Why didn't I read Air Guitar last year? Or the year before that?
I'm buying this book before I get back to Sarasota.
I read this chapter will all interests intact, which is rare for me because art babble usually makes my mind go dim. I understand the writer's comparison of the art market to the early auto industry because part of my family practically worships that day and age, pining after cars long passed because the ones made today no longer have the same magic that they used to.
The art market never quite existed like it did in the mid nineties. Americans were beginning to unfold and truly stretch to fit these values they fought for because the auto industry was making it easy. Cars were icons of freedom and liberty; the very values that our forefathers fought for. Everyone wanted to own one and those that sold these vehicles knew it. Companies shifted their methods after WWII in order to prevent a loss in profits due to over-production. With careful planning and precision, they had the American people tied around their little fingers.
But the cars reflected the manner in which art was discovering its liberties as well. Just as vehicles were being customized by those who wanted to dissent from the herd, art was doing the very same. It was no longer unheard of to put together ready-mades, have them standing upon the ground rather than up against a wall. The idea of what was and wasn't art started to change, yet meanwhile, whatever could be categorized ended up succumbing to that fate with time. Once museums and universities started to accept these 'floor and drawer' arts into their catalogs, they started to gain all these definitions and descriptions that slowly ripped away the originality of making such art.
Artists aren't quitting however, and haven't started to. Just as the auto industry will still release cars until cars are no longer necessary {which is doubtful to happen any time soon}, people will keep making art whether or not they are truly being original or not. People will still be out there and they might still buy because the work/model still tickles their fancy. I can understand however, how it is that the art market definitely got a kick from the automotive industry's ascent.
And like I said before, I need to buy this book. I think I did...
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Don't forget to bring your towel!
The Guide' has always been one of my more favorite subjects of science fiction. It provides that wonderful British humor I grew up with due to my dad's love of it. I read the book years ago, barely remembering details of all the spontaneous and improbable events that took place and in what order they happened. I had watched the newer of the two Hitchhiker's movies when it came out, still enjoying it though it possessed foreign elements not included in the story and in different order. Honestly, I don't think order matters a whole lot. After hearing the radio drama just now in its entirety, I believe every version of this story bears its own weight in gold. Douglas Adams is a fantastic writer and his story can be taken to any form while maintaining the same humorous quality.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy struck me as a cross between Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead and Doctor Who. It certainly bears the existential theme that the parody play mentioned had only it takes place in space and there are infinite planets, aliens, and 'stuff' we're not familiar with. Though the story could practically be jumbled in any order, the beginning remains where it stands in every telling. Arthur Dent is introduced as a rather average fellow living on a dismal and soon-to-be demolished planet, Earth. He is rescued by an old friend originally from another planet just before the Earth is destroyed. From here, the story presses on into spiraling improbability. Arthur and his friend Ford are caught in Zaphod's stolen ship, the Heart of Gold, and from there they go from one adventure to the next. When I looked the story up on the internet, keen on attempting to remember what the 'true' version was supposed to be like, it was brought to my attention that Adams actually wrote several variations as to where their journeys end up going.
The radio version was actually not all that hard to follow...at first. Then the plot sort of got lost in obscurity as questions were answered but they left me confused all the more. It wasn't a bad sort of confusion though. I sense the story is supposed to have this quality to it. After Dent was told of Earth being an organic computer, the story spiraled into madness from there. I remember the bits in the book about the restaurant at the end of the universe too, though I couldn't remember exactly what happened next. Listening to the radio drama reminded me of telling stories to your friends and making things up as you go along. Because the universe is so infinitely big and there are an infinite number of things to talk about that could be completely nonsensical at one moment and history the next, it's easy to have the audience just believe whatever you're telling them because you know more than they do about it. Arthur is the character that takes the listener and plops us into this situation. He's rather incredulous, what with the universe being a new idea and all, and just like us he has to put up with so much new and possibly ludicrous information that he takes it all like a true Englishman. This only makes the story more humorous.
I couldn't help but compare this to the movie though, because it was the most recent thing I could compare it to. The one thing I really liked about the new movie's telling of the story was the acting. When the world was just about to be blown apart, Ford was actually visibly nervous about it and Arthur was equally just as skeptical and oblivious about it. I wasn't fond of how Zaphod was portrayed in the movie however, because in both the book and the radio drama he wasn't a complete madman and idiot. He had a class about him, despite his overwhelmingly immense ego. He also struck me as a very chill kind of guy. Still, the movie did its job to condense the spiraling plot{s} into a movie-sized story that ended with a sense of closure {until at the very end the idea for a pop over to the restaurant is brought up}. It didn't have much ado with the book or radio drama after certain points, but it wasn't terrible. It still kept the spirit of The Guide.
Did the radio drama continue past what is given to us in resources? I'd hope so, since well...Doug's no more {rest in peace}. I'm picking up the book again when I finish A Clockwork Orange. I thought the radio drama was nice and because of it I'm going to be thinking with a British accent all day. Which...isn't bad.
-Cheerio
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy struck me as a cross between Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead and Doctor Who. It certainly bears the existential theme that the parody play mentioned had only it takes place in space and there are infinite planets, aliens, and 'stuff' we're not familiar with. Though the story could practically be jumbled in any order, the beginning remains where it stands in every telling. Arthur Dent is introduced as a rather average fellow living on a dismal and soon-to-be demolished planet, Earth. He is rescued by an old friend originally from another planet just before the Earth is destroyed. From here, the story presses on into spiraling improbability. Arthur and his friend Ford are caught in Zaphod's stolen ship, the Heart of Gold, and from there they go from one adventure to the next. When I looked the story up on the internet, keen on attempting to remember what the 'true' version was supposed to be like, it was brought to my attention that Adams actually wrote several variations as to where their journeys end up going.
The radio version was actually not all that hard to follow...at first. Then the plot sort of got lost in obscurity as questions were answered but they left me confused all the more. It wasn't a bad sort of confusion though. I sense the story is supposed to have this quality to it. After Dent was told of Earth being an organic computer, the story spiraled into madness from there. I remember the bits in the book about the restaurant at the end of the universe too, though I couldn't remember exactly what happened next. Listening to the radio drama reminded me of telling stories to your friends and making things up as you go along. Because the universe is so infinitely big and there are an infinite number of things to talk about that could be completely nonsensical at one moment and history the next, it's easy to have the audience just believe whatever you're telling them because you know more than they do about it. Arthur is the character that takes the listener and plops us into this situation. He's rather incredulous, what with the universe being a new idea and all, and just like us he has to put up with so much new and possibly ludicrous information that he takes it all like a true Englishman. This only makes the story more humorous.
I couldn't help but compare this to the movie though, because it was the most recent thing I could compare it to. The one thing I really liked about the new movie's telling of the story was the acting. When the world was just about to be blown apart, Ford was actually visibly nervous about it and Arthur was equally just as skeptical and oblivious about it. I wasn't fond of how Zaphod was portrayed in the movie however, because in both the book and the radio drama he wasn't a complete madman and idiot. He had a class about him, despite his overwhelmingly immense ego. He also struck me as a very chill kind of guy. Still, the movie did its job to condense the spiraling plot{s} into a movie-sized story that ended with a sense of closure {until at the very end the idea for a pop over to the restaurant is brought up}. It didn't have much ado with the book or radio drama after certain points, but it wasn't terrible. It still kept the spirit of The Guide.
Did the radio drama continue past what is given to us in resources? I'd hope so, since well...Doug's no more {rest in peace}. I'm picking up the book again when I finish A Clockwork Orange. I thought the radio drama was nice and because of it I'm going to be thinking with a British accent all day. Which...isn't bad.
-Cheerio
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Oh, my brothers
It's the wonderful week of literary speculation. I plan to read and have started A Clockwork Orange. I have seen most of the movie that I would hear so much about {and I would have wished to see the rest of it, but I didn't have the luxury}. I thought the story was coming along very well too, until I had to stop. Now I've got a hold of the text though, and text is usually better than the films, so we'll see.
I had actually seen the movie Big Fish as well, though not all that recently. I saw it around the time that it came out on DVD. I don't remember a whole lot about the story, but I remember the movie had an impact on someone I watched it with whose father was dying at the time. It was one of those stories that takes its title from a 'fisherman's tale'. A 'big fish' is the embellished part of the story in order to add something impressive in the place of something drab or mediocre. From what I can remember, the movie revolves around the tale of a man's son remembering the stories he used to tell about his past, and they were always very fantastical. The son remained generally skeptical about them but after his father died he seemed to prefer the memory of those amazing tales he told to anything else.
Anyways, I'll be updating this once I get to the middle of A Clockwork Orange because I'm far behind and I have a lot of studying to do for a couple of pending exams. I might not be able to finish this novel in time for the last day of class. I will probably skip on to the last week's subject of Bizarro fiction because it involves listening and I can work on drawings while I pay attention. This will likely be updated last then.
-Peace out
I had actually seen the movie Big Fish as well, though not all that recently. I saw it around the time that it came out on DVD. I don't remember a whole lot about the story, but I remember the movie had an impact on someone I watched it with whose father was dying at the time. It was one of those stories that takes its title from a 'fisherman's tale'. A 'big fish' is the embellished part of the story in order to add something impressive in the place of something drab or mediocre. From what I can remember, the movie revolves around the tale of a man's son remembering the stories he used to tell about his past, and they were always very fantastical. The son remained generally skeptical about them but after his father died he seemed to prefer the memory of those amazing tales he told to anything else.
Anyways, I'll be updating this once I get to the middle of A Clockwork Orange because I'm far behind and I have a lot of studying to do for a couple of pending exams. I might not be able to finish this novel in time for the last day of class. I will probably skip on to the last week's subject of Bizarro fiction because it involves listening and I can work on drawings while I pay attention. This will likely be updated last then.
-Peace out
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Oh...kay...
So it's Diverse position SciFi week! Wasn't sure what it all entailed but after spending some time to read a few of the short stories on the resources site, I...still don't know. It's completely gone over my head. I suppose it entails those stories that didn't quite cut it into other genres or that take a different sort of route from traditional science fiction, but after reading Bloodchild I simply wasn't all that sure. That story, of the three I read, would be one that I would have identified as science fiction. As for I Live with You, that just seems like more of a mystery than anything else and it might cut into science fiction with some push. Then there was the story known as What I Didn't See which I would have never identified and still have trouble identifying as a science fiction story. This one is certainly more of a mystery than anything else. I'll get into each of them with more depth in a moment.
When I get a chance, I certainly want to watch all of Brother from Another Planet, simply because the first fifteen minutes we saw in class were rather intriguing, but I digress.
