Talk:Horace Freeland Judson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
Look at this page,for example. [1] I know this wouldn't be a valid source but there's no doubt that the journalist in the film is Horace if you research. WAREL 20:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Praise for the book
Please revert the excessive praise for The Eighth Day of Creation. Also, most of the added material needs to be sourced. Rather than placing a dozen or so {{fact}} tags, I'd appreciate it if the article were edited down to sourced material. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Arthur, can you discuss this please?
"In the foreword to this expanded edition of his 1979 masterpiece, Horace Freeland Judson says, "I feared I might seem the official historian of the movement"--molecular biology, that is. If by official he means "authoritative; definitive; the standard against which all others are measured" then his fears are warranted. Detailed without being overly technical, humane without being fulsome, The Eighth Day of Creation tells of molecular biology's search for the secret of life. "The drama has everything--exploration of the unknown; low comedy and urgent seriousness; savage competition, vaulting intelligence, abrupt changes of fortune, sudden understandings; eccentric and brilliant people, men of honor and of less than honor; a heroine, perhaps wronged; and a treasure to be achieved that was unique and transcendent." And in Judson this drama found its Shakespeare."
Martin 84.64.196.240 17:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Is this all really necessary? =
"He appears in D. A. Pennebaker's documentary film about Bob Dylan Dont Look Back, in which he was subjected to what he believes to be a contrived tirade of abuse from Dylan. Judson had been waiting for an opportunity to interview Dylan during the day's filming and when the opportunity presented itself, Dylan launched into a verbal attack on Time magazine. Judson recalls that Dylan became extremely agitated and questioned the worth of Judson's existence: "You're going to die". "So am I. I mean, we're just gonna be gone. The world's gonna go on without us. All right now, you do your job in the face of that and how seriously you take yourself, you must decide for yourself." The film's producer Pennebaker does not believe the tirade was planned, but notes that Dylan backed off, not wanting to come across as being too cruel. However, Judson believes the confrontation was contrived to make the sequence more entertaining. "The conversation was flat. Suddenly, however, Dylan leapt to his feet and started berating me. He said, for example, something like, "You'll never understand it; it happens so fast it'll go right past you." It startled him but he says he kept trying to ask sensible interesting questions, but the attack persisted. Judson says that he just shrugged his shoulders and left. "The whole episode was entirely unprovoked. That evening, I went to the concert. My opinion then and now was that the music was unpleasant, the lyrics inflated, and Dylan, a self-indulgent whining show off".[4]"
I suggest that this needs editing for sheer length as his science work is far more important?
Martin
62.136.144.51 06:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- His science work way very well put him up there with Einstein, but his run in with Dylan I would say makes up for at least 50% of his notability: to most people, he's just the "little chubby journo Dylan has a go at." Cheers, Lion King 11:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Surely someone like yourself who attends/has attended KCL should have a higher opinion of science than Bob Dylan? Not that I am knocking Bob, of whom I have always had a high opinion, especially as I met/saw TWO of his fellow Travelling Wilburys - in the 60's, ie Jeff/George!
Martin
- Hi Martin. That's attended by the way (many moons ago). I have a very high opinion of science in general. The only reason I inserted so much information with reference to his Dylan inteview was because the article was so sparse, I'm only a musician and I'm afraid I don't know too much about his scientific achievements. If you do, then please insert them. I quite agree that there does not need to be a blow by blow, verbatim account, concerning the interview and of course I will be happy to cut it down to the bare bones and insert the rest of it into the Dont Look Back article. I have also met George, very nice guy, so very sad wasn't it? Best wishes, Lion King 18:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't cut this back! What makes the Dylan interview so important is that the footage is so rare, and the interview is very entertaining. Dylan did not leave his feet. He was very calm, clear and concise. The "attack" was not upon Judson but upon the whole concept of "Time Magazine." What's especially interesting is that Dylan here is at the hight of his creative power as an artist and poet, 1963-1967. Both men are genius, however Judson is out of his element, hence the clash. At that time there was nothing "contrived" about Dylan, he was a free spirit poet, and saw through the consumer society, which Time represents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Missaeagle (talk • contribs) 07:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
