(no subject)
Aug. 5th, 2006 10:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWent book shopping today...okay, I did not intend to go book shopping. I intended to just take a leisurely walk and lust after books in book stores. But I got tempted. Books lusted after: "Elizbeth Bear's Blood and Iron", Peter S. Beagle's "The Last Unicorn", Marcel Proust's "Swann in Love" (which a portion of my flist has read, more than once already)- new translation by Lydia something - very pretty book - read a page and a half before reluctantly putting it back on the shelf and deciding, no this is not a summer book but a winter one which deserves a blanket, a cup of coco and a hot fire in the background, George Eliot's "Middlemarch" (which another portion of flist has read (note not the same one who read Swann in Love) and dismissed it for the same reasons.
Then found a book of personal essays by Jonathan Franzen entitled How to Be Alone. Read a few passages - such as "the local particularities of content matter less to me than the underlying investigation in all these essays: the problem of preserving individuality and complexity in a noisy and distracting mass culture: the guestion of how to be alone." And," Expecting a novel to bear the weight of our whole disturbed society - to help solve our contemporary problems- seems to me a peculiarly American delusion. To write sentences of such authenticity that refuge can be taken in them: Isn't this enough? Isn't it alot?" Read a bit more. Bought the book to take home and languish in and be comforted by. No, I don't entirely agree with everything he says, but some things....yes, I do. Which is odd, considering how much I despised him several years back for that essay in Harpers - which in this volumn he apologizes for and explains in a way that provides a new twist on it.
Also gave it up for Diana Gabaldon's Outlander - which several people rec'd and I've played with reading a few times over the years. Lengthy book though. And Terry Prachett's Witches Abroad, which may be a tad footnote heavy for my taste, after Kavaliar and Clay but we shall see. Yes, I know, I do not need any more new books. Have no room for the ones I have. What I should do is go to the library like everyone else - but am allergic to libraries (dust mites and evil company, which was filled with evil librarians or rather the librarians that couldn't get a job anywhere else) - that and I take too long to read the damn books and am too lazy to renew it. Cheaper to buy the dang things.
Other thing I spent money on? Video rentals - three for 9.95 at Blockbusters - so rented Shattered Glass, Superman the Movie and Superman II - which I'd been wanting to see since Superman Returns, which is more or less the sequel to Superman II. Felt odd walking about - as if I was not fitting in with the local fashion - in my Kate Hill sleeveless colored/three button down tank top. Black. Everyone else had this spagetti strap or thin strap tees on that made them look sort of saggy in the bust or like little boys with no bust. Thought about getting some at American Apparial but got distracted by bookstores, which were more appealing. I hate shopping for clothes. Do not understand the appeal at all.
Just finished watching Shattered Glass which is about Stephan Glass - the reporter who fabricated 21 of the 42 stories he wrote for The New Republic. The director chooses to tell the tale through the use of a "unreliable narrator" to frame it. Ie. We see much of it through the eyes of Stephen Glass, which would have worked better if he chose a more charismatic actor than Hayden Christianson to play Glass - although having seen the real Glass on the 60 minutes piece in the extras - Christianson does look and act like the real guy. I wanted to see the film through the eyes of Chuck Lane and Michael Kelly played respectively by Stephen Staarsgard and Hank Azaria, who do have screen charisma. Or Steven Zahn who played Adam Pemberton who broke the Glass fabrication for Forbes Digitial. But no, it's via Stephen's eyes, mostly and to a lesser extent, Chuck's and Adam's. The tale does depict how easy it is for a skilled liar to fabricate the truth and convince numerous people that it is the truth. Glass was a pathological liar and a clever/creative one. He didn't just lie, but created notes, a website, a newsletter, and other pieces to back up the lie. Then when he was caught, he continued to lie and manipulate people into feeling sorry for him. Did he get punished? Ah, here's the thing, not really. Oh sure, he got fired and sued and went to therapy. But he came out of it with a law degree from Georgetown, and a six figure book deal for a work of fiction entitled "The Fabulist" about a guy who fabricates articles to further his career in journalism. The people he hurt? They did not fare nearly as well. His main problem? Getting accepted to the New York Bar. Oh he passed the written, they are just uncertain about his character - this was in 1998 or thereabouts, no clue if he's practicing law now.