Alright, so first I'll go over Bloodchild. I didn't re-read it because the story was strong enough to be remembered without further provocation. It's a story about a preserve in which human families are kept, likely being farmed as hosts for an insectoid alien species, and the issue of trust and cooperation between both species. It isn't a black or white situation in my opinion. The aliens, which I believe are called the Tlic, took in the humans after a craft fleeing from oppression had crash-landed onto their planet. The Tlic were supposedly a dying race at the time, but somehow a system was established that trapped many if not all the humans on a special preserve. Here, female Tlics lay eggs in human bodies and their offspring are later ripped out of the human hosts and transferred into animal carcasses for feeding. A child, being prepared for his future as a host, witnesses the act of cutting that is normally kept from sight. It raises questions as to whether he should trust this system or revolt against it. Eventually, he accepts his role to save a sibling from the burden and puts his trust in the alien creature his family had been living with.
Come to think of it, I might be able to see what all these stories do have in common. All of them leave you thinking about life. They leave you thinking about what is right and what is wrong and the gray morality-level choices we are dealt with. In Bloodchild, would it truly be right to deny the aliens their hosts and leave the species to struggle once more? The humans /are/ being well cared for, for the most part. There is no sign of hostility from the Tlics amidst all this. T'Gatoi attempted to save Lomas and if humans are so easy to farm and control they could have just as well discarded him or left him to rot. As for human right, do they truly have a choice? Has the main character refused to be a host, would the Tlics have done away with him?
I'm sure I Live with You was supposed to remain open about who 'I' is. At first I assumed that the narrator was a ghost--a poltergeist maybe. It started to seem less so when she was well capable of charging Nora's credit card for things and interact with limitation with the living. I came away from the story seeing her as a psychological part of Nora, like an alter ego. I found this story interesting from its beginning as I attempted to determine what she truly was, but I'm settling on that. My guess is that Nora, the woman the main character is obsessively following, was leading a very boring existence. The narrator then decides to try and change all this and spice it up a little. Everything she does is in Nora's best interest, so she says. She doesn't steal, as repeated, but takes the steps necessary to accelerate Nora's life towards something less drab and dead. If anything, Nora's more of a ghost than the narrator. Maybe she is a ghost. I don't think so, but there you go. That's how automatic she is. The narrator ends up bringing some old guy over, and things seem to be going well with the narrator's help, but then she steps away for one moment and suddenly the guy's running off. The narrator simply gets fed up and leaves, wearing Nora's old clothes yet still claiming she isn't stealing anything.
Here we're dealing with the inner struggle against change. We all have been there once. Life ends up coming to a brief halt and it takes some motivation for us to change for the better. You could choose not to and remain in a static and dull safe zone or you can take your chances and perhaps end up with something better. Nora doesn't seem like the woman who would ever try to take any risks. The narrator, on the other hand, claims to be just like Nora but she wants to add spice to things. She dances to television and radio while trying to match her 'roommate' up with men.
Finally, there's What I Didn't See. Ironically enough, I didn't see how this could be science fiction. This story was more of a mystery than anything else. There were no extraterrestrials, no monsters or ghosts, no futuristic technologies, and no other such scientific non-existent things. It's a story about a woman who ventures to Africa with her husband to collect spiders with some gorilla hunters and while the main character stays behind, a friend of hers ends up disappearing and her whereabouts remain unknown. This all takes place in the jungle. Anything could have happened and any of that could have been perfectly normal. Maybe she was abducted by those cannibals. Maybe she got lost in the jungle and passed out somewhere distant. There are several dozen ways to die or get lost here. Meanwhile, the main character's husband comes back from one hunting trip completely dazed yet he reveals it was due to their killing of gorillas. That's terrible and all, but what does it have to do with science fiction? The closest I could think to get would be to assume that the lost woman became some female Tarzan and the main character's husband had to shoot a bunch aliens cleverly disguised as gorillas. The moral? Don't just shoot a bunch of gorillas or you'll be traumatized...or something. It wasn't a bad story or anything, but I didn't see why it would have been included in the science fiction genre. I could see anyone reading this story interpreting it as anything but. Maybe I missed an element somewhere. Maybe science fiction is more than just what I had mentioned above. But nothing was peculiar about this story. All that we're left with is a mystery about a disappearing woman and a hunting trip. We're given no clues to supernatural type events.
It wasn't hard to read through these stories though, and I would have given the fourth story a look if I wasn't pressed for time.
-Peace out.
When I get a chance, I certainly want to watch all of Brother from Another Planet, simply because the first fifteen minutes we saw in class were rather intriguing, but I digress.
Alright, so first I'll go over Bloodchild. I didn't re-read it because the story was strong enough to be remembered without further provocation. It's a story about a preserve in which human families are kept, likely being farmed as hosts for an insectoid alien species, and the issue of trust and cooperation between both species. It isn't a black or white situation in my opinion. The aliens, which I believe are called the Tlic, took in the humans after a craft fleeing from oppression had crash-landed onto their planet. The Tlic were supposedly a dying race at the time, but somehow a system was established that trapped many if not all the humans on a special preserve. Here, female Tlics lay eggs in human bodies and their offspring are later ripped out of the human hosts and transferred into animal carcasses for feeding. A child, being prepared for his future as a host, witnesses the act of cutting that is normally kept from sight. It raises questions as to whether he should trust this system or revolt against it. Eventually, he accepts his role to save a sibling from the burden and puts his trust in the alien creature his family had been living with.
Come to think of it, I might be able to see what all these stories do have in common. All of them leave you thinking about life. They leave you thinking about what is right and what is wrong and the gray morality-level choices we are dealt with. In Bloodchild, would it truly be right to deny the aliens their hosts and leave the species to struggle once more? The humans /are/ being well cared for, for the most part. There is no sign of hostility from the Tlics amidst all this. T'Gatoi attempted to save Lomas and if humans are so easy to farm and control they could have just as well discarded him or left him to rot. As for human right, do they truly have a choice? Has the main character refused to be a host, would the Tlics have done away with him?
I'm sure I Live with You was supposed to remain open about who 'I' is. At first I assumed that the narrator was a ghost--a poltergeist maybe. It started to seem less so when she was well capable of charging Nora's credit card for things and interact with limitation with the living. I came away from the story seeing her as a psychological part of Nora, like an alter ego. I found this story interesting from its beginning as I attempted to determine what she truly was, but I'm settling on that. My guess is that Nora, the woman the main character is obsessively following, was leading a very boring existence. The narrator then decides to try and change all this and spice it up a little. Everything she does is in Nora's best interest, so she says. She doesn't steal, as repeated, but takes the steps necessary to accelerate Nora's life towards something less drab and dead. If anything, Nora's more of a ghost than the narrator. Maybe she is a ghost. I don't think so, but there you go. That's how automatic she is. The narrator ends up bringing some old guy over, and things seem to be going well with the narrator's help, but then she steps away for one moment and suddenly the guy's running off. The narrator simply gets fed up and leaves, wearing Nora's old clothes yet still claiming she isn't stealing anything.
Here we're dealing with the inner struggle against change. We all have been there once. Life ends up coming to a brief halt and it takes some motivation for us to change for the better. You could choose not to and remain in a static and dull safe zone or you can take your chances and perhaps end up with something better. Nora doesn't seem like the woman who would ever try to take any risks. The narrator, on the other hand, claims to be just like Nora but she wants to add spice to things. She dances to television and radio while trying to match her 'roommate' up with men.
Finally, there's What I Didn't See. Ironically enough, I didn't see how this could be science fiction. This story was more of a mystery than anything else. There were no extraterrestrials, no monsters or ghosts, no futuristic technologies, and no other such scientific non-existent things. It's a story about a woman who ventures to Africa with her husband to collect spiders with some gorilla hunters and while the main character stays behind, a friend of hers ends up disappearing and her whereabouts remain unknown. This all takes place in the jungle. Anything could have happened and any of that could have been perfectly normal. Maybe she was abducted by those cannibals. Maybe she got lost in the jungle and passed out somewhere distant. There are several dozen ways to die or get lost here. Meanwhile, the main character's husband comes back from one hunting trip completely dazed yet he reveals it was due to their killing of gorillas. That's terrible and all, but what does it have to do with science fiction? The closest I could think to get would be to assume that the lost woman became some female Tarzan and the main character's husband had to shoot a bunch aliens cleverly disguised as gorillas. The moral? Don't just shoot a bunch of gorillas or you'll be traumatized...or something. It wasn't a bad story or anything, but I didn't see why it would have been included in the science fiction genre. I could see anyone reading this story interpreting it as anything but. Maybe I missed an element somewhere. Maybe science fiction is more than just what I had mentioned above. But nothing was peculiar about this story. All that we're left with is a mystery about a disappearing woman and a hunting trip. We're given no clues to supernatural type events.
It wasn't hard to read through these stories though, and I would have given the fourth story a look if I wasn't pressed for time.
-Peace out.
History of Wonder Boy and Young Nastyman
Title's an obscure reference to an old fan-made music video I saw years ago when I first saw Akira. I know I should probably be expanding my horizons and reading/watching something new, but to be honest I forgot a lot about what happened in the movie. I saw it when I was in middle school and all I remembered was a giant flesh baby.
When the movie first started up I wasn't sure how it fit into the cyberpunk genre, but when it ended, I put some thought into analyzing it. It actually has a lot of the elements normally found in the genre. The technology doesn't seem that impressive, and that was what threw me off at first. Most of the cyberpunk I can remember reading had a lot of new technology, some impressive stuff, robots, data coming out of everyplace, drugs, and hackers. Actually, Akira features the lot to a minimal extent, but to an extent nonetheless. Kaneda, the main character, is the leader of a motorbike gang. He's not all that bright {which is nice to see for a change} but he has a lot of personality. It's clear to see why he's the leader despite his juvenile antics. The motorbikes don't hover or anything, they're not data pirates or junkies; they seem like the sort of typical gang you'd expect to find in ten years time rolling out through Tokyo. This future doesn't seem like much of a jump from ours. The people are just as clueless as they've ever been and the technology isn't a bear to try and understand from our perspective.
However, as stated before, there are more elements that attribute it to the cyberpunk genre. The setting is nearly post-Apocalyptic, though oddly enough it is firmly wedged in between both 'post' and 'pre'. The city was devastated once before the first time that Akira's power had awoken and it is just about ready throughout the movie to see yet another similar apocalypse. Most cyberpunk settings bear this trait. The world is nitty and gritty, full of violence and protest. Crime is rampant. Anarchy is in the air. Politics are corrupt. The system is shutting down. A cyberpunk world is never a pretty one. As brought up by the experiments, mankind is facing an evolutionary milestone. People are attempting to control a power they have yet to understand. In the middle of it all, we have our quaint band of misfits trying to live in their teenage wasteland that end up involved in the mess that is their world changing when one of their own is abducted.
