Subj : Reviews To : KEVIN GIBSON From : LEE LOFASO Date : Sun Jul 22 2001 02:40 am Hello Kevin, >KG>Here's a recent comment from one of "the watchers:" KG>>There is nothing worse than being peerless in a peer-review system. >LL>There is nothing *better* than being peerless in a peer-review system. >LL>Just ask Hannibal Lecter. He knows. KG>The comment may have been directed at someone who believes himself or KG>herself unique, possessing some intellectual capacity or technology KG>that exceeds that of any other. Possibly. But being peerless is not necessarily a bad thing. Many prisoners *depend* on being peerless as a matter of survival. KG>Or the observer may have a soft spot for someone who thinks himself KG>or herself beleaguered by critics whose opinions are perceived as KG>less valuable. That may be one of the reasons why Hannibal Lecter allowed himself to be pursued by a certain female agent. KG>There are other possibilities. Definitely. :) >KG>One wonders who thinks himself peerless. >LL>Hannibal Lecter. And he does not wonder. He knows. >KG>My first thought was of the Lord of the Flies. >LL>Silence of the Lambs. KG>It was a long time before I chose to watch that movie. The trailers KG>depicting Lecter in his cell didn't give me the impression that it KG>would be the kind of movie I enjoy. My memory of it at the moment KG>is vague. What inspired the title? The juxtaposition of the titles KG>"Lord of the Flies" and "Silence of the Lambs" is interesting. Did KG>one suggest the other? That's an interesting observation, as the author of "Silence of the Lambs" would have been very much aware of "Lord of the Flies". It would be interesting to find out what inspired the author to title his story as such. >KG>What would it mean if you were without peer? >LL>One can eat all they want, at one great price. KG>The ultimate Omnivore. The highest Echelon. Oh, Hannibal Lecter did not take everything available. He was very selective. Besides, he had a preference for very non-vegetarian meals. Rather than work in unison with others, Lecter much preferred to go solo in his activities. Even while in captivity, most of the time he was held in solitary. Probably for good reason. KG>Were you referring to "Lord of the Flies?" No, but it would make for a good comparative analysis. ;) >KG>If, for instance, a group far exceeds all others in its access to >KG>and command of technology, so that it has "no peers," is that a >KG>good thing? Why or why not? >LL>Nah. Hannibal Lecter wanted it all to himself. Except in the end, >LL>in which he decided to share a meal with his FBI counterpart. KG>Parts of the movie are coming back to me. It was about control. Domination and subjugation. KG>Are you with the FBI? The NSA? Nah. That role is reserved for Jodie Foster and Julianne Moore. But only in the movies. :) >KG>Why would one participate in a peer-review system if he considered >KG>himself without peer? >LL>For one's own amusement, of course. Besides, one might actually >LL>get a convert or two in the process. ;) KG>Good points. Thought for the day: Why does an athlete continue to play after winning the Superbowl? Especially if that athlete is the star quarterback for his team? Being at the pinnacle of one's career, it seems illogical to want to keep playing given that it would be all downhill from there. But yet most of the time athletes choose to continue playing... --Lee * SLMR 2.1a * How *can* I have done that? --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:18/140) .