Depressing film. Not what I expected. But realistic. I've met a pathological liar who managed to hurt me a great deal. Almost destroyed me. I escaped. And eventually he destroyed himself. Granted he was also bi-polar and an alcoholic, so that may have contributed to the problem. And I've managed to let go of it, and even sort of forgive him. Life dealt with him far worse than I ever could.
It is however an interesting one - in that it decides to use the unreliable narrator to frame and present the story. It just doesn't stay in that point of view long enough for it to work, I think. Not like the brilliant David Fincher film Fight Club - where we are inside an unreliable narrator who is lying to himself throughout the movie. Ian McEwan also uses the technique in Atonement. It's in The Others. And M. Night Shyalaman uses it brilliantly in The Sixth Sense. Difficult technigue to utilize, you need a charismatic narrator in a film to pull it off, and you need to stay in that pov through out, otherwise the audience may get annoyed or confused. In the extras, the director of Shattered Glass admits that the unreliable narrator bit was tagged on at the last minute and not originally intended to frame the film - he put it there, when the original framing did not work for the studio. I'm not sure about the choice. I sort of wish he stuck with the New Republic staff telling the tale.
It's not a bad film all in all. I was entertained and found the story fascinating. But it's not a great one either. Doesn't have the grit of other journalistic films such as Absence of Malice or All The President's Men. But then it doesn't really try to be like those films. It's a small story and a small film and works as such.
Then found a book of personal essays by Jonathan Franzen entitled How to Be Alone. Read a few passages - such as "the local particularities of content matter less to me than the underlying investigation in all these essays: the problem of preserving individuality and complexity in a noisy and distracting mass culture: the guestion of how to be alone." And," Expecting a novel to bear the weight of our whole disturbed society - to help solve our contemporary problems- seems to me a peculiarly American delusion. To write sentences of such authenticity that refuge can be taken in them: Isn't this enough? Isn't it alot?" Read a bit more. Bought the book to take home and languish in and be comforted by. No, I don't entirely agree with everything he says, but some things....yes, I do. Which is odd, considering how much I despised him several years back for that essay in Harpers - which in this volumn he apologizes for and explains in a way that provides a new twist on it.
Also gave it up for Diana Gabaldon's Outlander - which several people rec'd and I've played with reading a few times over the years. Lengthy book though. And Terry Prachett's Witches Abroad, which may be a tad footnote heavy for my taste, after Kavaliar and Clay but we shall see. Yes, I know, I do not need any more new books. Have no room for the ones I have. What I should do is go to the library like everyone else - but am allergic to libraries (dust mites and evil company, which was filled with evil librarians or rather the librarians that couldn't get a job anywhere else) - that and I take too long to read the damn books and am too lazy to renew it. Cheaper to buy the dang things.
Other thing I spent money on? Video rentals - three for 9.95 at Blockbusters - so rented Shattered Glass, Superman the Movie and Superman II - which I'd been wanting to see since Superman Returns, which is more or less the sequel to Superman II. Felt odd walking about - as if I was not fitting in with the local fashion - in my Kate Hill sleeveless colored/three button down tank top. Black. Everyone else had this spagetti strap or thin strap tees on that made them look sort of saggy in the bust or like little boys with no bust. Thought about getting some at American Apparial but got distracted by bookstores, which were more appealing. I hate shopping for clothes. Do not understand the appeal at all.
