11.27.2007
My Wish List
With the holidays coming up, I've been asked to update my Christmas list. Which mostly just means updating my Amazon.com wishlist. And I've just discovered that they now have a handy dandy widget (that should technically go in my sidebar but it's wider than my Music Box which is already wider than any widget that I'd like to have in my sidebar... so blog post it is) so that I can share my list with the world (or at least the fraction of it that visits my blog):
FYI, for anyone actually checking out this list, I recommend sorting it by priority because there is some stuff on there that's been there for a while but I still want more than more recent stuff that I've added.
FYI, for anyone actually checking out this list, I recommend sorting it by priority because there is some stuff on there that's been there for a while but I still want more than more recent stuff that I've added.
Labels: books and literature, film, music, special days
10.05.2007
Fun with Books
I sprung a bunch of my books from my mother's storage locker yesterday, so I'm finally getting to integrate them into my library again. If you have any interest in reading about my book cataloguing software, head on over to Weirdgrrl's Words and check out my Book Catalogue post.
I was hoping that I might be able to pare down my collection a bit, but so far I've only found a whopping five books out of four whole boxes that I might be willing to part with... *sigh*. And I can't wait to re-read some of the others again. Which I probably shouldn't do for a while since I have so much to do and so many new books to read and so many new films to watch... and here I am salivating over a few old favourites. But I guess that's one of the traits that make someone a Reader and not just someone who sometimes reads books. I'm reminded of an exchange in Jane Austen's "Pride & Prejudice":
As much as I love books and love reading, I have to agree with Miss Elizabeth Bennet on this point.
I was hoping that I might be able to pare down my collection a bit, but so far I've only found a whopping five books out of four whole boxes that I might be willing to part with... *sigh*. And I can't wait to re-read some of the others again. Which I probably shouldn't do for a while since I have so much to do and so many new books to read and so many new films to watch... and here I am salivating over a few old favourites. But I guess that's one of the traits that make someone a Reader and not just someone who sometimes reads books. I'm reminded of an exchange in Jane Austen's "Pride & Prejudice":
Elizabeth declined (to play cards), and making her sister the excuse, said she would amuse herself for the short time she could stay below, with a book. Mr. Hurst looked at her with astonishment.
"Do you prefer reading to cards?" said he; "That is rather singular."
"Miss Eliza Bennet," said Miss Bingley, "Despises cards. She is a great reader, and has no pleasure in anything else."
"I deserve neither such praise nor such censure," cried Elizabeth; "I am not a great reader, and I have pleasure in many things."
As much as I love books and love reading, I have to agree with Miss Elizabeth Bennet on this point.
Labels: books and literature
6.21.2007
Not Just for Deadheads
Whether you're a fan of the Grateful Dead or just a fan of music in general, Phil Lesh's book Searching for the Sound: My Life with the Grateful Dead is supposed to be a great read. A little rough around the edges because it's a true autobiography, not a ghost written one, this book is conversational, intimate, informative and candid. What interests me most about it is that Phil Lesh is the academic of the group with his avant-garde classical composition training, literate mind and passion for the arts. So ultimately it's a book about music, its creation and its powers. And now it's available as a downloadable audiobook.
So if you're also intrigued by the Grateful Dead Audio Book, remember it's just a click away.
So if you're also intrigued by the Grateful Dead Audio Book, remember it's just a click away.
Labels: books and literature, music
4.27.2007
Swapping is the New Shopping
Here's a website with a very cool idea. You can trade your DVDs, music CDs, games, books and audiobooks all in one place. It's called Hitflip UK and, as the name implies, is currently only in the UK. But they started in Germany and it looks as though they're planning on expanding into the States, so I'm crossing my fingers that they'll end up in Canada eventually (hopefully they'll post these kinds of updates on their blog).
I love the idea of being able to swap DVDs that I've grown tired of (doesn't happen very often) or have duplicates of (which is somewhat more common) or that were gifts from people who didn't check my Amazon.com wish list (probably the most common reason I would swap).
*a few moments pass as I browse the site... *
Okay, now I'm desperate. I just did a search and seasons 1-5 of "Drop the Dead Donkey" are available to swap! I know the site is just for residents of the UK and I know the DVDs would be the wrong format anyway, but I want that show!!!!
*takes deep breath*
Okay, I've calmed down now. But I still want that TV show. I'll just have to figure out another way to get it. And I will. I'm quite determined that I will.
I love the idea of being able to swap DVDs that I've grown tired of (doesn't happen very often) or have duplicates of (which is somewhat more common) or that were gifts from people who didn't check my Amazon.com wish list (probably the most common reason I would swap).
*a few moments pass as I browse the site... *
Okay, now I'm desperate. I just did a search and seasons 1-5 of "Drop the Dead Donkey" are available to swap! I know the site is just for residents of the UK and I know the DVDs would be the wrong format anyway, but I want that show!!!!
*takes deep breath*
Okay, I've calmed down now. But I still want that TV show. I'll just have to figure out another way to get it. And I will. I'm quite determined that I will.