I still think it's a stretch though. The story still seemed to focus more on people versus power rather than man and machine. There were drugs involved as well, but half of the talk was actually about medicine to help curb Tetsuo's power and the other half might have been something else that wasn't nearly as significant. Like said before, there was a government on the brink of collapse and protesters rioting in the streets. The fall of the system can be glimpsed upon when the school is focused on briefly. The children are completely out of control and the school itself is a mess. It is indeed a society where the lower classes and the hooligans can rule the streets, leaving the high and mighty to their own dirty work.
I liked this movie, but seeing it now and understanding it better, it's a memorable one at that. I couldn't see this as something in a book because I believe wordy explanations would end up distracting readers from the purpose. Akira isn't really about technology and how far it's come. In fact I think the movie made it a point to show how stunted technological evolution became after a big war, and I appreciate that. Hell, we were supposed to have hover cars now if The Jetsons were in any way legit. Akira is a movie about people. Not just 'people in the future' or 'these people' but 'you' too. Tetsuo didn't make all the best decisions and power is something one should be careful with. He wasn't quite careful with it at all.
-Peace out.
When the movie first started up I wasn't sure how it fit into the cyberpunk genre, but when it ended, I put some thought into analyzing it. It actually has a lot of the elements normally found in the genre. The technology doesn't seem that impressive, and that was what threw me off at first. Most of the cyberpunk I can remember reading had a lot of new technology, some impressive stuff, robots, data coming out of everyplace, drugs, and hackers. Actually, Akira features the lot to a minimal extent, but to an extent nonetheless. Kaneda, the main character, is the leader of a motorbike gang. He's not all that bright {which is nice to see for a change} but he has a lot of personality. It's clear to see why he's the leader despite his juvenile antics. The motorbikes don't hover or anything, they're not data pirates or junkies; they seem like the sort of typical gang you'd expect to find in ten years time rolling out through Tokyo. This future doesn't seem like much of a jump from ours. The people are just as clueless as they've ever been and the technology isn't a bear to try and understand from our perspective.
However, as stated before, there are more elements that attribute it to the cyberpunk genre. The setting is nearly post-Apocalyptic, though oddly enough it is firmly wedged in between both 'post' and 'pre'. The city was devastated once before the first time that Akira's power had awoken and it is just about ready throughout the movie to see yet another similar apocalypse. Most cyberpunk settings bear this trait. The world is nitty and gritty, full of violence and protest. Crime is rampant. Anarchy is in the air. Politics are corrupt. The system is shutting down. A cyberpunk world is never a pretty one. As brought up by the experiments, mankind is facing an evolutionary milestone. People are attempting to control a power they have yet to understand. In the middle of it all, we have our quaint band of misfits trying to live in their teenage wasteland that end up involved in the mess that is their world changing when one of their own is abducted.
I still think it's a stretch though. The story still seemed to focus more on people versus power rather than man and machine. There were drugs involved as well, but half of the talk was actually about medicine to help curb Tetsuo's power and the other half might have been something else that wasn't nearly as significant. Like said before, there was a government on the brink of collapse and protesters rioting in the streets. The fall of the system can be glimpsed upon when the school is focused on briefly. The children are completely out of control and the school itself is a mess. It is indeed a society where the lower classes and the hooligans can rule the streets, leaving the high and mighty to their own dirty work.
I liked this movie, but seeing it now and understanding it better, it's a memorable one at that. I couldn't see this as something in a book because I believe wordy explanations would end up distracting readers from the purpose. Akira isn't really about technology and how far it's come. In fact I think the movie made it a point to show how stunted technological evolution became after a big war, and I appreciate that. Hell, we were supposed to have hover cars now if The Jetsons were in any way legit. Akira is a movie about people. Not just 'people in the future' or 'these people' but 'you' too. Tetsuo didn't make all the best decisions and power is something one should be careful with. He wasn't quite careful with it at all.
-Peace out.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Babel 17 - the language of space terrorists.
I'm about halfway through the novel for now. I will update more soon. So far I find the storyline simple enough to follow, though every now and then there are explanations given for things that just don't make any sense. It's like the author wants us to really feel like we're in a futuristic world so he's making up all sorts of future tech and introducing concepts that I don't feel are explained well enough. I was totally lost with the whole 'circle' business when the ship was drifting. Something about the orbit moving some marbles about or whatever, but I'm sure any physics major might be able to make heads or tails of it. I don't know. I'm sure if I was there for the explanation I would have just stood there and nodded. Also, what's with the Suicide thing? Apparently, if people aren't dead of old age or of some horrible traumatic disfiguring, they can be recovered. They don't really go that far in depth about this up to the middle of the book and I think it's pretty important. I mean, that Second Navigator was dead before they picked her up. The Eyes, Ears, and Nose characters were sort of left out too. You get a broad idea of what they're good for, but it isn't explained why that job is so important, where they came from, and what they are exactly. I'm picturing that the Ear is just some faceless, noseless, blind flesh thing with huge ears...
Still reading.
And done.
Things got pretty confusing as I read along, but I was able to understand the general idea. I wasn't able to read this story in a day or anything because I haven't had the time, so I don't remember a whole lot of the details. The parts in which Rydra goes into these strange Babel-17 induced states confused me quite a bit, but after the story wrapped up I'm sure I'd understand everything better if I re-read it. I don't have the time, but the story was interesting enough for me to consider doing so.
One element that bothered me a lot, and I see this often in Science Fiction, is sudden infatuation. Rydra and the Butcher had this relationship that seemed to come out of nowhere and it bothered me a bit. Sure, she was helping him to understand the concept of 'you' and 'I'; I guess a teacher/student relationship could have lead to that? I'm not well versed on the subject. As for the other characters, like the pilot and crew, I feel like there should have been more on them in the story. They're very intriguing characters just by what we see of them. They're a more interesting group than the main character is on her own.
I did like the concept on a language that could act as a sort of mind control. I skimmed over most of the explanation, because it wasn't making a whole lot of sense or it seemed outdated, but I got the general mechanic down. It provided for an decent twist by the end of the book. You start to suspect the Captain around the middle, but she's so cautious about finding a spy that you start to second guess yourself. Then you find out it's the language that's manipulating her. The story was well put together in my opinion. It did feel like they breezed past everything a little too quickly, like the novel needed to be several chapters longer for us to really get a feel of their universe. They neglected to cover certain things like the necessity for certain crew members and such. The war could have been better explained as well as the Invaders.
I'd give this story a 7.5/10. It had a good plot, but it was too skeletal and at times it left me a little confused.
-Peace out
Still reading.
And done.
Things got pretty confusing as I read along, but I was able to understand the general idea. I wasn't able to read this story in a day or anything because I haven't had the time, so I don't remember a whole lot of the details. The parts in which Rydra goes into these strange Babel-17 induced states confused me quite a bit, but after the story wrapped up I'm sure I'd understand everything better if I re-read it. I don't have the time, but the story was interesting enough for me to consider doing so.
One element that bothered me a lot, and I see this often in Science Fiction, is sudden infatuation. Rydra and the Butcher had this relationship that seemed to come out of nowhere and it bothered me a bit. Sure, she was helping him to understand the concept of 'you' and 'I'; I guess a teacher/student relationship could have lead to that? I'm not well versed on the subject. As for the other characters, like the pilot and crew, I feel like there should have been more on them in the story. They're very intriguing characters just by what we see of them. They're a more interesting group than the main character is on her own.
I did like the concept on a language that could act as a sort of mind control. I skimmed over most of the explanation, because it wasn't making a whole lot of sense or it seemed outdated, but I got the general mechanic down. It provided for an decent twist by the end of the book. You start to suspect the Captain around the middle, but she's so cautious about finding a spy that you start to second guess yourself. Then you find out it's the language that's manipulating her. The story was well put together in my opinion. It did feel like they breezed past everything a little too quickly, like the novel needed to be several chapters longer for us to really get a feel of their universe. They neglected to cover certain things like the necessity for certain crew members and such. The war could have been better explained as well as the Invaders.
I'd give this story a 7.5/10. It had a good plot, but it was too skeletal and at times it left me a little confused.
-Peace out
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Jaunting sounds like an Olympic Sport
The Stars My Destination is...wow. Just...wow. How he pulled off being a clown for a short time--I don't know. I really don't. They make him sound like one of those sorts of people that you KNOW could break your spine in half just by staring at you hard enough. Damn he's scary. He's like the physical embodiment of vengeance and fury. Lots of Deus ex Machina going on, but that's in any story these days. In most of the events that Gully should have died a horrible death, he finds a way out. I remember that escape from the Science Society or whatever, the hospital, the Commandos...he just gets really lucky. Not to mention that Burning Man flashbackwards thing.
I think my favorite character is the robot in the end...anyhow, on to a proper review:
This story was gripping at first, but after a while it became sort of painful to read. Gully, so I'll call him, starts off as an uneducated every-man of the time. There's nothing special about him {that we know of yet} except that he's got a strong will to survive despite his awareness of how often he dances with death. He ends up getting involved in a huge corporation/political blunder and suddenly he's being hunted by the very 'clan' he's hunting. Now, upon reading on the structure of 'the future' in this book and noting the date of its publication, it's quite ahead of its time. Surely the war and weapons of mass destruction were themes that were fueled by both the aftermath of the second World War and the beginnings of the Cold War. Still, upon having a system where these clans that rule the world are more like corporations {suggesting a takeover of Capitalism} and themes on teleportation, telepathy, and space colonization, it suggests the writer had a pretty vivid and well mulled over image in his mind of the twenty-fourth or twenty-somethingth century.
Anyways, the main character ends up becoming fueled solely on vengeance for having been left to drift by a passing ship. He doesn't even have education enough to want revenge taken against the people driving the ship; just the actual thoughtless steel shuttle itself, as if the ship and not the navigators decided to abandon him. Knowing this, or being lead by this, and his terrible diction, it's hard for me to believe that with less than a year of being educated in that underground hospital suddenly turned him into something formidable. It's not like he's fully refined, because he obviously has no charm or tact, but he can speak in complete sentences and he actually thinks a little before he goes and does something. Plus, his plans are not so horribly thrown together. He seems like he actually can come up with something if he's got the motivation. So I'm having trouble deciphering whether Gully's just dumb or lacked proper motivation before and is rather gifted. I take it he's the later due to his whole philosophical bout by the end of the story with a little help from that robot servant/Wall-E fellow.