Just finished watching Shattered Glass which is about Stephan Glass - the reporter who fabricated 21 of the 42 stories he wrote for The New Republic. The director chooses to tell the tale through the use of a "unreliable narrator" to frame it. Ie. We see much of it through the eyes of Stephen Glass, which would have worked better if he chose a more charismatic actor than Hayden Christianson to play Glass - although having seen the real Glass on the 60 minutes piece in the extras - Christianson does look and act like the real guy. I wanted to see the film through the eyes of Chuck Lane and Michael Kelly played respectively by Stephen Staarsgard and Hank Azaria, who do have screen charisma. Or Steven Zahn who played Adam Pemberton who broke the Glass fabrication for Forbes Digitial. But no, it's via Stephen's eyes, mostly and to a lesser extent, Chuck's and Adam's. The tale does depict how easy it is for a skilled liar to fabricate the truth and convince numerous people that it is the truth. Glass was a pathological liar and a clever/creative one. He didn't just lie, but created notes, a website, a newsletter, and other pieces to back up the lie. Then when he was caught, he continued to lie and manipulate people into feeling sorry for him. Did he get punished? Ah, here's the thing, not really. Oh sure, he got fired and sued and went to therapy. But he came out of it with a law degree from Georgetown, and a six figure book deal for a work of fiction entitled "The Fabulist" about a guy who fabricates articles to further his career in journalism. The people he hurt? They did not fare nearly as well. His main problem? Getting accepted to the New York Bar. Oh he passed the written, they are just uncertain about his character - this was in 1998 or thereabouts, no clue if he's practicing law now.
Depressing film. Not what I expected. But realistic. I've met a pathological liar who managed to hurt me a great deal. Almost destroyed me. I escaped. And eventually he destroyed himself. Granted he was also bi-polar and an alcoholic, so that may have contributed to the problem. And I've managed to let go of it, and even sort of forgive him. Life dealt with him far worse than I ever could.
It is however an interesting one - in that it decides to use the unreliable narrator to frame and present the story. It just doesn't stay in that point of view long enough for it to work, I think. Not like the brilliant David Fincher film Fight Club - where we are inside an unreliable narrator who is lying to himself throughout the movie. Ian McEwan also uses the technique in Atonement. It's in The Others. And M. Night Shyalaman uses it brilliantly in The Sixth Sense. Difficult technigue to utilize, you need a charismatic narrator in a film to pull it off, and you need to stay in that pov through out, otherwise the audience may get annoyed or confused. In the extras, the director of Shattered Glass admits that the unreliable narrator bit was tagged on at the last minute and not originally intended to frame the film - he put it there, when the original framing did not work for the studio. I'm not sure about the choice. I sort of wish he stuck with the New Republic staff telling the tale.
It's not a bad film all in all. I was entertained and found the story fascinating. But it's not a great one either. Doesn't have the grit of other journalistic films such as Absence of Malice or All The President's Men. But then it doesn't really try to be like those films. It's a small story and a small film and works as such.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-08-06 05:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-06 01:55 pm (UTC)Satire does require a certain mood. It sometimes works for me and sometimes doesn't.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-06 01:34 pm (UTC)I checked Middlemarch out of the library last week, but I like the idea of waiting till Winter!! I also may not be up to the task of Eliot, having progressed so SLOWLY through Jane Austen (which I dearly loved!)
You know, I really should have started doing this READING thing when I was much younger!
no subject
Date: 2006-08-06 01:54 pm (UTC)The dang things were too bloody long - (1000 pages each). The man overwrites and feels a need to describe every battle in minute detail.
Have decided to try Outlander based mostly on an offline friend's rec - who I share similar reading interests with and stated that she hates romance novels but this one pulled her in and wouldn't let go. But your description above makes me think that it may annoy me. I don't like heroines who always do the right thing, get the guy with little effort, and have consequences imposed as opposed to just happening. It's a problem I have with the historical romance genre and to some extent the fantasy genre.
I think the reason I haven't read or *cough*been avoiding*cough to read books like Middlemarch is I don't like the Victorian era. Books published about and during that era, grate on my nerves for some reason. Jane Austen is pre-Victorian and the books published prior to that era and after it, are much easier for me to digest. They seem to have a sense of humor and play that I'm not certain the Victorians possessed in their writing. The Victorians come across as a bit on the "haughty" side for my taste - Whedon actually did a good job of making fun of them in the series, which I adored.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-06 02:49 pm (UTC)I love that man, seriously!