Labels: books and literature, cool sites, film, games, music, tv, videos
4.12.2007
Goodbye, Mr. Vonnegut
"Everything was beautiful, and nothing hurt."
Falser words were never spoken, but it's a beautiful epitaph for a headstone, dontcha think?
For those of you who don't know yet, Kurt Vonnegut, satirical author of "Slaughterhouse Five" and many other books, died yesterday at the age of 84. No blaze of glory, going out in an airplane crash on the peak of Mount Kilimanjaro; I gather it was a combination of old age and brain injuries that he suffered in a fall a few weeks ago. (Or maybe it was just old age... I have a feeling that he had a tough old noggin.)
But I think maybe it's high time that I re-read "Slaughterhouse Five." And I wouldn't mind checking out that book of essays he published a couple of years ago, "A Man Without a Country."
And now I feel like I should have some witty and or relevant way to wrap up this post. Hmm... let's just say this:
So it goes.
Falser words were never spoken, but it's a beautiful epitaph for a headstone, dontcha think?
For those of you who don't know yet, Kurt Vonnegut, satirical author of "Slaughterhouse Five" and many other books, died yesterday at the age of 84. No blaze of glory, going out in an airplane crash on the peak of Mount Kilimanjaro; I gather it was a combination of old age and brain injuries that he suffered in a fall a few weeks ago. (Or maybe it was just old age... I have a feeling that he had a tough old noggin.)
But I think maybe it's high time that I re-read "Slaughterhouse Five." And I wouldn't mind checking out that book of essays he published a couple of years ago, "A Man Without a Country."
And now I feel like I should have some witty and or relevant way to wrap up this post. Hmm... let's just say this:
So it goes.
Labels: books and literature
3.23.2007
Science Fact-ish
Last Thursday, my friend and I went to hear Robert Sawyer talk, courtesy of the Calgary chapter of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. The topic was "Astronomy and Science Fiction." I haven't actually read any of Sawyer's books, but I've heard good things about them. And I'm always game for hearing people talk about real science in the context of fiction writing.
Sawyer talked about new scientific discoveries as the launching pad for most science fiction authors. While the scientists are looking for the most likely explanation, the science fiction writer is looking for the most entertaining explanation. And good science fiction is based on theories that cannot be scientifically invalidated at the time that it was written. And that even when the theory has been proven impossible, that shouldn't lessen the literary merit of good science fiction. Because all literature should be read in the context of when it was written.
He went on to say that often in science fiction movies they lean more towards fantasy than hard science fiction, not worrying as much about the scientific accuracy of their story. So he suggested that fans of truly scientific science fiction should read more and watch less. Something that I used to do but seem to have drifted away from. But I think it's time that I return to more reading.
I found myself wishing that I had a notebook and could jot down things that he said or things that I thought as a result of what he said, but alas… no such luck. I have to assume that the points that are important to me have stuck in my head and that the points that I no longer remember weren't worth the real estate in my memory.
The only other thing that I remember, even though I don't recall the context, is when he spoke of our solar system with 9—then he corrected himself—8 planets. FYI, Mental Floss sells a "Pluto R.I.P." T-shirt that Sawyer might enjoy (I'm tempted to get one myself):
But the "9… I mean… 8 planets" made me laugh so hard because it reminded me of the scene in Mel Brooks' History of the World, Part I when Moses comes down off the mountain with THREE stone tablets and announces the 15… crash… 10 commandments.
Sawyer talked about new scientific discoveries as the launching pad for most science fiction authors. While the scientists are looking for the most likely explanation, the science fiction writer is looking for the most entertaining explanation. And good science fiction is based on theories that cannot be scientifically invalidated at the time that it was written. And that even when the theory has been proven impossible, that shouldn't lessen the literary merit of good science fiction. Because all literature should be read in the context of when it was written.
He went on to say that often in science fiction movies they lean more towards fantasy than hard science fiction, not worrying as much about the scientific accuracy of their story. So he suggested that fans of truly scientific science fiction should read more and watch less. Something that I used to do but seem to have drifted away from. But I think it's time that I return to more reading.
I found myself wishing that I had a notebook and could jot down things that he said or things that I thought as a result of what he said, but alas… no such luck. I have to assume that the points that are important to me have stuck in my head and that the points that I no longer remember weren't worth the real estate in my memory.
The only other thing that I remember, even though I don't recall the context, is when he spoke of our solar system with 9—then he corrected himself—8 planets. FYI, Mental Floss sells a "Pluto R.I.P." T-shirt that Sawyer might enjoy (I'm tempted to get one myself):
But the "9… I mean… 8 planets" made me laugh so hard because it reminded me of the scene in Mel Brooks' History of the World, Part I when Moses comes down off the mountain with THREE stone tablets and announces the 15… crash… 10 commandments.
