Taking Chances, by E. L. Van Hine and L.H. Nicoll

[louisev]

yes, miles and miles and miles!

[Bigheart]

that'll certain do, June!

Glad I cheered your day.  Are you in LONDON?

Good!

You sure did. Well, not London but close by. I'm with Helen 

[MaineWriter]

Good!

You sure did. Well, not London but close by. I'm with Helen 

Leslie waves...Hi Helen! Hi June!

[louisev]

Update to "The Red Stallion"

http://louisev.livejournal.com/151439.html  "Chapter 95:  Examinations"

[opinionista]

This is very interesting, but what I don't  understand, then, is why she consented to have it published in the New Yorker without the prologue.

I am an Editor in real life, and we edit author's contributions before publication, and of course, they have the opportunity to rebut our changes. I don't work at the New Yorker but I would assume Annie was afforded the same opportunity. If the prologue was so important and essential, why didn't she argue, or argue harder if she did argue, to have included?

The first version of the story I read was the New Yorker version--not in 1997 but last fall when people were starting to talk about the movie after it won at the Venice Film Festival. The New Yorker still had the story online at that time. I read the story, several times, then saw the movie and after that, read the "Story to Screenplay" version of the story, which does have the prologue. I have said many times that I preferred the New Yorker version...precisely because I did not read it as a flashback. Now, reading your post, thinking about the two versions of the story and the movie, I may need to change my entire worldview on BBM. Hmmm....

To your other comment, regarding your bafflement over Jo's comments...I think there are people out there, who despite countless viewings of the movie still see it in only the most superficial way, ie, as a love story between Jack and Ennis. They, for whatever reason, perhaps because it is too painful, seem unable to get to the deeper heart of the matter of what this story is about and what it can teach us. But we are all just human and the story touches us all in different ways.

Leslie

I'm not sure about this, but it is possible that The New Yorker had less space available for AP's story. They probably depend a lot on ads. Sometimes the number of pages of an edition depends on the amounts of ads they sell before the edition is put together and sold. I know some newspapers work this way. I'm not so sure about the magazines though, but I suspect it might be the same situation.

[MaineWriter]

I'm not sure about this, but it is possible that The New Yorker had less space available for AP's story. They probably depend a lot on ads. Sometimes the number of pages of an edition depends on the amounts of ads they sell before the edition is put together and sold. I know some newspapers work this way. I'm not so sure about the magazines though, but I suspect it might be the same situation.

Well, space is always an issue but if this was such an integral element to the story, I think she would have argued for it, space be damned. I guess we'll never know. One thing that is interesting is that I really feel it makes it as if there are two Brokeback Mountain short stories. There are other differences between the two versions, but the absence of the prologue paragraph has the biggest impact on the narrative.

Speaking of newspapers, did you read the bus plunge story, Natali? For others who might be curious:

http://www.slate.com/id/2152895/

It is funny, I thought.

Leslie

[Lumière]

Yes it had to be the "E."  I guess I wore it out!

Now Souxi must be in a coma because here I just said the Saga was going to be open ended (well, I am thinking of calling the follow-on individual stories "Laramie Tales" or "Tales from the Red Stallion" or something quippy like that) and I got absolutely NO SQUEEE.

That is definitely some SQUEE-worthy news right thurr! 
I can't do it like Soux or June can, but I'll certainly try to do my part:

SQUEEEEE!!

lol

[brokebackjack]

This is very interesting, but what I don't  understand, then, is why she consented to have it published in the New Yorker without the prologue.

I am an Editor in real life, and we edit author's contributions before publication, and of course, they have the opportunity to rebut our changes. I don't work at the New Yorker but I would assume Annie was afforded the same opportunity. If the prologue was so important and essential, why didn't she argue, or argue harder if she did argue, to have included?

The first version of the story I read was the New Yorker version--not in 1997 but last fall when people were starting to talk about the movie after it won at the Venice Film Festival. The New Yorker still had the story online at that time. I read the story, several times, then saw the movie and after that, read the "Story to Screenplay" version of the story, which does have the prologue. I have said many times that I preferred the New Yorker version...precisely because I did not read it as a flashback. Now, reading your post, thinking about the two versions of the story and the movie, I may need to change my entire worldview on BBM. Hmmm....

To your other comment, regarding your bafflement over Jo's comments...I think there are people out there, who despite countless viewings of the movie still see it in only the most superficial way, ie, as a love story between Jack and Ennis. They, for whatever reason, perhaps because it is too painful, seem unable to get to the deeper heart of the matter of what this story is about and what it can teach us. But we are all just human and the story touches us all in different ways.

Leslie

Hi,
Annie did write it with a prologue and it WAS supposed to be there.It had nothing to do with an editorial decision whatsoever: She told me THEY FORGOT TO TYPESET IT. It was left out purely by accident and she had a coronary lol.

I want to dialogue more with you but have to go out--be back later!
Jack

[Bigheart]

Hahaha Milli! You sell yourself short! You do an excellent squeeeeee!!

[Bigheart]

I couldn't get on here for a couple of hours and I'd logged off earlier and when i finally could get on I was logged on again!