"OUTLANDER" (thick as it was) was a fast/fun read - even for me. I didn't have a problem with DG until the third book - and then it was mostly "does that woman EVER do anything wrong"?? She's fallible in the first book, and the consequences (as I remember) are very natural. I think the author either got lazy - or was setting her up for something I couldn't stomach the wait for. I don't think you will be annoyed!!
And I didn't know that about the "Victorian era" (neophyte that I am), but I would miss the humor - that's for sure!! I've been wondering if that's why I've struggled with some of the TV Drama - including LOST, 24, and even BG. I think I need the humor more than I realized!!
no subject
Date: 2006-08-06 03:59 pm (UTC)Edith Wharton, Thomas Hardy, Henry James, Charles Dickens, Nathaniel Hawthorn - the 1800's writers - all seemed to take themselves just a bit too seriously. Lots of tragedy. Lots of death. Lots of romances gone horribly wrong. Bit like 24 or BSG. Very grim. But at the same time there's a loftiness to the proceedings, the language is formal, and at times distancing. When I read it - I feel as if I'm pushing my brain through quicksand. And I avoided these authors as much as possible when I was in college, often skirting around them, taking courses in lit that either predated them or came afterwards. For some reason the English writers during the Victorian period got a little "self-important" - which may or may not be a direct result of the fact that England more or less ruled the world at that point in history or English culture did. "The sun never sets on the British Empire" - they are paying for those actions now - as all imperialists do sooner or later. But the Victorian Age named after Queen Victoria, is partly why English is the International Language at the moment - the Brits got around. And you can see the arrogance in the literature of the time. I found it preachy and off-putting, but again that may just be me.
Never could make it through a Henry James novel - tried several. Also Wharton - while I made it through Ethan Fromm, her others I struggled with. And they were Americans.
Again, I may not be the best judge and am certainly no expert - haven't studied literature since 1989 and much like Whedon, I suck at remembering dates.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-06 04:08 pm (UTC)(
no subject
Date: 2006-08-06 11:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-07 02:29 am (UTC)Chemistry was the path of MOST resistence. Everyone way dying and I found it easy, and fun (ducks). Puzzles and I...
no subject
Date: 2006-08-06 05:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-06 11:02 pm (UTC)It feels more introspective than active. Or at least that was the impression I got after reading the first three paragraphs in the book store. Lovely volumn - nice thick paper and slick, thick cover. Am still flirting with it.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-06 11:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-07 04:13 am (UTC)Their main fear and it was a legitimate one - was that people would basically download, copy, cut and past, repost whatever they pleased and in whatever format. No one could stop them on the net from doing it - since it could be done anynomously. The counter to that was - what about people's access to information and ability to express themselves. To what extent should "property rights" infringe on "rights of privacy, expression, and educational use". Got very heated.
When you get back in the States you should check out the new translations - and the pretty volumns. Sort of similar to the Don Quixote one.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-06 11:46 pm (UTC)And I am not a good person for the literary but for Beagle I preferred both a "Fine and Private Place" and "The Innkeeper's Song", fair warning that last gets very muddled in spots, and also tails away in areas. Some of its other bits are pretty exceptional. They sing. Fine and private place is just a very good book and a very good fit. Both of the above are of course subjective. I am going off memory, which as we know... "Unicorn" I think bothered me deeply on levels aside from literary and the other I've read was (hmmg) "Folk of the Air"?
Which I should revisit. I am having still some trouble on the rereads. I did a big Zelazny one after an Elizabeth Wiley trilogy (there's some riffing there,) and it wasn't what I remembered. Not bad just really odd, like rereading the Xmen and thinking OK well, I was right about that by why the heck didn't this bother me more?
On the other hand, I did eventually force myself to Kushner's Swordspoint, the reissue sat on my shelf for a long time, and although it was not the same as the watershed when I was young, nor am I, it kept me up all night.
My clothes shopping this summer amounted to one black t-shirt from Walmart. I think it may have been five dollars and an impulse purchase after a shower curtain and new towels. I am afraid my figure is too flat not to mention old for most stuff, and then there is the money and how everything seems to want to be dry cleaned.