Labels: books and literature, math and science, pop culture
3.03.2007
Grammar Snobs
While trying to research whether the Washington Post has done a neologism contest recently (see my 2005 Neologism Contest post), I discovered this site called Mental Floss Magazine: Where Knowledge Junkies Get Their Fix. They have a fairly recent post about neologisms, but they're ones that I've already seen. But I decided to have a browse around their blog and was quite delighted by their eclectic subject matter. I was ready to write a post based on the front page of their blog, "Not with a bang, but with a Winter"... where I would talk about the next wave of nuclear-based post-apocalyptic movies likely to come out of Hollywood based on that information, but decided to see if there was anything else I wanted to write about that was closer to my original subject.
That's when I noticed a post entitled "Weekend Word Wrap: Grammar Snobs Are Great Big Meanies." As someone who has been called not only a Grammar Snob but a Grammar Nazi, I was mentally clapping my hands with glee. It was a "review" of "Grammar Snobs Are Great Big Meanies: A Guide to Language for Fun and Spite," a book that the reviewer hasn't actually read yet but that he was eager to read. And so was I, until I read the reviews on Amazon.com. Now, I never judge a book entirely based on other people's reviews (or its cover... oh, I slay me), but when the bad reviews make more sense than the good reviews... well, it makes a grrl wary.
I have a feeling that I would fall into the author's category of Grammar Snobs. Which is rather laughable; I'm sooo not a Grammar Nazi OR Snob... as anybody who reads my blog can aver. I play fast and loose with the English language all the time, but I like to know the correct way of wording something so I can decide whether or not it suits me to write it the right way at that time. As R. Buckminster Fuller says, "If you know that I know how to say it all correctly (the exact meaning of which I have not yet learned) then I am entitled to say it all incorrectly."
Hmm, I feel like I should file this post under "malevolently well-informed."
That's when I noticed a post entitled "Weekend Word Wrap: Grammar Snobs Are Great Big Meanies." As someone who has been called not only a Grammar Snob but a Grammar Nazi, I was mentally clapping my hands with glee. It was a "review" of "Grammar Snobs Are Great Big Meanies: A Guide to Language for Fun and Spite," a book that the reviewer hasn't actually read yet but that he was eager to read. And so was I, until I read the reviews on Amazon.com. Now, I never judge a book entirely based on other people's reviews (or its cover... oh, I slay me), but when the bad reviews make more sense than the good reviews... well, it makes a grrl wary.
I have a feeling that I would fall into the author's category of Grammar Snobs. Which is rather laughable; I'm sooo not a Grammar Nazi OR Snob... as anybody who reads my blog can aver. I play fast and loose with the English language all the time, but I like to know the correct way of wording something so I can decide whether or not it suits me to write it the right way at that time. As R. Buckminster Fuller says, "If you know that I know how to say it all correctly (the exact meaning of which I have not yet learned) then I am entitled to say it all incorrectly."
Hmm, I feel like I should file this post under "malevolently well-informed."
Labels: books and literature, cool sites, language, writing
2.02.2007
Harry's Back
Scholastic announced that "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," the seventh and final book in the best-selling series, has been scheduled for release at 12:01 a.m. on July 21, 2007. Very exciting! And if anyone is about to mock me for being a fully grown woman excited about the release of a children's book... just know that I am definitely not alone on this one. Speculation continues as to which character will die in the seventh and final chapter of J.K. Rowling's wildly popular series and I, for one, want to find out.
So beat the rush and pre-order yours today (but first you have to decide between the standard edition or the deluxe edition. Don't ask me what the difference is, I think it only really matters if you've been collecting the deluxe versions all along).
So beat the rush and pre-order yours today (but first you have to decide between the standard edition or the deluxe edition. Don't ask me what the difference is, I think it only really matters if you've been collecting the deluxe versions all along).
Labels: books and literature, pop culture
1.18.2007
The Duchess of Bloom
I have a feeling that few people are going to get the reference in my title. And I know that a joke isn't funny if you have to explain it, but I like my title and explain it I will. Have you ever read anything by Helene Hanff? Or here's an easier question: ever heard of "84 Charing Cross Road"? If you've never read (or watched any version of) "84 Charing Cross Road," go read it now; it's brief, well written and life changing (for me anyway). Helene Hanff went on to write "The Duchess of Bloomsbury Street" (starting to get the connection, right?) and "Q's Legacy" (that's not Q from Star Trek, boys and girls, that would be Sir Arthur Quiller Couch pseudonym "Q").
Now for the subject of my post, my cousin's yoga website: Bloom with Melissa. (Now it all falls into place, right?) I just saw it for the first time recently when we were discussing her wedding invitations and I really like the design. The photos rock and the rest of it is just clean and elegant; how apropos for a duchess... a duchess of bloom.
Yep, that's it. All I got. Hmm, you know you're a rambler when the subject of the post is shorter than the explanation of the title. Oh well.
Now for the subject of my post, my cousin's yoga website: Bloom with Melissa. (Now it all falls into place, right?) I just saw it for the first time recently when we were discussing her wedding invitations and I really like the design. The photos rock and the rest of it is just clean and elegant; how apropos for a duchess... a duchess of bloom.
Yep, that's it. All I got. Hmm, you know you're a rambler when the subject of the post is shorter than the explanation of the title. Oh well.
