I'm afraid the first point doesn't stand up considering the prevalence of Interlibrary Loan depatrtments at even most small university libraries. Generally, your library can get you an article within a couple of days for free. On the extreme end of the spectrum, you might have to pay $15 to get an article or wait a couple of weeks -- neither one being exceedingly prohibitive.
As far as offending other researchers, this may or may not be true. However, if you are going to cite someone's work, you should know what you're citing.
Ann Coulter's THIS IS WAR
Op/Ed is not only offensive, it in violation of Yahoo's
Terms of Service - it seems ironic that, while Yahoo is yanking
down sites,
they would choose to run this hateful
piece.
From Ms. Coulter's article: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
From Yahoo's Terms of Service:
You agree to not use the Service to:
upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is
unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory,
vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or
racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable [emphasis mine].
...that it incorporates so many elements of mythology (e.g. Journey of the Hero, Slaying of the Dragon, etc...) that it can be 'read' in countless ways.
Last year, I wrote a paper for a mythology class arguing that the mythological aspects of 2001 (the movie) were impossible to get across in the book. I did a fair amount of research and, while I understood that Kubrick and Clarke each had their own explanations for the details of their works, it was impossible for me to write this paper without bringing in my own 'reading' of the film. It was then that I modified the thesis statement of the paper - namely that the film was more effective than the movie because it left itself open to so many personal interpretations; the film allows us to project our own motives, views, and needs into the story. Because of this, the movie works as a mythology (whereas the book has to be more concrete, it is less able to be 'modified' later - it suffers the problems that mythologies which have been written down (e.g. The Bible) - they aren't allowed to change as people's needs change. The film, due to its vagueness, lack of dialogue, and (unlike nearly all major movies) lack of explanation, allows the viewer to come back to the movie time after time and read what they need to into the film.
I haven't read Wheat's book and I don't currently have any desire to do so. For me, the film is an effective mythology. Everytime I view it, it changes in meaning for me - it becomes a means for me to evaluate myself and the world around me. I guess the point I'm trying to make (if there is one), is that Wheat's book is essentially harmless and, because it is trying to say (like I said I haven't read it, so maybe I'm mistaken) that there are definitive explanations for the details in the movie, it is, by my estimation a mistaken reading. Regardless of what Kubrick wanted me to think of his film, it isn't up to him anymore - the film has been made and viewed by me and is now mine, in the sense that I have the freedom to interpret it any way I choose to. To me, this is the beauty of the film and the reason that any definitive interpretation of 2001 is nothing more than the viewer's reading of it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm afraid the first point doesn't stand up considering the prevalence of Interlibrary Loan depatrtments at even most small university libraries. Generally, your library can get you an article within a couple of days for free. On the extreme end of the spectrum, you might have to pay $15 to get an article or wait a couple of weeks -- neither one being exceedingly prohibitive.
As far as offending other researchers, this may or may not be true. However, if you are going to cite someone's work, you should know what you're citing.
Ann Coulter's THIS IS WAR Op/Ed is not only offensive, it in violation of Yahoo's Terms of Service - it seems ironic that, while Yahoo is yanking down sites, they would choose to run this hateful piece. From Ms. Coulter's article: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
From Yahoo's Terms of Service: You agree to not use the Service to:
upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable [emphasis mine].
Last year, I wrote a paper for a mythology class arguing that the mythological aspects of 2001 (the movie) were impossible to get across in the book. I did a fair amount of research and, while I understood that Kubrick and Clarke each had their own explanations for the details of their works, it was impossible for me to write this paper without bringing in my own 'reading' of the film. It was then that I modified the thesis statement of the paper - namely that the film was more effective than the movie because it left itself open to so many personal interpretations; the film allows us to project our own motives, views, and needs into the story. Because of this, the movie works as a mythology (whereas the book has to be more concrete, it is less able to be 'modified' later - it suffers the problems that mythologies which have been written down (e.g. The Bible) - they aren't allowed to change as people's needs change. The film, due to its vagueness, lack of dialogue, and (unlike nearly all major movies) lack of explanation, allows the viewer to come back to the movie time after time and read what they need to into the film.
I haven't read Wheat's book and I don't currently have any desire to do so. For me, the film is an effective mythology. Everytime I view it, it changes in meaning for me - it becomes a means for me to evaluate myself and the world around me. I guess the point I'm trying to make (if there is one), is that Wheat's book is essentially harmless and, because it is trying to say (like I said I haven't read it, so maybe I'm mistaken) that there are definitive explanations for the details in the movie, it is, by my estimation a mistaken reading. Regardless of what Kubrick wanted me to think of his film, it isn't up to him anymore - the film has been made and viewed by me and is now mine, in the sense that I have the freedom to interpret it any way I choose to. To me, this is the beauty of the film and the reason that any definitive interpretation of 2001 is nothing more than the viewer's reading of it.