I couldn't understand why he didn't develop any lasting infatuation with Jiz {I still can't think that name without laughing} and Robin. Those were two women he actually was working with. Apparently both weren't bad looking, though Jiz compared herself to an old woman he remarked that she was actually quite beautiful. No. Instead he falls for the chick whom he not only just met for a total of a few strong minutes, but he later finds was the one who sentenced him to death by drifting and is completely and utterly mad. I didn't get that. She didn't strike me as an attractive person. Even if you took the most beautiful body and slapped it on to that personality of hers, I wouldn't bite. She's so bland that I was left asking myself "what? what? REALLY GULLY?". He's obviously not the sort who's meant for romantics. He knows how to rape, so he probably gets some if he wants, but I'm afraid he doesn't even know what love is. No tact whatsoever when he blatantly admit to Robin that he was in love with Olivia, the Ice Queen from Blandsville. He should just stick to kicking butt in fast motion.
The story introduced a few cool concepts like jaunting and what it did to society, cool human enhancements, developments in society and culture, and all that fun stuff. That was actually what made up some of the more fun parts to read in my opinion. I loved the intro, how it began by describing the first trials of jaunting. I think they should have made the story about that guy. I'm sure it would have not been as epic, but it might have made more sense and it might have been just down to earth enough not to leave us bewildered by a plethora of new technology and ideas. Oh, but then we wouldn't get all the cool consequences that evolved from the masses learning of this teleportation technique. But hell, you could make the story about that as well. Gully's story...was over the top. I could understand how the events progressed, but some of his methods of escape were just...too coincidental. Like I said before, lots of Deus ex Machina. They explain the Burning Man appearances near the end of the story, and that's all fine and dandy, but the bombs just seem to always go off at just the most convenient times. I could make a long list of all the times Gully could have ended up dying and most of them I count off before the half-way point of the story. The point is, he didn't. He lived long enough to get to the moral of the story which actually doesn't seem to have all that much ado with the story itself. Don't get me wrong: 'Be an individual', 'don't be a robot', and 'a society is defined by the individuals' are great morals, but what the hell did it have to do with everything that just exploded in our face? Gully was an individual and look how many times he was nearly killed. He was a lucky bastard. And guess how many people he killed? He killed a lot of people. He's not a great example of an exemplary individual. He tries to atone by the end of the story but face it, so much happened to him that didn't seem to have nothing to do with those morals that you're not sure of yourself anymore.
It wasn't a bad story and it wasn't one of the best I've ever read. I love the setting, I love the ideas, and I love the society, but the characters and the story itself are not as well developed as I would have liked them all to be. None of the characters seemed to be very consistent and the main character was either scary as hell, stupid as hell, or confusing as hell. That's not a great character trope for your main guy unless it's a comedy you're reading instead of a serious sci-fi. I'd give it a 7/10.
-Peace out.
I think my favorite character is the robot in the end...anyhow, on to a proper review:
This story was gripping at first, but after a while it became sort of painful to read. Gully, so I'll call him, starts off as an uneducated every-man of the time. There's nothing special about him {that we know of yet} except that he's got a strong will to survive despite his awareness of how often he dances with death. He ends up getting involved in a huge corporation/political blunder and suddenly he's being hunted by the very 'clan' he's hunting. Now, upon reading on the structure of 'the future' in this book and noting the date of its publication, it's quite ahead of its time. Surely the war and weapons of mass destruction were themes that were fueled by both the aftermath of the second World War and the beginnings of the Cold War. Still, upon having a system where these clans that rule the world are more like corporations {suggesting a takeover of Capitalism} and themes on teleportation, telepathy, and space colonization, it suggests the writer had a pretty vivid and well mulled over image in his mind of the twenty-fourth or twenty-somethingth century.
Anyways, the main character ends up becoming fueled solely on vengeance for having been left to drift by a passing ship. He doesn't even have education enough to want revenge taken against the people driving the ship; just the actual thoughtless steel shuttle itself, as if the ship and not the navigators decided to abandon him. Knowing this, or being lead by this, and his terrible diction, it's hard for me to believe that with less than a year of being educated in that underground hospital suddenly turned him into something formidable. It's not like he's fully refined, because he obviously has no charm or tact, but he can speak in complete sentences and he actually thinks a little before he goes and does something. Plus, his plans are not so horribly thrown together. He seems like he actually can come up with something if he's got the motivation. So I'm having trouble deciphering whether Gully's just dumb or lacked proper motivation before and is rather gifted. I take it he's the later due to his whole philosophical bout by the end of the story with a little help from that robot servant/Wall-E fellow.
I couldn't understand why he didn't develop any lasting infatuation with Jiz {I still can't think that name without laughing} and Robin. Those were two women he actually was working with. Apparently both weren't bad looking, though Jiz compared herself to an old woman he remarked that she was actually quite beautiful. No. Instead he falls for the chick whom he not only just met for a total of a few strong minutes, but he later finds was the one who sentenced him to death by drifting and is completely and utterly mad. I didn't get that. She didn't strike me as an attractive person. Even if you took the most beautiful body and slapped it on to that personality of hers, I wouldn't bite. She's so bland that I was left asking myself "what? what? REALLY GULLY?". He's obviously not the sort who's meant for romantics. He knows how to rape, so he probably gets some if he wants, but I'm afraid he doesn't even know what love is. No tact whatsoever when he blatantly admit to Robin that he was in love with Olivia, the Ice Queen from Blandsville. He should just stick to kicking butt in fast motion.
The story introduced a few cool concepts like jaunting and what it did to society, cool human enhancements, developments in society and culture, and all that fun stuff. That was actually what made up some of the more fun parts to read in my opinion. I loved the intro, how it began by describing the first trials of jaunting. I think they should have made the story about that guy. I'm sure it would have not been as epic, but it might have made more sense and it might have been just down to earth enough not to leave us bewildered by a plethora of new technology and ideas. Oh, but then we wouldn't get all the cool consequences that evolved from the masses learning of this teleportation technique. But hell, you could make the story about that as well. Gully's story...was over the top. I could understand how the events progressed, but some of his methods of escape were just...too coincidental. Like I said before, lots of Deus ex Machina. They explain the Burning Man appearances near the end of the story, and that's all fine and dandy, but the bombs just seem to always go off at just the most convenient times. I could make a long list of all the times Gully could have ended up dying and most of them I count off before the half-way point of the story. The point is, he didn't. He lived long enough to get to the moral of the story which actually doesn't seem to have all that much ado with the story itself. Don't get me wrong: 'Be an individual', 'don't be a robot', and 'a society is defined by the individuals' are great morals, but what the hell did it have to do with everything that just exploded in our face? Gully was an individual and look how many times he was nearly killed. He was a lucky bastard. And guess how many people he killed? He killed a lot of people. He's not a great example of an exemplary individual. He tries to atone by the end of the story but face it, so much happened to him that didn't seem to have nothing to do with those morals that you're not sure of yourself anymore.
It wasn't a bad story and it wasn't one of the best I've ever read. I love the setting, I love the ideas, and I love the society, but the characters and the story itself are not as well developed as I would have liked them all to be. None of the characters seemed to be very consistent and the main character was either scary as hell, stupid as hell, or confusing as hell. That's not a great character trope for your main guy unless it's a comedy you're reading instead of a serious sci-fi. I'd give it a 7/10.
-Peace out.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Of Witches and Fairy Godmothers
So I read through the short stories provided on the resources webpage because I thought those were the ones we were supposed to be reading. If they weren't well...they were about witches. Some of them. The first set of stories seemed to be different versions of the classic Cinderella. I'm not well versed enough on fairy tales to tell which of these is closest to the original telling, so like every child raised on Disney movies I compared it to Disney's Cinderella. No doubt that these stories were certainly a little darker or simply not 'Disney' quality. From whatever region these short stories were made, they differ in focus, details, and sometimes even the subject at hand. I thought it strange that we were given these Cinderella stories to read, considering that if there was a fairy godmother in the stories, she was just that. A fairy godmother. How that's different from a witch--I don't know. Ask Salem.
So the Cinder Maid story sounded closest to the Disney version. There's this daughter and you know the story; her stepmother and stepsisters are cruel and her father is either dead or might as well be dead. Instead of a fairy godmother sort of creature, her wishes are granted by this tree she sits under occasionally. It's pretty much the same story though, with the magic number three order going on that most fairy tales have {you know, the first time, the second time, and then the glorious third that takes the cake}. This story was I guess supposed to be the widely European-known version. The next was Irish, and unlike the first it was more descriptive about the people {so far as giving them names} and the story actually focuses a little more on the princes or royalty fighting over this wonder chick and then at the end the spoils of victory in having won {wife and kids and whatnot}. Instead of a tree, a henwife {whatever that is} is able to grant this Cinderella's wishes {or rather 'Trembling'}. It still doesn't deviate enough from the fairy tale we all know enough to be unrecognizable. The Baba Yaga story...I don't even know. It was cool, it was Russian, and it follows the outline of the Cinderella setting {the unloved child and the mean stepmother} though it seems more...Hansel and Gretel in its structure. I actually liked this story a bit, though it seemed to be a mutt puppy of Mother Goose tales. It actually tapered off to be nothing like Cinderella aside from the cruel stepmother, which was decent for a change {I was getting tired of reading the same story over and over again}. The Wicked Stepmother...had little to do with the Cinderella story as well. It simply took the whole 'evil stepmom and forgotten mother' approach. By the time I read this far through these stories I can see why people flinch when I mention my stepmom {who is quite wonderful actually}. It's from Kashmir and I guess it might have been one of those 'grapevine' twists on a story. How can I explain...er...when a story travels and needs to be translated for other people and to be better understood by a different culture, the story changes to fit their way of life better. What do people in Kashmir care about royal families, princes searching for princesses, and all that like? Don't they have other things that are more important to worry about? What sort of values do they care to impart to their children through these stories?
I know this week was about witches, but when it comes to fairy tales, I can't focus on a witch alone. Fairy tales are sort of like cautionary tales of moral guidelines. 'Don't eat apples given to you by strangers', 'be good to all', 'play fair', 'be polite', 'brush your teeth before bed'{?}, etc.
The Glass Slip-Up was kind of funny though. Here they seemed to play off the American/Disney Cinderella by adding the 'what happens after' and revealing to the reader yet another lesson in life that one shouldn't just ride on beauty alone. Cinderella, or Rell as she prefers to be called, is a crude and pompous lass that brings embarrassment to the royal family, annoying Prince Charming to the point where he's willing to marry this crazy godmother woman at the end rather than remain married to the woman he thought he'd love. This seems to be more of those anti-fairy tales; the sort that takes a fairy tale and shows it up for being too superficial, mostly poking fun at those who were 'fairest in all the land' by giving them an overlooked character flaw that takes away most if not all sympathy you might have had for this character before. I guess you can consider Rosa as a bit of a witch here. Fairy. Whatever. I don't know the difference as I've said before.
