pm UTC (link)
I sure hope so. Either that or the mental health people need to make a visit right soon.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]iris, 2005-01-12 06:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mistressrenet, 2005-01-12 02:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]delcj, 2005-01-12 06:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mistressrenet, 2005-01-12 02:42 pm UTC

[info]sorchar
2005-01-11 11:18 pm UTC (link)
I was just thinking that. From the woman who wrote A Handmaid's Tale, it HAS to be meant ironically. Right?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]sorchar, 2005-01-11 11:19 pm UTC

(Deleted post)
(no subject) - [info]delcj, 2005-01-12 10:20 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mistressrenet, 2005-01-12 02:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]delcj, 2005-01-13 02:40 am UTC

[info]limyaael
2005-01-11 07:50 pm UTC (link)
Margaret Atwood has fans?

...Sorry. My sole interaction with her work was in the confines of a college classroom that would have approved this idea, because they thought that she was in danger of being assassinated by the government for her ideas in The Handmaid's Tale. Better to stay safely at home, I suppose.

Oh, wait, I did read "Bluebeard's Egg," too. So not impressed. So avoiding "literary fantasy" in the future.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2005-01-11 08:07 pm UTC (link)
I actually like most of Atwood's books for a quick read-through, but they can be dead boring if you pick up the wrong one. "The Handmaid's Tale" and "Cat's Eye" are on my list of all-time favourite books, too.

Can't say much about the person, since I never paid attention. This machine sounds like a ridiculous idea, however. :/

Funny thing is, I also like The Sandman and have read some of Gaiman's prose work. Let me tell you, I never thought I'd see the two authors together....

*insert joke about it being like a wanky version of a thing made up of two good things*

--Incisivis

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Wanking merrily along - [info]isobelsomething, 2005-01-11 08:29 pm UTC
Re: Wanking merrily along - [info]carlanime, 2005-01-11 09:07 pm UTC
Re: Wanking merrily along - [info]fuzzypink, 2005-01-11 10:12 pm UTC
Re: Wanking merrily along - [info]isobelsomething, 2005-01-11 10:38 pm UTC
Re: Wanking merrily along - [info]pokecheck, 2005-01-12 09:35 am UTC
Re: Wanking merrily along - [info]isobelsomething, 2005-01-12 09:37 am UTC
Re: Wanking merrily along - [info]narcissam, 2005-01-11 10:54 pm UTC
Re: Wanking merrily along - [info]fuzzypink, 2005-01-11 11:33 pm UTC
Re: Wanking merrily along - [info]mistressrenet, 2005-01-12 02:46 pm UTC
Re: Wanking merrily along - [info]isobelsomething, 2005-01-12 06:29 pm UTC
Re: Wanking merrily along - (Anonymous), 2005-01-11 11:04 pm UTC
Re: Wanking merrily along - [info]isobelsomething, 2005-01-12 06:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]captainecchi, 2005-01-11 08:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]madamrex, 2005-01-11 09:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]shinigami_co, 2005-01-11 09:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]captainecchi, 2005-01-11 09:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mambo, 2005-01-12 01:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jrandomlurker, 2005-01-11 09:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]narcissam, 2005-01-11 10:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]melannen, 2005-01-11 10:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]atalantapendrag, 2005-01-12 01:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]melannen, 2005-01-12 02:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]atalantapendrag, 2005-01-12 03:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]melannen, 2005-01-12 03:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]atalantapendrag, 2005-01-12 04:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]melannen, 2005-01-12 04:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]atalantapendrag, 2005-01-12 06:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]25th_of_april, 2005-01-12 08:32 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]melannen, 2005-01-12 09:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]melannen, 2005-01-12 09:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]25th_of_april, 2005-01-12 07:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]eljuno, 2005-01-12 11:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]suzycat, 2005-01-12 10:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]melannen, 2005-01-12 10:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]suzycat, 2005-01-12 10:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lurker32, 2005-01-11 11:05 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-01-12 10:12 am UTC
Rambling, here - [info]isobelsomething, 2005-01-12 06:36 pm UTC
Re: Rambling, here - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-01-13 01:01 am UTC

[info]llama_treats
2005-01-11 08:07 pm UTC (link)
Perhaps someone could program the machine to write her books for her. I'm sure they'd be better that way.