Labels: books and literature, cool sites
1.10.2007
A Dark and Wondrous Dream
I had the opportunity on Monday night of going to an advance screening of Pan's Labyrinth. It is one of those rare movies that I found completely satisfying on all levels: A gothic fairy tale worthy of the Brothers Grimm, with familiar classic elements that are made to feel fresh and original; a backdrop of the all too real man-made evil of the Spanish civil war; a fantasy that is neither escape nor horror, but a dark refuge; a rich visual tapestry reminiscent of Terry Gilliam or Tim Burton; an eerily lilting lullaby that haunts the recesses of your brain; and a perfectly cast young girl at the centre of it all. (Watch the trailer.)
I was enthralled as a viewer. I was inspired as a filmmaker. In the application that I just submitted for the Herland IN:Camera Workshop, the short film I proposed was based on a modern retelling of the Greek myth of Persephone and Demeter. There were definitely elements of that myth present in the movie: the underworld, the pomegranates in the bowl of fruit that she's not supposed to eat. Not that either of those are restricted to my particular myth, but the association pleased me. As did the young girl's name: Ofelia, the Spanish form of Ophelia. Perhaps it was not intended to reference Shakespeare but, once again, the association pleased me.
I also particularly appreciated the ending. Do you believe only in the tangible, corporeal world? Or do you believe in dreams and fantasy? It doesn't really matter; you can interpret the ending to suit either.
Me? I'm a dreamer.
I was enthralled as a viewer. I was inspired as a filmmaker. In the application that I just submitted for the Herland IN:Camera Workshop, the short film I proposed was based on a modern retelling of the Greek myth of Persephone and Demeter. There were definitely elements of that myth present in the movie: the underworld, the pomegranates in the bowl of fruit that she's not supposed to eat. Not that either of those are restricted to my particular myth, but the association pleased me. As did the young girl's name: Ofelia, the Spanish form of Ophelia. Perhaps it was not intended to reference Shakespeare but, once again, the association pleased me.
I also particularly appreciated the ending. Do you believe only in the tangible, corporeal world? Or do you believe in dreams and fantasy? It doesn't really matter; you can interpret the ending to suit either.
Me? I'm a dreamer.
Labels: books and literature, film, pop culture
12.27.2006
How Bush Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
I discovered this site where you can not only purchase the Iraq Study Group Report (aka "why Bush needs to concede that he got just about all of it wrong") but they have a whole bookstore devoted to information about the war in Iraq.Now, you maybe be wondering why you should bother buying the book when you can download it in pdf form somewhere out there. Well, for one thing, if you're anything like me you don't want to sit at your computer to read 84 page document. And if you're planning on printing it out... c'mon, when the book costs less than $10, do you really want the bother of printing something that big, all that paper, all that ink. And, well, I just like books; the tangible feel and smell of them. Way better than a stack of 8 1/2" x 11" paper held together by a whopping big paperclip.
But seriously, I think the site is a good idea. By gathering together an entire bookstore related to Iraq—from carefully thought out strategies to impassioned arguments—it gives us an opportunity to find and share responsible information on this controversial topic. And the best part about the site is that it's politically neutral... unlike me... and Jon Stewart....
Labels: books and literature, bush bashing, jon stewart, politics
12.26.2006
Book Geeks: Living Out Loud
Okay, the subtitle of this post should really be "Reading Out Loud" but that just didn't have the same ring to it.
Anyway, I came across this audio book website, Audio Book Geek, that has a huge selection of books and all of the ones that I looked at were unabridged, which is amazing. One of my favourite books on tape that I used to have was "Decider" by Dick Francis. Unfortunately: (a) it was abridged and left out some of the scenes that I thought were the best bits of character development, and (b) my tape deck eventually ate the tape because I listened to it so much. (I have dreadful insomnia and listen to an audio book every night to help me fall asleep.)
So this particular site offers unabridged books in digital form that you can buy or even just rent (what a cool idea). And at the moment, you can take advantage of their special offer of free downloadable audio books! Now excuse me while I go decide which books I want (other than "Decider" of course).
Anyway, I came across this audio book website, Audio Book Geek, that has a huge selection of books and all of the ones that I looked at were unabridged, which is amazing. One of my favourite books on tape that I used to have was "Decider" by Dick Francis. Unfortunately: (a) it was abridged and left out some of the scenes that I thought were the best bits of character development, and (b) my tape deck eventually ate the tape because I listened to it so much. (I have dreadful insomnia and listen to an audio book every night to help me fall asleep.)
So this particular site offers unabridged books in digital form that you can buy or even just rent (what a cool idea). And at the moment, you can take advantage of their special offer of free downloadable audio books! Now excuse me while I go decide which books I want (other than "Decider" of course).