Red as Blood was a confusing sort of story that looks like the dark cousin of Snow White and might just be the original. Most fairy tales were actually dark to start with as if they were intended to scare sense into children. I'm not sure if everyone in the story hails Satan or just the Witch Queen. Christ didn't seem to have a great effect on Bianca anyhow. Then the last story about The Faery Handbag just seemed a bit...sad. The person telling it was pretty casual about it, though she went through some very strange crap, and she lost the boy she was starting to love and can't find him now because he's stuck in a purse somewhere.
Witches...
In these stories, they all seem to have a feminist touch. No one can quite tell them what to do and if they can, they'll manipulate the situation to work in their favor. Good or bad, witches know how to perform magic and they do it with both a consideration for those they cast it upon and themselves. After reading these short selections, they seem to be more selfish sorts, but in other stories I have read that also counter the fairy tale stereotypes {or movies that I've watched}, witches can be nice. Does that make them fairies? No. It doesn't. Fairies are different creatures altogether. They're synonymous with natural forces and more unpredictable while having a tendency to cause general mischief. They answer to no one, or they may answer to nature itself. Witches are more human in a sense. They look out for themselves, they might look out for the greater good if they're one of those 'anti-stereotypical' kinds, and they can strike fear into mortal man by merely existing. They are the symbol of feminism in fairy tales, so it's no wonder that in early tales they were made out to be negative.
So the Cinder Maid story sounded closest to the Disney version. There's this daughter and you know the story; her stepmother and stepsisters are cruel and her father is either dead or might as well be dead. Instead of a fairy godmother sort of creature, her wishes are granted by this tree she sits under occasionally. It's pretty much the same story though, with the magic number three order going on that most fairy tales have {you know, the first time, the second time, and then the glorious third that takes the cake}. This story was I guess supposed to be the widely European-known version. The next was Irish, and unlike the first it was more descriptive about the people {so far as giving them names} and the story actually focuses a little more on the princes or royalty fighting over this wonder chick and then at the end the spoils of victory in having won {wife and kids and whatnot}. Instead of a tree, a henwife {whatever that is} is able to grant this Cinderella's wishes {or rather 'Trembling'}. It still doesn't deviate enough from the fairy tale we all know enough to be unrecognizable. The Baba Yaga story...I don't even know. It was cool, it was Russian, and it follows the outline of the Cinderella setting {the unloved child and the mean stepmother} though it seems more...Hansel and Gretel in its structure. I actually liked this story a bit, though it seemed to be a mutt puppy of Mother Goose tales. It actually tapered off to be nothing like Cinderella aside from the cruel stepmother, which was decent for a change {I was getting tired of reading the same story over and over again}. The Wicked Stepmother...had little to do with the Cinderella story as well. It simply took the whole 'evil stepmom and forgotten mother' approach. By the time I read this far through these stories I can see why people flinch when I mention my stepmom {who is quite wonderful actually}. It's from Kashmir and I guess it might have been one of those 'grapevine' twists on a story. How can I explain...er...when a story travels and needs to be translated for other people and to be better understood by a different culture, the story changes to fit their way of life better. What do people in Kashmir care about royal families, princes searching for princesses, and all that like? Don't they have other things that are more important to worry about? What sort of values do they care to impart to their children through these stories?
I know this week was about witches, but when it comes to fairy tales, I can't focus on a witch alone. Fairy tales are sort of like cautionary tales of moral guidelines. 'Don't eat apples given to you by strangers', 'be good to all', 'play fair', 'be polite', 'brush your teeth before bed'{?}, etc.
The Glass Slip-Up was kind of funny though. Here they seemed to play off the American/Disney Cinderella by adding the 'what happens after' and revealing to the reader yet another lesson in life that one shouldn't just ride on beauty alone. Cinderella, or Rell as she prefers to be called, is a crude and pompous lass that brings embarrassment to the royal family, annoying Prince Charming to the point where he's willing to marry this crazy godmother woman at the end rather than remain married to the woman he thought he'd love. This seems to be more of those anti-fairy tales; the sort that takes a fairy tale and shows it up for being too superficial, mostly poking fun at those who were 'fairest in all the land' by giving them an overlooked character flaw that takes away most if not all sympathy you might have had for this character before. I guess you can consider Rosa as a bit of a witch here. Fairy. Whatever. I don't know the difference as I've said before.
Red as Blood was a confusing sort of story that looks like the dark cousin of Snow White and might just be the original. Most fairy tales were actually dark to start with as if they were intended to scare sense into children. I'm not sure if everyone in the story hails Satan or just the Witch Queen. Christ didn't seem to have a great effect on Bianca anyhow. Then the last story about The Faery Handbag just seemed a bit...sad. The person telling it was pretty casual about it, though she went through some very strange crap, and she lost the boy she was starting to love and can't find him now because he's stuck in a purse somewhere.
Witches...
In these stories, they all seem to have a feminist touch. No one can quite tell them what to do and if they can, they'll manipulate the situation to work in their favor. Good or bad, witches know how to perform magic and they do it with both a consideration for those they cast it upon and themselves. After reading these short selections, they seem to be more selfish sorts, but in other stories I have read that also counter the fairy tale stereotypes {or movies that I've watched}, witches can be nice. Does that make them fairies? No. It doesn't. Fairies are different creatures altogether. They're synonymous with natural forces and more unpredictable while having a tendency to cause general mischief. They answer to no one, or they may answer to nature itself. Witches are more human in a sense. They look out for themselves, they might look out for the greater good if they're one of those 'anti-stereotypical' kinds, and they can strike fear into mortal man by merely existing. They are the symbol of feminism in fairy tales, so it's no wonder that in early tales they were made out to be negative.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
We All Wear Masks
I'm still going to read the Anansi Boys, but this post isn't going to be about it.
Oh, no no no. This my friends, is a review of one movie I loved and still love. Mirrormask. Because I don't quite have time to read an entire book before tomorrow, I decided I would watch one of the Recommended movies in its temporary stead. A movie I remember liking very much.
Knowing that this was written by the same guy who writes Anansi Boys, I'm going to read that book, because this movie is still quite wonderful watching it a couple years later.
The main character, Helena, I at first found to be annoying, but I guess I could understand her plight. As bratty as she initially seemed, she is a character just entered into the teenage phase and this story seems to become one of a war between her childhood, her teenage self, and the person she is going to become. I was told before that once a person reaches a certain age, they are a combination of three selves just like those --a child, a teen, and an adult. Well, as far as this movie goes, they actually show the physical alter ego of Helena as the antagonist in the movie later on, threatening to ruin the life she had, all her drawings, and anything left of the childhood that created her. Helena finally confronts this alter-ego she then realizes is not all that different from how she was, and horrified, does what she can to stop her.
But to be honest, I didn't fall in love with the characters all that much or the story itself, though I was partial to Valentine and the Queen of Shadows. The two are both morally ambiguous in their own ways, though the Queen of Shadows seems to steer towards the dark, she still cares for her daughter who cares not for her. The relationship between the Queen of Shadows and the alter-Helena is reflective of the raw emotion in the first scene between Helena and her mother in the movie. Both at the time were caught in their own selfish desires. Helena's mother wanted to continue supporting her father and taking Helena along {against her wishes} while Helena wants to leave her family and the business in favor of a 'normal' life, even if it means tearing her family away from their business. Valentine, while the adorable and peculiar creature he seems to be, also has his own motives and selfish desires, though he is generally a good person and proves to be when he comes back for Helena after reconsidering his feelings about what he had done.
The story was basic, though I guess it was meant to be more imaginative and meaningful than it was to be strong and informative. This is certainly one of those hero quests that involve taking someone, putting them through fairy land, then coughing them back out as a brand new person to contend with the world more properly. She starts by ending up in fairy land, learning the rules as best as possible, learning what to avoid, traveling to the land of the shadows in a more...literal sense, nearly obtaining the boon of power, failing, getting betrayed, getting turned {you know, like the dying and being reborn thing}, turning back, obtaining the boon, rescuing fairy land, and returning home without being able to go back. She's grown a little wiser and we've grown impressed by her improvement as a human being.
What I loved just as much as the first time I watched this was the environment, the fairy land itself, and its quirks. In this world, darkness is practically evil, devouring and preparing to conquer in the absence of light. There's the spinx? I'm probably misspelling it, but the cat with the face. They pop up a couple of times and like the creature seems to have a penchant for knowledge and wit. There's floating books that hover when you degrade them. Everyone wears masks and finds it odd when you don't. That's just brushing the surface too. I love all the quirks and animations that are in this story and this dreamland. They are what make this movie memorable to me.
-Peace out
Oh, no no no. This my friends, is a review of one movie I loved and still love. Mirrormask. Because I don't quite have time to read an entire book before tomorrow, I decided I would watch one of the Recommended movies in its temporary stead. A movie I remember liking very much.
Knowing that this was written by the same guy who writes Anansi Boys, I'm going to read that book, because this movie is still quite wonderful watching it a couple years later.
The main character, Helena, I at first found to be annoying, but I guess I could understand her plight. As bratty as she initially seemed, she is a character just entered into the teenage phase and this story seems to become one of a war between her childhood, her teenage self, and the person she is going to become. I was told before that once a person reaches a certain age, they are a combination of three selves just like those --a child, a teen, and an adult. Well, as far as this movie goes, they actually show the physical alter ego of Helena as the antagonist in the movie later on, threatening to ruin the life she had, all her drawings, and anything left of the childhood that created her. Helena finally confronts this alter-ego she then realizes is not all that different from how she was, and horrified, does what she can to stop her.
But to be honest, I didn't fall in love with the characters all that much or the story itself, though I was partial to Valentine and the Queen of Shadows. The two are both morally ambiguous in their own ways, though the Queen of Shadows seems to steer towards the dark, she still cares for her daughter who cares not for her. The relationship between the Queen of Shadows and the alter-Helena is reflective of the raw emotion in the first scene between Helena and her mother in the movie. Both at the time were caught in their own selfish desires. Helena's mother wanted to continue supporting her father and taking Helena along {against her wishes} while Helena wants to leave her family and the business in favor of a 'normal' life, even if it means tearing her family away from their business. Valentine, while the adorable and peculiar creature he seems to be, also has his own motives and selfish desires, though he is generally a good person and proves to be when he comes back for Helena after reconsidering his feelings about what he had done.