(Reply to this)


[info]rustybitch
2005-01-11 08:11 pm UTC (link)
If I were a fan, I'd feel kinda insulted.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]isobelsomething, 2005-01-11 08:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rustybitch, 2005-01-11 10:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sogrammatical, 2005-01-12 01:20 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rustybitch, 2005-01-12 01:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sogrammatical, 2005-01-12 04:39 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]isobelsomething, 2005-01-12 09:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rustybitch, 2005-01-12 04:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]isobelsomething, 2005-01-12 06:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]rustybitch, 2005-01-12 06:41 pm UTC

[info]sepiamagpie
2005-01-11 08:14 pm UTC (link)
that's actually kind of a neat idea.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]dunc, 2005-01-11 08:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kadath, 2005-01-11 08:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]dunc, 2005-01-11 08:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kadath, 2005-01-11 09:06 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]dunc, 2005-01-11 10:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]suzycat, 2005-01-12 11:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]iris, 2005-01-12 06:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda, 2005-01-11 10:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sorchar, 2005-01-11 11:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]littlest_lurker, 2005-01-12 07:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]teratologist, 2005-01-12 02:25 am UTC

[info]sluggirl
2005-01-11 08:15 pm UTC (link)
Might this be a good item for [info]fandom_lounge?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]loony666, 2005-01-11 08:31 pm UTC

[info]loony666
2005-01-11 08:30 pm UTC (link)
If there's no wank, it seems like it might be a tad more appropriate for [info]fandom_lounge.

(Reply to this)


[info]isobelsomething
2005-01-11 08:39 pm UTC (link)
The write up made me think that it was like a machine that would just stamp on the author's signature and print out a piece of paper that said 'You met Margaret Atwood. Congratulations! You're now a better person.' It's not as wanky as that, since they do get to interact with the author in a way, but I don't understand why, instead of inventing a machine that's just going to put more space between the writer and the fan, she doesn't just scale down her book tours, or maybe order a proper dinner once in a while.

And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the record of the interaction would be like a cd with a movie on it instead of a print-out?

Aside: the globe and mail is absolute crap in journalistic terms, but maybe that's my western alienation and election year talking.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]notjo, 2005-01-11 10:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]isobelsomething, 2005-01-12 08:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]narcissam, 2005-01-11 11:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]isobelsomething, 2005-01-12 08:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]narcissam, 2005-01-12 08:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]beandelphiki, 2005-01-11 11:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]isobelsomething, 2005-01-12 09:03 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-01-12 04:28 pm UTC

[info]solelyfictional
2005-01-11 08:44 pm UTC (link)
Anyone else more alarmed by the 'Waterstones sacks guy' for blogging thing a bit further down? It's seems like a complete, overreaction, which is going to get them into some trouble if things keep gathering steam as they have been (there's even a snippet in the timesonline about it).

But then, this 'wank' does give good cause to air out those Anne Rice icons. because, seriously, there's a hell of an ego trip going on here.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]kaen, 2005-01-11 10:55 pm UTC

[info]jrandomlurker
2005-01-11 09:17 pm UTC (link)
If anybody needs a Professional Wall of Technology between themselves and their fans, it's someone like JHONEN VASQUEZ.

I don't see Atwood having creepy psuedo-goth teenage girls lined up for fifteen hours to talk about how much they want to have sex with her...

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]sepiamagpie, 2005-01-11 09:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]littlest_lurker, 2005-01-12 07:12 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-01-12 07:18 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]adora_spintriae, 2005-01-12 10:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bitca, 2005-01-12 10:23 pm UTC

[info]wolfychan
2005-01-11 09:25 pm UTC (link)
If I were her publisher/agent/publicity gnoll, I wouldn't go for it. The cost of making, maintaining, and transporting one of those things has got to be about a fiftieth the cost of getting her first-class plane tickets at convenient times.