Labels: books and literature
8.03.2005
Pop Culture
This category groups film, theatre, television, literature and the like:
Battlestar Galactica Webisodes (11.15.2006)
Generic Update Post (11.08.2006)
A New Crew In Town (10.15.2006)
Great Tempest (9.09.2006) ~ Rock Star: Supernova
Crazy Videos (9.03.2006)
Filming! (8.28.2006)
The Ultimate in Geekiness (8.21.2006)
Note To Self... (8.17.2006)
Separated at Birth? (7.19.2006)
The Gears & The Levers (7.02.2006)
Poseidon (5.15.2006)
Spoof Trailers (4.30.2006)
What I Learned Today... (11.21.2005)
More From The Onion (11.16.2005)
The Onion: News in Brief (11.10.2005)
Cellar Door (9.26.2005)
It Ain't Pretty: Rock Star Wrap Up (9.21.2005)
INXS Mis-Fortune (9.20.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Sweet Suzie McNeil (9.15.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Two Words (9.14.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
I Searched Afar The Land (9.07.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Top 5 (9.06.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Rock Star Ramblings (9.05.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Such Sweet Sorrow (8.31.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Suzie McNeil is a Goddess (8.31.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Jump the Shark (8.30.2005)
Party & Prejudice (8.29.2005)
Colour Me Stunned (8.25.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Just a Bad Dream? (8.24.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
You Know You've Watched Too Much HGTV When... (8.21.2005)
Family Guy's Freakin' Blog (8.19.2005)
Top Three Good, Bottom Three Baaad!! (8.18.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
MiG Joins the Game (8.17.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Rock Star Volleyball (8.10.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Just Jordis (8.05.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Asimov and The Bard (8.02.2005)
Why, Robot? (8.01.2005)
Ty TV (7.26.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Irreverent Graffiti (7.23.2005)
The Final Frontier (7.20.2005)
The Language of Metaphor — cross-referenced under Language, but the Star Trek: TNG foundation of this post firmly plants it in Pop Culture, as well. (7.17.2005)
Plan 9 From Outer Space (7.16.2005)
Which Witch is Which? (7.12.2005)
Five Women (6.23.2005)
Simpsons for the Blind (6.05.2005)
Separated at Birth (5.22.2005)
Weirdgrrl Recommends (4.18.2005)
Wondrous Strange Things (4.05.2005)
Relax, Relate, Communicate (3.26.2005)
Loonatics (3.16.2005)
Create a Character (3.14.2005)
Superman is a Dick (3.07.2005)
Tunes on TV (3.04.2005)
Is SpongeBob Gay?! (2.04.2005)
Calvin and Hobbes' Gory Snowmen (1.25.2005)
Recommended Daily Dose of TV (1.24.2005)
Welcome to Hollywood, Dawg (1.18.2005)
The Bush Show (1.13.2005)
My Idée Fixe (aka MI5) (1.08.2005)
Lightning Sand (12.14.2004)
A Daily Dose of The Daily Show (12.03.2004)
NaNoFiMo & Sexy Cops (12.01.2004)
Agent Orange (11.19.2004)
Here Be Dragons (11.19.2004)
Pop Culture Stuff (11.13.2004)
I Drink, Therefore I Am (11.10.2004)
A Piece of the Pi (10.17.2004)
Random Snippets (10.13.2004)
Time is on My Mind (10.09.2004)
Mansfield Park Rant (10.07.2004)
Dark. Darkest. Darko. (10.02.2004)
In the Wee Small Hours (9.26.2004)
Film Fest (9.24.2004)
Peculiar Dreams (8.27.2004)
Battlestar Galactica Webisodes (11.15.2006)
Generic Update Post (11.08.2006)
A New Crew In Town (10.15.2006)
Great Tempest (9.09.2006) ~ Rock Star: Supernova
Crazy Videos (9.03.2006)
Filming! (8.28.2006)
The Ultimate in Geekiness (8.21.2006)
Note To Self... (8.17.2006)
Separated at Birth? (7.19.2006)
The Gears & The Levers (7.02.2006)
Poseidon (5.15.2006)
Spoof Trailers (4.30.2006)
What I Learned Today... (11.21.2005)
More From The Onion (11.16.2005)
The Onion: News in Brief (11.10.2005)
Cellar Door (9.26.2005)
It Ain't Pretty: Rock Star Wrap Up (9.21.2005)
INXS Mis-Fortune (9.20.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Sweet Suzie McNeil (9.15.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Two Words (9.14.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
I Searched Afar The Land (9.07.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Top 5 (9.06.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Rock Star Ramblings (9.05.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Such Sweet Sorrow (8.31.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Suzie McNeil is a Goddess (8.31.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Jump the Shark (8.30.2005)
Party & Prejudice (8.29.2005)
Colour Me Stunned (8.25.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Just a Bad Dream? (8.24.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
You Know You've Watched Too Much HGTV When... (8.21.2005)
Family Guy's Freakin' Blog (8.19.2005)
Top Three Good, Bottom Three Baaad!! (8.18.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
MiG Joins the Game (8.17.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Rock Star Volleyball (8.10.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Just Jordis (8.05.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Asimov and The Bard (8.02.2005)
Why, Robot? (8.01.2005)
Ty TV (7.26.2005) ~ Rock Star: INXS
Irreverent Graffiti (7.23.2005)
The Final Frontier (7.20.2005)