The story was basic, though I guess it was meant to be more imaginative and meaningful than it was to be strong and informative. This is certainly one of those hero quests that involve taking someone, putting them through fairy land, then coughing them back out as a brand new person to contend with the world more properly. She starts by ending up in fairy land, learning the rules as best as possible, learning what to avoid, traveling to the land of the shadows in a more...literal sense, nearly obtaining the boon of power, failing, getting betrayed, getting turned {you know, like the dying and being reborn thing}, turning back, obtaining the boon, rescuing fairy land, and returning home without being able to go back. She's grown a little wiser and we've grown impressed by her improvement as a human being.
What I loved just as much as the first time I watched this was the environment, the fairy land itself, and its quirks. In this world, darkness is practically evil, devouring and preparing to conquer in the absence of light. There's the spinx? I'm probably misspelling it, but the cat with the face. They pop up a couple of times and like the creature seems to have a penchant for knowledge and wit. There's floating books that hover when you degrade them. Everyone wears masks and finds it odd when you don't. That's just brushing the surface too. I love all the quirks and animations that are in this story and this dreamland. They are what make this movie memorable to me.
-Peace out
Monday, March 1, 2010
His Dark Materials...and something clever in the title.
This will be reserved for Golden Compass. Reading begins!
-Update-
Halfway through the first volume! I love this book!
Finally a book I can't seem to put down. It's rather unfortunate that I got around to reading it in a rush to catch up with the class, but the story is written clearly enough that I didn't need to do a lot of double-taking.
As discussed in class the week this book was meant for, Pullman wrote the character Lyra like an actual child. She has the same short attention span, same ambiguous morality, and the same sort of quirks any child like her might have had. She has a morbid curiosity as if death doesn't sink in with her {as it doesn't quite do for many children}. She is impatient and like a child, loves to tell stories and make things up to make them sound ten times more interesting. She gets angry and disobeys elders or their rules frequently, but she is ultimately a good girl with good intentions, if not just a little too adventurous. Reading about her and her actions reminds me of how I was like as a kid, though I know for certain I wasn't nearly as energetic or social. I can see how some readers may find her annoying, but to me her unique character and nature make her a well rounded being that I can follow without being thrown some unsuspecting curve about their personality. She's consistent thus far, and the way she handles her situations are much the same. Like any child she gets bored easily and could spend hours trying to figure something out if it comes down to it, as Lyra learned to use the Alethiometer when she was stuck up in her cabin.
The story reminds me a lot of The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis, only it doesn't start in a familiar world but goes straight into the alternative. For whatever reason, it's easy to accept the norms in Lyra's world, for they make these fantastical things seem normal enough. For instance, and a strong one at that, there are the daemons. If only one or several chose characters had creatures like these, they would be all the more fascinating and peculiar, but because everyone in this world seems to have them and someone who doesn't possess one is more likely to receive a reaction, you begin to grow used to it like the concept of ambaric power being their energy source rather than electricity or oil. Her world, like Tolkiens, becomes one that you wish to learn more of for the sake of catching on to the 'norm' of their universe. The way this book is written, all this is relatively simple to follow. The only thing I have yet to know much about is the Magistrate, but I'm sure that will be touched upon further in the second part of this volume.
All I can add right now is that so far it's a very interesting story, I will continue reading it, and I will likely read through the other two books as well if the story remains just as decent. It never ceases to keep my attention and so far it has my 9.5/10 sort of rating, which is high considering that I never have given anything a 10/10, except for maybe The Lord of the Rings trilogy or Brave New World and 1984.
I'll update this again once I'm through with the story.
-Peace out.
-Update-
Halfway through the first volume! I love this book!
Finally a book I can't seem to put down. It's rather unfortunate that I got around to reading it in a rush to catch up with the class, but the story is written clearly enough that I didn't need to do a lot of double-taking.
As discussed in class the week this book was meant for, Pullman wrote the character Lyra like an actual child. She has the same short attention span, same ambiguous morality, and the same sort of quirks any child like her might have had. She has a morbid curiosity as if death doesn't sink in with her {as it doesn't quite do for many children}. She is impatient and like a child, loves to tell stories and make things up to make them sound ten times more interesting. She gets angry and disobeys elders or their rules frequently, but she is ultimately a good girl with good intentions, if not just a little too adventurous. Reading about her and her actions reminds me of how I was like as a kid, though I know for certain I wasn't nearly as energetic or social. I can see how some readers may find her annoying, but to me her unique character and nature make her a well rounded being that I can follow without being thrown some unsuspecting curve about their personality. She's consistent thus far, and the way she handles her situations are much the same. Like any child she gets bored easily and could spend hours trying to figure something out if it comes down to it, as Lyra learned to use the Alethiometer when she was stuck up in her cabin.
The story reminds me a lot of The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis, only it doesn't start in a familiar world but goes straight into the alternative. For whatever reason, it's easy to accept the norms in Lyra's world, for they make these fantastical things seem normal enough. For instance, and a strong one at that, there are the daemons. If only one or several chose characters had creatures like these, they would be all the more fascinating and peculiar, but because everyone in this world seems to have them and someone who doesn't possess one is more likely to receive a reaction, you begin to grow used to it like the concept of ambaric power being their energy source rather than electricity or oil. Her world, like Tolkiens, becomes one that you wish to learn more of for the sake of catching on to the 'norm' of their universe. The way this book is written, all this is relatively simple to follow. The only thing I have yet to know much about is the Magistrate, but I'm sure that will be touched upon further in the second part of this volume.
All I can add right now is that so far it's a very interesting story, I will continue reading it, and I will likely read through the other two books as well if the story remains just as decent. It never ceases to keep my attention and so far it has my 9.5/10 sort of rating, which is high considering that I never have given anything a 10/10, except for maybe The Lord of the Rings trilogy or Brave New World and 1984.
I'll update this again once I'm through with the story.
-Peace out.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Moral: Dwarves are disposable now?
No, I didn't have the time to re-read The Hobbit, even the annotated version of it. I read up to the beginning of the musical excursion before I realized how far behind I was in everything else. What I did do, considering that I read this book about nine years ago, was watch the animated Hobbit movie from the seventies {I think}.
It brought a lot to memory in just the span of an hour and a half.
The first thing I found myself thinking was that Gandalf ruined so many lives that he deserves a metal. Not only did he pick on a hobbit who was leading a decent life before the old wizard showed up, but he rallied up a group of dwarves to come along {all of who might as well have been named after Snow White's seven} who all ended up giving their lives at the end of the story because Tolkien didn't think that a super-special-awesome ending should have been resorted to. Don't get me wrong, it's an epic fantasy; it's a lot better than some of the other fantasy stories I read and you can tell Tolkien really takes his time to make Middle Earth seem like a real place that we all probably just forgot about. When I was a kid, I rather liked the story and I didn't question anything that happened.
But now that I'm older, I realize that had Gandalf left Bilbo to his devices, he would have grown up none the wiser, hobbits would have continued to be the merry little folk on the plains, the one ring that caused epic battles to break out would have still been lost underground with the wrinkled old monster-hobbit, the dwares wouldn't have all died, there would have been no war over the gold, and Smaug was still be alive and kicking.
In all honesty, I'm just looking for things to complain about, but The Hobbit is actually a really great story. I mean, I give it a 9.5 out of 10, which is saying something. I would have given it a 10, but my only real qualm about it is that it's not entirely obvious what audience it's geared for. At first you'd call it a children's story, but I first read this book when I was 11 or 12 and I had to stop every ten minutes to ask my dad what this or that meant. I wasn't a remedial child or anything, but without him I would have misunderstood a portion of what was going on. It also doesn't seem like I could fully appreciate the wonder and adventure the older I got, though if I might have read the book while I was 15 I might have actually found it a comfortable read.
So maybe it was just the time and the place. I'm not as upset about all the dwarves being killed off at the end and frankly neither was Tolkien because he made a slew of new characters for Lord of the Rings and oddly enough only one member of the Fellowship died despite the fact that the journey had a LOT MORE GOING ON than Bilbo's. I just have to point out that the timing was off. Bilbo tricks the dragon after a journey that has been thusfar filled with danger but not enough to kill anyone and then suddenly the men are fighting the dwarves over the leftover gold just at the end and everyone practically dies. Gandalf's like "Oops, well I better take Bilbo home and sort out this mess...later." But other than that, I can fully appreciate this story.
-Peace out
It brought a lot to memory in just the span of an hour and a half.
The first thing I found myself thinking was that Gandalf ruined so many lives that he deserves a metal. Not only did he pick on a hobbit who was leading a decent life before the old wizard showed up, but he rallied up a group of dwarves to come along {all of who might as well have been named after Snow White's seven} who all ended up giving their lives at the end of the story because Tolkien didn't think that a super-special-awesome ending should have been resorted to. Don't get me wrong, it's an epic fantasy; it's a lot better than some of the other fantasy stories I read and you can tell Tolkien really takes his time to make Middle Earth seem like a real place that we all probably just forgot about. When I was a kid, I rather liked the story and I didn't question anything that happened.
But now that I'm older, I realize that had Gandalf left Bilbo to his devices, he would have grown up none the wiser, hobbits would have continued to be the merry little folk on the plains, the one ring that caused epic battles to break out would have still been lost underground with the wrinkled old monster-hobbit, the dwares wouldn't have all died, there would have been no war over the gold, and Smaug was still be alive and kicking.
In all honesty, I'm just looking for things to complain about, but The Hobbit is actually a really great story. I mean, I give it a 9.5 out of 10, which is saying something. I would have given it a 10, but my only real qualm about it is that it's not entirely obvious what audience it's geared for. At first you'd call it a children's story, but I first read this book when I was 11 or 12 and I had to stop every ten minutes to ask my dad what this or that meant. I wasn't a remedial child or anything, but without him I would have misunderstood a portion of what was going on. It also doesn't seem like I could fully appreciate the wonder and adventure the older I got, though if I might have read the book while I was 15 I might have actually found it a comfortable read.
So maybe it was just the time and the place. I'm not as upset about all the dwarves being killed off at the end and frankly neither was Tolkien because he made a slew of new characters for Lord of the Rings and oddly enough only one member of the Fellowship died despite the fact that the journey had a LOT MORE GOING ON than Bilbo's. I just have to point out that the timing was off. Bilbo tricks the dragon after a journey that has been thusfar filled with danger but not enough to kill anyone and then suddenly the men are fighting the dwarves over the leftover gold just at the end and everyone practically dies. Gandalf's like "Oops, well I better take Bilbo home and sort out this mess...later." But other than that, I can fully appreciate this story.
-Peace out
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Who You Gonna Call?
This is where the interview for A Wild Sheep Chase will be going. I think it's about a ghost.
-Update-
Half way through.
So...much...filler...
Japanese Hemmingway.
Brain meltingly...dull.
But at least something's finally going on.
-Finished-
This is probably one of the most painful books I have ever read.