Just another stray but after you do get to Middlemarch there was serialization I saw a few years back with Rufus Sewell. I thought he was good, and actually made me want to read the book, not to mention draw him.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-07 04:03 am (UTC)I'm no longer a library person - don't read fast enough and I tend to be hard on books, because I cart them everywhere with me - in and out of subways, and have been known to get them wet on occassion. And when reading in transit - it is easier to cart a paperback. The other reason is dust and mold spores - which I'm allergic to and which cling to the pages of library books. In my youth I was into libraries and known to check out ten books at a time from the school library and the one within walking distance of where we lived.
Oh haven't bought the Middlemarch as of yet...still flirting. If I planned to read it, would have to buy it since it would take me a long time to read. I did see the serialization on PBS or parts of it and share your attraction to Rufus Sewell - which did tempt me to the book. Remember very little of the series though.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-07 09:09 am (UTC)I think it can stand alone from the review I read in sartorius LJ, and I know at least one other person reading it now. If you like reading in order, Swordspoint came out in reissue paperback not too long ago, and I think in spite of what I mentioned above, it might be worth reading that first. Certain characters and references will be more fun.
There's also a fair amount online if you are interested. Ellen has a website at the SFF here:
http://www.sff.net/people/kushnerSherman/Kushner/
with some info on her books and the radio show she does and links to two organizations/websites she is involved with, and her LJ. I'd only warn the links are to places that are a wonderful time dump -- myth, and faery tale writings, art, book reviews, discussion boards, more links to places like Surlalune. You'll find I think other writers young and established in some of these, Midori Snyder, Jane Yolen, Terri Windling. I am sure many more, I've checked in a while, and really should.
There's a lot of writers who have migrated to LJ or blog now in one place or another, and also have good book discussion. Sartorius is a hub, Ellen Kushner, Elizabeth Bear, Jo Walton (papersky), who I may have mentioned before and who has a new book coming out in September (Farthing I believe, and which sounds like it will be very good.)
I don't post much because I don't often have anything to add to the discussion but those are fun to read and many of these people blog/discuss writing process.
Apologies for the babble here, as usual started thinking, or thunking as the case may be pre coffee. ;)
no subject
Date: 2006-08-07 09:14 am (UTC)OUTLANDER Update....
Date: 2006-08-07 10:17 pm (UTC)My boss's boss's secretary (whose also my boss's secretary) stopped by my office today, so I asked her about the Diana Gabaldon series. She started bobbing up and down - her jaw moving but no sound coming out, and her hands flailing about excitedly. Finally I said "Darlene - I lost interest in the middle of the third book, but as I remember OUTLANDER and the second book were OK... what did you think".
Almost in tears, she insisted "Oh My God - I LOVED LOVED LOVED Outlander!!!" She went on to say she has read it 5 times, and that she made it half way through the 4th book before she wandered away. Her daughter insists we should have stuck with it - but either way the first two books (Outlander, and Dragonfly in Amber) are among her VERY favorites - and she reads a LOT.
Dar took great interest in my "discovering" this reading thing a few years back, and has always recommended great books to me. Unfortunately I always give them back and then can't remember the names/authors. My favorite was about a Jewish family in WWII, (by a guy whose last name started with a "U", and the title had a number in it). I'm hopeless, I know.
I let Darlene borrow my audio CD's of STORM FRONT, and she fell in love with JM and Butcher. Recently I slid her my copy of What Love Means to You People (with all the appropriate declaimers). Her taste sometimes runs to "steamy", but I wasn't sure about the M/M. The book quietly appeared back on my desk after her vacation, and we have yet to discuss it. It may have been too much for her (or maybe she just didn't like the flow/ending). Even if she liked it I doubt we'd discuss it in the office... so I'll let you know if she ever "fesses up". Because of her position - I won't press a conversation on this!
So, OUTLANDER!! - Full steam ahead!! (And "STEAM" may be the operative word too, after Darlene's reaction today. I only read the book ONCE, and I honestly don't remember the "steam factor")