The Language of Metaphor — cross-referenced under Language, but the Star Trek: TNG foundation of this post firmly plants it in Pop Culture, as well. (7.17.2005)
Plan 9 From Outer Space (7.16.2005)
Which Witch is Which? (7.12.2005)
Five Women (6.23.2005)
Simpsons for the Blind (6.05.2005)
Separated at Birth (5.22.2005)
Weirdgrrl Recommends (4.18.2005)
Wondrous Strange Things (4.05.2005)
Relax, Relate, Communicate (3.26.2005)
Loonatics (3.16.2005)
Create a Character (3.14.2005)
Superman is a Dick (3.07.2005)
Tunes on TV (3.04.2005)
Is SpongeBob Gay?! (2.04.2005)
Calvin and Hobbes' Gory Snowmen (1.25.2005)
Recommended Daily Dose of TV (1.24.2005)
Welcome to Hollywood, Dawg (1.18.2005)
The Bush Show (1.13.2005)
My Idée Fixe (aka MI5) (1.08.2005)
Lightning Sand (12.14.2004)
A Daily Dose of The Daily Show (12.03.2004)
NaNoFiMo & Sexy Cops (12.01.2004)
Agent Orange (11.19.2004)
Here Be Dragons (11.19.2004)
Pop Culture Stuff (11.13.2004)
I Drink, Therefore I Am (11.10.2004)
A Piece of the Pi (10.17.2004)
Random Snippets (10.13.2004)
Time is on My Mind (10.09.2004)
Mansfield Park Rant (10.07.2004)
Dark. Darkest. Darko. (10.02.2004)
In the Wee Small Hours (9.26.2004)
Film Fest (9.24.2004)
Peculiar Dreams (8.27.2004)
Labels: books and literature, film, pop culture, theatre, tv
8.02.2005
Asimov and The Bard
Having just mentioned Asimov and Shakespeare in the same breath, well... same post (Why, Robot?), I thought it would be interesting to see what Asimov had to say about the play, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, in his book Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare.
He starts by saying, "Of Shakespeare's early comedies, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, written about 1594, is perhaps the most forgettable. It is so weak, in fact, that some critics think it may have been written as early as 1590 or else the version we now have is a mangled copy of the real play." Ouch. Harsh.
I'm actually rather fond of this play, but I'm perfectly willing to admit that it could just be because it was my first Shakespearean acting role (the part of Julia, when I was in grade six). And I completely understand why the problematic ending is a magnet for criticism.
If you're not familiar with the play, the problems in a nutshell are that some characters (particularly Proteus) do some pretty heinous things to the ones they're supposed to love, but everybody forgives everyone else instantly and we're supposed to believe it's happy endings all around.
To go into slightly more detail: The play opens with best friends Proteus and Valentine (the two gentlemen of the title) and Proteus is in love with Julia who actually loves him back. Valentine goes to another city on his own and falls in love with Silvia, who also loves him back but whose father doesn't approve. Proteus ends up meeting up with Valentine. The minute he meets Silvia he forgets about his Julia and cares not about the love between Silvia and Valentine. He ends up being responsible for having his friend Valentine banished. Meanwhile, Julia has dressed up as a man, "Sebastian," to follow her true love. Upon her arrival, she discovers that Proteus is now in love with someone else. Through a series of events that I won't go into, Silvia is captured by outlaws and rescued by Proteus. Now we enter the beginning of the problematic end, at which point I'll hand the prose over to Asimov...
"[Silvia] still refuses to listen to [Proteus'] protestations of love (which Valentine overhears, so that he learns the truth at last). The desperate Proteus threatens rape and then, finally, Valentine confronts his false friend. After Valentine's tongue-lashing, Proteus tearfully repents and at once Valentine forgives him. Valentine does more than that, in fact. He says:
"Most critics find it utterly beyond the bound of reason to suppose that Valentine should on an instant forgive an all-but-unforgivable falseness in his friend and then abandon his love to him as well — to say nothing of the insult offered Silvia in treating her as though she were a sack of wheat to be bartered. Some suspect a corrupt text, an ill-remembered denouement, a cut version.
"Any of these possibilities may be so for all we know, and yet it might also be argued that Shakespeare meant it exactly as it stands. There is some reason to suspect that Shakespeare may have had homosexual tendencies, but there are no outright homosexuals in his plays except for Patroclus in Troilus and Cressida, and that was enforced by the Greek tale. Nevertheless, there are a number of cases in the romances in which friendship between males is suspiciously close and in which the language used between them is suspiciously ardent. The case of Valentine and Proteus is one of them and it is just possible to argue that Shakespeare was trying to maintain that affection between males was a higher and stronger emotion than that between the opposite sexes.
"When Proteus gives up Silvia after being reproached by Valentine and then asks forgiveness, he is implicitly abandoning the lesser love (female) for the greater (male), and what can Valentine do but reciprocate and hand the lesser love back?
"Fortunately for heterosexual sensibilities, this does not happen. When Valentine makes his offer, "Sebastian" swoons. Her true identity is discovered and the repentant Proteus is thus reunited with his ever true Julia [who forgives him completely]."