I'm pretty sure there's some existential theme going on or something, I'm not sure, I couldn't quite concentrate on the story. This story would have been several times more interesting if massive chunks of this book never made it to print. The writer Murakami must have had some sort of word limit he had to reach in order to publish his story, because there is so much in the way of unnecessary filler that focusing on the actual plot is frustrating.
I guess I will try to point out some of the things I noticed, but it only makes my argument all the more valid. This is a boring book. No one has any names; the cat gets a name, but that's just another bit of unnecessary filler we have to contend with. No one matters then, none of the characters have proper names, the main character is incredibly dull and mediocre, and the interesting bits in the book are immediately followed by detailed descriptions of the man doing this or that {both of which are never interesting undertakings}. If one were to remove all the pointless filler in the story, it would actually be a fun bit to read. It might not have gotten all the recognition for metaphors, symbols, and meanings in the story, but it wouldn't have been so unspeakably boring enough to make you forget what all those metaphors and such were in the first place.
They touch on way too much. It's like Murakami is contemplating the meaning of life, religion, humanity, sheep, and everything else he feels like bringing up when all you want is to move along and find out what's so important about the sheep and what everything else has to do with it. Maybe the book is intentionally written to be dull. There was this one review I read of the story when I got halfway through it {thinking that there MUST have been some negative criticism for this story} that said the way it's written is like waking out of a dream. I agree. Because I fell asleep a few times while reading the story.
While the mystery itself is intriguing, as well as the Rat, the Sheep Man, and the Man in Black Suit fellows {that make up the only dialogue I like in the story}, the narrator has to describe every little detail of his every action and he has to put up with so many unnecessary conversations along the way. And what was the point of that woman with the seductive ears? What was she on about? Was it ever explained? No. Not really. She just enters the story, acts strangely, says strange little things, and disappears. Maybe she's an extension of the Rat/Ghost/Sheep thing? I don't care. It's not explained and her character bothered me anyways.
In the end, the main character lost everything and doesn't care because he didn't think he had anything to lose in the first place. He was used, abused, and even lead on a wild goose chase that makes you as a reader wonder why you spent numerous hours reading. I hate to be a hater, which makes me a hater, but I give this book a 2/10. While the mystery was intriguing, it was written in such an insipid style and manner that I could hardly read through it and process it.
-Peace Out
-Update-
Half way through.
So...much...filler...
Japanese Hemmingway.
Brain meltingly...dull.
But at least something's finally going on.
-Finished-
This is probably one of the most painful books I have ever read.
I'm pretty sure there's some existential theme going on or something, I'm not sure, I couldn't quite concentrate on the story. This story would have been several times more interesting if massive chunks of this book never made it to print. The writer Murakami must have had some sort of word limit he had to reach in order to publish his story, because there is so much in the way of unnecessary filler that focusing on the actual plot is frustrating.
I guess I will try to point out some of the things I noticed, but it only makes my argument all the more valid. This is a boring book. No one has any names; the cat gets a name, but that's just another bit of unnecessary filler we have to contend with. No one matters then, none of the characters have proper names, the main character is incredibly dull and mediocre, and the interesting bits in the book are immediately followed by detailed descriptions of the man doing this or that {both of which are never interesting undertakings}. If one were to remove all the pointless filler in the story, it would actually be a fun bit to read. It might not have gotten all the recognition for metaphors, symbols, and meanings in the story, but it wouldn't have been so unspeakably boring enough to make you forget what all those metaphors and such were in the first place.
They touch on way too much. It's like Murakami is contemplating the meaning of life, religion, humanity, sheep, and everything else he feels like bringing up when all you want is to move along and find out what's so important about the sheep and what everything else has to do with it. Maybe the book is intentionally written to be dull. There was this one review I read of the story when I got halfway through it {thinking that there MUST have been some negative criticism for this story} that said the way it's written is like waking out of a dream. I agree. Because I fell asleep a few times while reading the story.
While the mystery itself is intriguing, as well as the Rat, the Sheep Man, and the Man in Black Suit fellows {that make up the only dialogue I like in the story}, the narrator has to describe every little detail of his every action and he has to put up with so many unnecessary conversations along the way. And what was the point of that woman with the seductive ears? What was she on about? Was it ever explained? No. Not really. She just enters the story, acts strangely, says strange little things, and disappears. Maybe she's an extension of the Rat/Ghost/Sheep thing? I don't care. It's not explained and her character bothered me anyways.
In the end, the main character lost everything and doesn't care because he didn't think he had anything to lose in the first place. He was used, abused, and even lead on a wild goose chase that makes you as a reader wonder why you spent numerous hours reading. I hate to be a hater, which makes me a hater, but I give this book a 2/10. While the mystery was intriguing, it was written in such an insipid style and manner that I could hardly read through it and process it.
-Peace Out
Monday, January 25, 2010
Vampires: Scary Monsters? Or Super Creeps?
This section is reserved for Interview with a Vampire. I have not gotten around to reading it yet.
Update: Finished! Finally.
Lots of drama, for one. I detected that homoeroticism everyone was mentioning. Anyways, like anything I read I focus deeply on both character and plot and both elements provided and provided well.
I most admired the main character, Louis, though I found his relationship with Claudia to be rather strange. They are like father and daughter, and yet at the same time their relationship nearly reaches the level of 'lovers' without the actual love-making. Still, aside from that queer relation, Louis was a character that was obviously made to relate to the reader. He thinks most human-like of all the vampires, even after years roll by. Unlike Lestat, he does not take to feeding off of people easily at first and it never quite becomes an easy task later on.
Yet I felt bad for Lestat, despite him being the reason why everyone's lives went to crap. He obviously had his own demons to contend with; he pushed everyone away yet he could not bear being alone. He's that sort of character you wish he simply died by a happy accident but because he's still alive every single time you think he died, you start wanting him to die by any means necessary. You might like him, but he's obviously getting in the way of things and you want him to stop.
They {and I mean Claudia and Louis} get away from him long enough to get on a boat. This is what I don't understand though. They don't get caught. I can't buy the bull that they fed off of rats and the occasional human without arousing suspicion. No one even thought people could be getting poisoned? No one wondered why the frail little girl wasn't among the first to die when a fever's about?
Needless to say, I'm one of those people that can't just take some ambiguous explanation that doesn't fully answer my questions as an answer {which would explain my extreme frustration watching a show like Lost}. I get over it, but in the end it takes away from the experience of being drawn into Rice's world.
I also did see all that religious contemplation we talked about. This woman was obviously Catholic or raised Catholic before she started to slip into doubts and began writing pornos and books about vampires questioning their existence. I can tell that Louis my just be that one character that is a reflection of herself. Claudia is sort of that alter-ego that's not afraid to challenge. Lestat is that inner contempt and fear of hers. Something like all that; I'm no psychologist or psychoanalyst or whatever.
The book was an interesting read, but I liked the movie more {and I can't believe I'm saying that}. I have a hard time getting into the story when it's being told in third-third person. In the movie, you see the interviewer once in a great while. In the story, he's interrupting Louis every other minute. I know that the movie may not convey enough intimacy between the boy and the vampire, but isn't there enough intimacy in this story already? On a scale of 1-10, this book still rates rather high. I'd give it an 8.5. It held my interest, but I'm not all that into romance and if I want to read something scary, I certainly wouldn't be this. I don't care for the issues it brings up such as 'does God/Satan really exist?' and 'am I a monster because I eat people?' because the story itself just seems like an account by some tired old vampire who's trying to scare some thought into some silly little interviewer man.
Going to check AWSC from the library, if it's there. Fortunately I recently read The Hobbit, so I'll probably just watched the animated movie to recap before I type up a review for that.
-Peace out.
Update: Finished! Finally.
Lots of drama, for one. I detected that homoeroticism everyone was mentioning. Anyways, like anything I read I focus deeply on both character and plot and both elements provided and provided well.
I most admired the main character, Louis, though I found his relationship with Claudia to be rather strange. They are like father and daughter, and yet at the same time their relationship nearly reaches the level of 'lovers' without the actual love-making. Still, aside from that queer relation, Louis was a character that was obviously made to relate to the reader. He thinks most human-like of all the vampires, even after years roll by. Unlike Lestat, he does not take to feeding off of people easily at first and it never quite becomes an easy task later on.
Yet I felt bad for Lestat, despite him being the reason why everyone's lives went to crap. He obviously had his own demons to contend with; he pushed everyone away yet he could not bear being alone. He's that sort of character you wish he simply died by a happy accident but because he's still alive every single time you think he died, you start wanting him to die by any means necessary. You might like him, but he's obviously getting in the way of things and you want him to stop.
They {and I mean Claudia and Louis} get away from him long enough to get on a boat. This is what I don't understand though. They don't get caught. I can't buy the bull that they fed off of rats and the occasional human without arousing suspicion. No one even thought people could be getting poisoned? No one wondered why the frail little girl wasn't among the first to die when a fever's about?
Needless to say, I'm one of those people that can't just take some ambiguous explanation that doesn't fully answer my questions as an answer {which would explain my extreme frustration watching a show like Lost}. I get over it, but in the end it takes away from the experience of being drawn into Rice's world.
I also did see all that religious contemplation we talked about. This woman was obviously Catholic or raised Catholic before she started to slip into doubts and began writing pornos and books about vampires questioning their existence. I can tell that Louis my just be that one character that is a reflection of herself. Claudia is sort of that alter-ego that's not afraid to challenge. Lestat is that inner contempt and fear of hers. Something like all that; I'm no psychologist or psychoanalyst or whatever.
The book was an interesting read, but I liked the movie more {and I can't believe I'm saying that}. I have a hard time getting into the story when it's being told in third-third person. In the movie, you see the interviewer once in a great while. In the story, he's interrupting Louis every other minute. I know that the movie may not convey enough intimacy between the boy and the vampire, but isn't there enough intimacy in this story already? On a scale of 1-10, this book still rates rather high. I'd give it an 8.5. It held my interest, but I'm not all that into romance and if I want to read something scary, I certainly wouldn't be this. I don't care for the issues it brings up such as 'does God/Satan really exist?' and 'am I a monster because I eat people?' because the story itself just seems like an account by some tired old vampire who's trying to scare some thought into some silly little interviewer man.
Going to check AWSC from the library, if it's there. Fortunately I recently read The Hobbit, so I'll probably just watched the animated movie to recap before I type up a review for that.
-Peace out.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and AWESOME?
Read the first three chapters. So far I like it more than the original Jane Austin story, but it's practically the same thing with random zombie action. It's still sort of funny, but you can't quite mask the boring. I still harbor no interest in the relationships.
------
UPDATE
Read success.