(Reply to this)


[info]cairea
2005-01-11 10:41 pm UTC (link)
I have never read anything by Margaret Atwood but, like Dan Brown, I detest her on general principle because she's got enough books out to take up an entire shelf all by herself, and the damned things don't sell. At least not in my store. *grumble*

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-01-12 02:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cairea, 2005-01-12 07:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]teratologist, 2005-01-12 02:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cairea, 2005-01-12 07:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]teratologist, 2005-01-12 02:15 pm UTC

[info]wankprophet
2005-01-12 02:49 am UTC (link)
There's a certain appropriateness about this, as anyone who has ever slogged through more than a couple of her books can attest. It's not like her books and themes aren't repetitive and mechanical and best admired from a safe distance -- preferably from the coffe-shop across the road


Her poetry sucks, her prose is actually quite skilled, but, for the most part, deathly boring. She missed her potential calling as the single greatest tax code writer ever to walk the face of the Earth

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]mistressrenet, 2005-01-12 02:49 pm UTC
Best Idea EVAR.
[info]chaimonkey
2005-01-12 03:01 am UTC (link)
...Automatic Kissing Machine...


(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Best Idea EVAR. - [info]annabelle_lee, 2005-01-12 03:46 am UTC
Re: Best Idea EVAR. - [info]altoidsaddict, 2005-01-12 08:09 am UTC
Re: Best Idea EVAR. - [info]annabelle_lee, 2005-01-12 08:23 am UTC

[info]littlest_lurker
2005-01-12 07:17 am UTC (link)
Donald Rumsfeld approved!

(Reply to this)


[info]schoenschoen
2005-01-12 07:41 am UTC (link)
I liked The Handmaid's Tale. :D

Although, I *guess* I could see the signing machine being needed if, say, the author were old and feeble or deathly ill or for some reason couldn't travel. But if the author is none of those things, then... what's the point? O_o

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]laguera25, 2005-01-12 07:51 am UTC

[info]rachel_04
2005-01-12 08:35 am UTC (link)
I heard Atwood on a radio interview on CBC in Canada pimping out her new invention. I was listening and kinda going..."Is this for real?"
Well it appears it is! Thanks for the clarification.

(Reply to this)


[info]adora_spintriae
2005-01-12 10:09 am UTC (link)
Just another reason to hate Atwood and love Gaiman.

(Reply to this)


[info]suzycat
2005-01-12 10:53 am UTC (link)
I have to say that surprised me rather. I lurve Margaret Atwood and she's always struck me as having a singularly good sense of humour. Surely it's a joke. Surely?

*begs*

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]isobelsomething, 2005-01-12 06:41 pm UTC

[info]diane_duane
2005-01-12 01:05 pm UTC (link)
Horrifying.

When I saw this story first (some days back: it turned up in some other newspaper, don't ask me which one) my mind leapt instantly to something that I ran across about fifteen years ago. I discovered that a couple of other Trek writers were selling their autographs (written on Avery labels) for fifty cents or a dollar a pop.

Ewwwwwwww.

This new variant on the theme strikes me as somehow even ickier, though it would take longer than I'm willing to spend this morning to figure out exactly why. In any case, I agree completely with Neil. If you want people to have your autograph, then get out there and _interact_ with them! If you don't want to sign, then stay home and refrain from trying to get the benefits of signing without spending the effort.

(Of course, la Atwood would be wildly unlikely to take seriously any of the things I'd say...because (a) I'm a science fiction writer, and we all know how she feels about _my_ genre, and (b) if I were worth taking seriously, I'd be rich, wouldn't I? Mutter.)

(sigh) Cranky, cranky. I'd better go get myself some more caffeine....

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]teratologist, 2005-01-12 02:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]diane_duane, 2005-01-12 02:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]phosfate, 2005-01-12 07:08 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]diane_duane, 2005-01-12 07:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]phosfate, 2005-01-12 07:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]diane_duane, 2005-01-12 07:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]phosfate, 2005-01-12 08:05 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ymfaery, 2005-01-12 09:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ymfaery, 2005-01-12 09:39 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bitca, 2005-01-12 10:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]diane_duane, 2005-01-12 11:56 pm UTC

[info]dimethyl
2005-01-12 03:47 pm UTC (link)
The only Atwood novel I've read is Oryx and Crake. I mostly finished because I kept wanting to slash two of the main characters. >_>

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]chash, 2005-01-12 07:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]red_eft, 2005-01-13 06:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dimethyl, 2005-01-13 10:03 am UTC

  
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map