An interesting interpretation of the play, dontcha think? I, for one, would be curious to see a production that explored that possibility. But then what of the women's reactions? Modern sensibilities insist on an explanation for their acceptance of the men's behaviour. I challenge future actresses of Julia and Silvia to seek a motivation that makes sense to them, and to have such craft as to make that motivation clear to the audience. So no longer will the audience have to leave saying, "she forgave him too easily."
He starts by saying, "Of Shakespeare's early comedies, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, written about 1594, is perhaps the most forgettable. It is so weak, in fact, that some critics think it may have been written as early as 1590 or else the version we now have is a mangled copy of the real play." Ouch. Harsh.
I'm actually rather fond of this play, but I'm perfectly willing to admit that it could just be because it was my first Shakespearean acting role (the part of Julia, when I was in grade six). And I completely understand why the problematic ending is a magnet for criticism.
If you're not familiar with the play, the problems in a nutshell are that some characters (particularly Proteus) do some pretty heinous things to the ones they're supposed to love, but everybody forgives everyone else instantly and we're supposed to believe it's happy endings all around.
To go into slightly more detail: The play opens with best friends Proteus and Valentine (the two gentlemen of the title) and Proteus is in love with Julia who actually loves him back. Valentine goes to another city on his own and falls in love with Silvia, who also loves him back but whose father doesn't approve. Proteus ends up meeting up with Valentine. The minute he meets Silvia he forgets about his Julia and cares not about the love between Silvia and Valentine. He ends up being responsible for having his friend Valentine banished. Meanwhile, Julia has dressed up as a man, "Sebastian," to follow her true love. Upon her arrival, she discovers that Proteus is now in love with someone else. Through a series of events that I won't go into, Silvia is captured by outlaws and rescued by Proteus. Now we enter the beginning of the problematic end, at which point I'll hand the prose over to Asimov...
"[Silvia] still refuses to listen to [Proteus'] protestations of love (which Valentine overhears, so that he learns the truth at last). The desperate Proteus threatens rape and then, finally, Valentine confronts his false friend. After Valentine's tongue-lashing, Proteus tearfully repents and at once Valentine forgives him. Valentine does more than that, in fact. He says:
...that my love may appear plain and free,
All that was mine in Silvia I give thee.
~ Act V, scene iv, lines 82-83
"Most critics find it utterly beyond the bound of reason to suppose that Valentine should on an instant forgive an all-but-unforgivable falseness in his friend and then abandon his love to him as well — to say nothing of the insult offered Silvia in treating her as though she were a sack of wheat to be bartered. Some suspect a corrupt text, an ill-remembered denouement, a cut version.
"Any of these possibilities may be so for all we know, and yet it might also be argued that Shakespeare meant it exactly as it stands. There is some reason to suspect that Shakespeare may have had homosexual tendencies, but there are no outright homosexuals in his plays except for Patroclus in Troilus and Cressida, and that was enforced by the Greek tale. Nevertheless, there are a number of cases in the romances in which friendship between males is suspiciously close and in which the language used between them is suspiciously ardent. The case of Valentine and Proteus is one of them and it is just possible to argue that Shakespeare was trying to maintain that affection between males was a higher and stronger emotion than that between the opposite sexes.
"When Proteus gives up Silvia after being reproached by Valentine and then asks forgiveness, he is implicitly abandoning the lesser love (female) for the greater (male), and what can Valentine do but reciprocate and hand the lesser love back?
"Fortunately for heterosexual sensibilities, this does not happen. When Valentine makes his offer, "Sebastian" swoons. Her true identity is discovered and the repentant Proteus is thus reunited with his ever true Julia [who forgives him completely]."
An interesting interpretation of the play, dontcha think? I, for one, would be curious to see a production that explored that possibility. But then what of the women's reactions? Modern sensibilities insist on an explanation for their acceptance of the men's behaviour. I challenge future actresses of Julia and Silvia to seek a motivation that makes sense to them, and to have such craft as to make that motivation clear to the audience. So no longer will the audience have to leave saying, "she forgave him too easily."
Labels: books and literature, film, theatre
4.06.2005
Doubleplusungood
Was watching last night's intro to The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and was quite tickled by the segment about the latest report critiquing U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities (and the NY Times' use of the phrase "doody-headed nincompoopery"... one can't help but wonder if the decline in their vocabulary is the result of William Safire's retirement... but I digress). While pondering why the authors of this report didn't seem to have access to the three previous reports that reached the same conclusions, Stewart suggested that a new report would be issued to explain this lack of communication, entitled:
"The Report Commission:
Reporting on Reporting Redundancy on Commission Reporting"
>>> watch segment
Naturally, this made me think of the phrase "Department of Redundancy Department." (Did I mention that this was going to be one of those tangentially meandering blog posts?) And I started trying to figure out who first coined that phrase. I remember reading it in "Anguished English" by Richard Lederer, but I'm sure it was around before then. It almost sounds Orwellian but it's kinda the antithesis of the Newspeak in "1984," which is intended to simplify language to its barest, most essential parts rather than make it more complicated than it needs to be (hmm... complicated like my run-on sentences that spew verbosity at every turn). Ironically, the Newspeak translation of "extremely bad" into "doubleplusungood" actually sounds more complicated to me, even though its root words are simplistic. (By the way, check out this Complete Newspeak Dictionary.) But I'm digressing yet again. (Though how can one tell in such a tangent-based rambling?)