A lot more boring than I thought it'd be. Essentially, it was just as I had noticed from the first three chapters--it's the same story I read {or rather read half of} five years ago and I still hate it. The zombies and ninja action were the only highlights. In fact, when I get the chance, I'm going back and whiting out anything that doesn't have to do with zombies or the fighting of zombies and perhaps by then I'll be able to read this story without feeling my boredom irk me so often. Maybe it might work, come of think of it.
But as I said before, my attention kept drifting. It's not like your traditional horror story because it feels way too much like the extra bits were practically copy-pasted in. In a traditional horror story, the mood is set, the people are adjusted to the mood, and nothing else is more important than survival. Meanwhile, in PaPaZ, the mother is still trying to get her daughters married during a zombie invasion. In every and any situation involving zombies, people don't give a damn about marriage. I mean, sure, if their husband's being attacked by the undead, by all means, flip out. But to worry about getting hitched when flesh puppets are dancing the Earth? I can't see it.
I'm one of those sorts that have a very flexible view on zombies themselves. I'm willing to accept the Rage Virus rabies-people into the mix as well as the undead. As long as the individual has no control of his or her actions, only has strength in numbers, is sort of dull in the intelligence department, and craves brains, then that person's a zombie. I guess.
Personally, I make sure I'm prepared for zombies, should they ever be a problem. I make sure I know where the safest rooms are in whichever house I stay in and what sort of long blunt objects I could use as a weapon. You never know, really. If it never happens then what'dya know? I have a plan to defend myself in case of the more common home invasion.
I haven't read Interview with a Vampire yet, but I shall soon. I do not own a copy and so I must get a hold of one. Until then...
-Peace out.
------
UPDATE
Read success.
A lot more boring than I thought it'd be. Essentially, it was just as I had noticed from the first three chapters--it's the same story I read {or rather read half of} five years ago and I still hate it. The zombies and ninja action were the only highlights. In fact, when I get the chance, I'm going back and whiting out anything that doesn't have to do with zombies or the fighting of zombies and perhaps by then I'll be able to read this story without feeling my boredom irk me so often. Maybe it might work, come of think of it.
But as I said before, my attention kept drifting. It's not like your traditional horror story because it feels way too much like the extra bits were practically copy-pasted in. In a traditional horror story, the mood is set, the people are adjusted to the mood, and nothing else is more important than survival. Meanwhile, in PaPaZ, the mother is still trying to get her daughters married during a zombie invasion. In every and any situation involving zombies, people don't give a damn about marriage. I mean, sure, if their husband's being attacked by the undead, by all means, flip out. But to worry about getting hitched when flesh puppets are dancing the Earth? I can't see it.
I'm one of those sorts that have a very flexible view on zombies themselves. I'm willing to accept the Rage Virus rabies-people into the mix as well as the undead. As long as the individual has no control of his or her actions, only has strength in numbers, is sort of dull in the intelligence department, and craves brains, then that person's a zombie. I guess.
Personally, I make sure I'm prepared for zombies, should they ever be a problem. I make sure I know where the safest rooms are in whichever house I stay in and what sort of long blunt objects I could use as a weapon. You never know, really. If it never happens then what'dya know? I have a plan to defend myself in case of the more common home invasion.
I haven't read Interview with a Vampire yet, but I shall soon. I do not own a copy and so I must get a hold of one. Until then...
-Peace out.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Franken-shteeeen {Mission Accomplished}
Guess what I just finished reading?
So Frankenstein wasn't the most generic piece of horror I have come across in all my years of exposure to the genre. It's certainly different from the movie by leaps and bounds. Frankenstein's the scientist, not the 'monster', and there's no lovable hump-backed lab assistant, no castle, and no crank or thunderclap of life. In fact, Victor isn't even a mad scientist in the spirit of the title. Mad maybe, as the story starts to close; by then he's lost everything and he's probably losing what little is left of his mind. Scientist? Not anymore. He deserts the vials and microscopes after beholding his creation he had bestowed with life.
Despite all that, it's still a good read if you're up to dealing with a stubborn fool in perpetual anguish. It gets frustrating as you read along because so much of it is preventable, but Victor just happens to be that special guy who manages to screw up at every turn like a professional. He claims it was his destiny to be stripped of all that brings him happiness and with an outlook like that, what could you expect? It's understandable that a guy who just discovered the Elixer of Life would be more than eager to test his theory. There's nothing wrong with that. He creates this body that's several times larger than your average man, for reasons I failed to understand, and managed to create what looked like a monster. He could have run his first experiment on an animal, which would have rendered him with less responsibility when the experiment was through, but he had to make a fellow man. No forethought there either. So what did he expect would happen? It looked more like he was setting up for epic failure {and in a sense, he had}.
So the creature is created, and Victor suddenly hates it. I understand just a little horror after you decided to play God and succeeded to your surprise, but that should have worn off or at least turned into an instant termination of the project. He did neither. He handled it like the childish fool he really was. He ignored the monster and eventually it left. Frankenstein had created a monster; not the great hulk of a man himself, but the spark of a series of events that would turn a gentle giant into a lonely and vengeful being.
Even after the events that plagued the creation, he was still willing to reason and rationalize. Now I understand--the creature had by this time murdered Frankenstein's little brother. I get that. Regardless, he explains the circumstances and is willing to compromise with having someone to share his life with. That's all he wanted. He says 'female', but honestly, if Frankenstein had a change of heart and decided to care for his creation, there'd be no need for it. The creature was suffering from loneliness, not the urge to mate. Frankenstein only complies because his creation had to resort to threatening. Even so, the scientist decides to terminate the project and sets of the chain of events that ends in his demise and the death of those he holds dear. Way to go, buddy.
I didn't hate the story though. I actually loved the fact that there was an unexpected character to sympathize with. Normally, I side with the villains in stories because I find their characters to be more interesting, but any character, villain or not, can capture my interest with the right ingredients. In this story, I saw Victor as the villain and the creature as a sort of tragic hero. The creature endured trials of the worst kind being alienated and despised solely due to his appearance. He ended up turning to murder and vengeance due to his creature's lack of care. It's strange how someone like Victor, who had a very good father figure in his life, turned out to be such a bad father to his creation. I pin it to his being young and stupid.
The other characters didn't have to suffer for his epic failure and yet they did. Fortunately this account is fictional and I'll stop feeling bad for the lot in less than a few hours.
Anyways, I hope Walton learns from Frankenstein, though it seems like he was just as full of contempt for the creature as every other man, woman, and child in the book. God forbid you were ugly 'back then', eh?
That's pretty much all I've got to say about it for now. I've other stories to read. Like I've said before, I didn't dislike the book. I'd give it a 7 out of 10. I'm sort of looking forward to Pride and Prejudice and Zombies because I read the original story {or rather read half of it and sparknoted the rest} and thought that perhaps adding zombies to the story was the best thing they could do to save it from being one of the worst pieces of literature I was forced to read.
-Peace out.
So Frankenstein wasn't the most generic piece of horror I have come across in all my years of exposure to the genre. It's certainly different from the movie by leaps and bounds. Frankenstein's the scientist, not the 'monster', and there's no lovable hump-backed lab assistant, no castle, and no crank or thunderclap of life. In fact, Victor isn't even a mad scientist in the spirit of the title. Mad maybe, as the story starts to close; by then he's lost everything and he's probably losing what little is left of his mind. Scientist? Not anymore. He deserts the vials and microscopes after beholding his creation he had bestowed with life.
Despite all that, it's still a good read if you're up to dealing with a stubborn fool in perpetual anguish. It gets frustrating as you read along because so much of it is preventable, but Victor just happens to be that special guy who manages to screw up at every turn like a professional. He claims it was his destiny to be stripped of all that brings him happiness and with an outlook like that, what could you expect? It's understandable that a guy who just discovered the Elixer of Life would be more than eager to test his theory. There's nothing wrong with that. He creates this body that's several times larger than your average man, for reasons I failed to understand, and managed to create what looked like a monster. He could have run his first experiment on an animal, which would have rendered him with less responsibility when the experiment was through, but he had to make a fellow man. No forethought there either. So what did he expect would happen? It looked more like he was setting up for epic failure {and in a sense, he had}.
So the creature is created, and Victor suddenly hates it. I understand just a little horror after you decided to play God and succeeded to your surprise, but that should have worn off or at least turned into an instant termination of the project. He did neither. He handled it like the childish fool he really was. He ignored the monster and eventually it left. Frankenstein had created a monster; not the great hulk of a man himself, but the spark of a series of events that would turn a gentle giant into a lonely and vengeful being.
Even after the events that plagued the creation, he was still willing to reason and rationalize. Now I understand--the creature had by this time murdered Frankenstein's little brother. I get that. Regardless, he explains the circumstances and is willing to compromise with having someone to share his life with. That's all he wanted. He says 'female', but honestly, if Frankenstein had a change of heart and decided to care for his creation, there'd be no need for it. The creature was suffering from loneliness, not the urge to mate. Frankenstein only complies because his creation had to resort to threatening. Even so, the scientist decides to terminate the project and sets of the chain of events that ends in his demise and the death of those he holds dear. Way to go, buddy.
I didn't hate the story though. I actually loved the fact that there was an unexpected character to sympathize with. Normally, I side with the villains in stories because I find their characters to be more interesting, but any character, villain or not, can capture my interest with the right ingredients. In this story, I saw Victor as the villain and the creature as a sort of tragic hero. The creature endured trials of the worst kind being alienated and despised solely due to his appearance. He ended up turning to murder and vengeance due to his creature's lack of care. It's strange how someone like Victor, who had a very good father figure in his life, turned out to be such a bad father to his creation. I pin it to his being young and stupid.
The other characters didn't have to suffer for his epic failure and yet they did. Fortunately this account is fictional and I'll stop feeling bad for the lot in less than a few hours.
Anyways, I hope Walton learns from Frankenstein, though it seems like he was just as full of contempt for the creature as every other man, woman, and child in the book. God forbid you were ugly 'back then', eh?
That's pretty much all I've got to say about it for now. I've other stories to read. Like I've said before, I didn't dislike the book. I'd give it a 7 out of 10. I'm sort of looking forward to Pride and Prejudice and Zombies because I read the original story {or rather read half of it and sparknoted the rest} and thought that perhaps adding zombies to the story was the best thing they could do to save it from being one of the worst pieces of literature I was forced to read.
-Peace out.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
This Blog is for EN345
My class is on Thursdays at 8:45AM.
So...here I am.
Going to go read that Frankenstein story now and try hard not to think of Gene Wilder and Puttin' on the Ritz. Won't be too difficult I hope.
-Peace out.
So...here I am.
Going to go read that Frankenstein story now and try hard not to think of Gene Wilder and Puttin' on the Ritz. Won't be too difficult I hope.
-Peace out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)