Now where was I? Oh yes, Newspeak. The purpose of Newspeak is to dehumanize language and discount the emotion behind complex constructions of words. So if a culture's language does not contain the word for a concept, will the people of that culture be unable to comprehend it? Apparently, some linguistic anthropologists seem to think so (one website that I stumbled across claimed that Noam Chomsky is one of them, but being more familiar with his anarchist politics than his lingustic theories, I can't vouch for that). Taken to its extreme: if no word for "suffering" exists, how can one appreciate that they are, indeed, suffering? Likewise, how can an oppressed people rebel if they do not understand what "to rebel" means?
Hmm, interesting idea. But I counter with Buffy creator Joss Whedon's claim that language can sometimes have the effect of inhibiting true communication. (Have you seen the Emmy-nominated Buffy episode "Hush"? The majority of the episode is completely without dialogue and what little dialogue there is at the beginning and end of the show focuses on speech and communication... very on theme.) Who was it who said that words conceal as much as they reveal? [Google search result: "Words, like nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within." ~ Alfred, Lord Tennyson]
Now don't get me wrong, I LOVE words (as anybody who reads my blog can attest). But I would argue that the hypothetical culture that doesn't have a word for suffering or rebellion will still suffer and rebel AND communicate about it. That communication may involve action or art instead of language, but the lack of a word doesn't prevent the intuitive thought. Does it? Or maybe I'm naive and uneducated and I just need to read more about the various theories of linguistics. And maybe that's more than enough inconclusive ramblings for today.
Reporting on Reporting Redundancy on Commission Reporting"
>>> watch segment
Naturally, this made me think of the phrase "Department of Redundancy Department." (Did I mention that this was going to be one of those tangentially meandering blog posts?) And I started trying to figure out who first coined that phrase. I remember reading it in "Anguished English" by Richard Lederer, but I'm sure it was around before then. It almost sounds Orwellian but it's kinda the antithesis of the Newspeak in "1984," which is intended to simplify language to its barest, most essential parts rather than make it more complicated than it needs to be (hmm... complicated like my run-on sentences that spew verbosity at every turn). Ironically, the Newspeak translation of "extremely bad" into "doubleplusungood" actually sounds more complicated to me, even though its root words are simplistic. (By the way, check out this Complete Newspeak Dictionary.) But I'm digressing yet again. (Though how can one tell in such a tangent-based rambling?)
Now where was I? Oh yes, Newspeak. The purpose of Newspeak is to dehumanize language and discount the emotion behind complex constructions of words. So if a culture's language does not contain the word for a concept, will the people of that culture be unable to comprehend it? Apparently, some linguistic anthropologists seem to think so (one website that I stumbled across claimed that Noam Chomsky is one of them, but being more familiar with his anarchist politics than his lingustic theories, I can't vouch for that). Taken to its extreme: if no word for "suffering" exists, how can one appreciate that they are, indeed, suffering? Likewise, how can an oppressed people rebel if they do not understand what "to rebel" means?
Hmm, interesting idea. But I counter with Buffy creator Joss Whedon's claim that language can sometimes have the effect of inhibiting true communication. (Have you seen the Emmy-nominated Buffy episode "Hush"? The majority of the episode is completely without dialogue and what little dialogue there is at the beginning and end of the show focuses on speech and communication... very on theme.) Who was it who said that words conceal as much as they reveal? [Google search result: "Words, like nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within." ~ Alfred, Lord Tennyson]
Now don't get me wrong, I LOVE words (as anybody who reads my blog can attest). But I would argue that the hypothetical culture that doesn't have a word for suffering or rebellion will still suffer and rebel AND communicate about it. That communication may involve action or art instead of language, but the lack of a word doesn't prevent the intuitive thought. Does it? Or maybe I'm naive and uneducated and I just need to read more about the various theories of linguistics. And maybe that's more than enough inconclusive ramblings for today.
Labels: books and literature, buffy, humour, jon stewart, language, philosophy, politics, tv
2.29.2004
The Vocabulary of Myth
Inventory day at the Children's Hospital gift shop where I volunteer as a book buyer (though I'm currently training my replacement). I love children's books... often so much more scope for imagination than in adult fiction. When Madeleine L'Engle, author of A Wrinkle in Time, was asked "Why do you write for children?" she answered that if she has something she wants to say that is too difficult for adults to swallow, then she will write it in a book for children. "Children still haven't closed themselves off with fear of the unknown, fear of revolution, or the scramble for security. They are still familiar with the inborn vocabulary of myth" (A Circle of Quiet). I love that answer.
Labels: books and literature
![[Valid Atom 0.3]](http://www.weirdgrrl.ca/images/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom 0.3 feed"){kind=small}
About Weirdgrrl
