![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1.Rainy most of the week. And the insane downstairs neighbors have turned on the heat when it is 60 degrees outside. Tempted to send an email to the landlord to complain, but will refrain. Opened a window instead.
2.Behind on my tv viewing, because I've been reading at night instead. Lost in pulp fiction. Gotta love it. Although the getting lost in a book thing...appears to be hereditary.
Momster: I haven't done anything all day today but read. Didn't go to the gym, nothing. I feel so guilty.
Me: You know this is oddly reassuring...apparently the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree -
Momster: Had troubles getting into the book and it just took off-
Me: Yeah, I know what you mean. Then you just can't stop reading the thing. This must be hereditary.
Momster is reading a literary historical novel called Time In Between by a Spainish novelist, about a dressmaker who becomes a spy during WWII. And, guess what? It's not about the holocaust. I know, go figure.
3. Since I can no longer read personal blogs (aka live journal and/or dreamwidth) at work due to the evil device known as Websense which blocks them, I've been reading the NY Times and book reviews/movie reviews at lunch. Which isn't all that different than what I was reading on lj to be honest - it's just on sites that aren't considered entertainment.
Read a fascinating interview yesterday with Ridely Scott and Damon Lindenoff on Promethus, the new sci-fi flick coming out this summer via Scott. First he's done since Blade Runner. Ridely Scott is my favorite sci-fi film director. This one delves deeper into the mythology of the Alien verse. And it stars Naomi Rapace as an archeologist named Elizabeth Shaw who goes off on an expedition to hunt down an alien race that may or may not be responsible for humanity's origins. It also stars Guy Pierce, Charize Therone (as a cool and nefarious corporate head), and Michael Fassbender as an artificial lifeform (aka robot). Scott states in the interview that the idea behind Promethus is to follow a loose thread from his original Alien film that no one else picked up on, and he'd hoped Cameron would in Aliens, but Cameron is too much of a logician to get into mythology. (True, that's the problem with Cameron, he's not that interested in world-building, so falls on cliches a lot, see similar problems in Whedon's work - which makes sense since Whedon fanboys Cameron. I, as you all know, fangurled all three, but think Ridely Scott is the genuis of the bunch. The fact that Scott is executive producing The Good Wife, only furthers my case.) The loose thread is who was the huge humanoid pilot with his chest cavity exploded carrying the dangerous biotechnical weaponery in Alien? And why was he doing it? And why did he land on that planet? Also, Scott wants to explore the notion that Kubrick often did...do we really want to meet our maker?
4. The other thing I read was a review of 50 Shades by a frustrated and rather jealous, literary writer living in Conneticut. She got blasted in the comments and sort of deserved it actually, poor dear. I do feel her pain. When you work your ass off writing an book, struggle to get it published, only to see someone like James or Meyer become an instant best-selling novelist/phenomena a la Jacqueline Suzanne or Judith Krantz - you sort of want to pull your hair out in a fit of fury. Although not that sorry - the woman is doing well, has several books published and won several awards. But she does write rather boring "mid-life" crisis whine books. That's what I call them at any rate. I can't read them. When I read I want to escape the depressed and lonely whiner in my head, not reinforce it. I'm guessing from the sales figures and replies to her review that I'm not alone in this sentiment? (She wrote The Watershed Year - it's basically about a thirty-seven year old who has lost a dear friend, who has sent her emails urging her to adopt a child on her own...a little Russian child, which she does...and the book is basically her struggle finding meaning. Sigh. I don't need to read a book about this, I can talk to someone at my church and they'll tell me the same story. This is the sort of thing I read books to escape! Which is something writers need to keep in mind - doesn't matter how well-written your tale is or how well you tell it, if people don't want to hear the tale, they are going to ignore you. This actually in a nutshell explains why I can't watch Breaking Bad. Yes - it's a brilliantly written story, but seriously - I don't want that subject matter in my head. Ugh. So I don't want to hear the story - no matter who decides to tell it. I can hear that story in the elevator to my workplace or in the park I walk around each day at work. I have to work hard to ignore that story, why would I want to watch it in my limited spare time? )
That said...the review reminded me of two separate tales that I feel the sudden need to share with all of you, whether you want me to or not:
1. 1989, Senior Year, College - burning the midnight oil literally in the computer room located in the basement of the library. (I couldn't afford my own computer - so all my papers were written on the school's computers. This was back in the days of MS DOS, floppy discs, and holed paper with green lines. It was either that or type them, which I often did on an electric typewriter. But for my thesis - we used the school's printer and computers). At any rate - I'm sitting at the computer, surrounded by books on James Joyce, Freud, Jung, and William Faulkner, along with the novels Ulyssess and Sound and the Fury - busily writing my senior thesis. Next to me is...a guy who basically looks like the combination of William Pratt and Spike at the age of 21. He is lean, dressed in black pants, black t-shirt, has a black leather jacket with various silver adornments, sliver chain necklace, earring, and rings. His hair is white blond and curly. He's wearing John Lennon black rimmed glasses, and black boots. He's surrounded by graphic novels and books on the Superhero trope. Including Neitzche's Man and Superman. The graphic novels are Watchman, Frank Miller's Batman Year One, Dark Knight Rises. We are sitting next to each other, and have been for hours. I finally decide to comment - because...I've read all those books. I tell him those comics are cool and convey my envy. Pleased, we have a rather fascinating conversation about what is considered "literature" and what isn't and how snotty academics are in general. Apparently he was given a rough time regarding his thesis topic, but he managed to defend it. It was the opposite of mine - he was doing the Hero/Unknowable Daddy issue trope and how it had been subverted. I was doing the Mother-Goddess trope and how it had been subverted or the Sick Mommy trope.
But our conversation was basically about the pretentiousness of the English Lit Department and "literary canon". And how they just award people who write like they do in order to validate their own existence and enable their ability to endlessly write literary analysis. Which results in cultural tunnel vision. I remember being furious on his behalf. It was quite the bonding moment. [ETA: My only regret is there was no sex. Sigh, if only 45 year old self could go back in time and inhabit 21 year old self's body, the fun we could have.]
2. 1995, NYC, Editorial Offices of Random House - Informational Interview with Robert Loomis, Senior Editor for John Grisham and Emily Praeger. I've gotten the interview through kid-bro, whose girlfriend (later wife)'s dad is living with Emily Praeger.
Loomis tells me two things that I've never forgotten.
* Say what you will about John Grisham. But he tells his stories with integrity. They come from his heart. And you can tell. No one else can tell those stories as he can. They are his and that's why they sell. He writes what he knows. He may not be technically as good as Emily Praeger in the craft, but he does what he does very well. And that's what you need to look for in a writer and what you have to be as a writer - be true to your story, tell the story that is inside you. (This in a way echoes what one of my creative writing teacher's taught me..."Only write if you have something to say." Don't just write to write or to be famous or to be a best-seller, because that's impossible. Write because you have to and you have something to say.)
* The best-sellers, the pulp novelists like John Grisham, Danielle Steele, Sydney Sheldon, Judith Krantz...they make it possible for us to represent the Emily Praeger's. Without them we wouldn't be able to afford Emily or other nitch literary works that need to build word of mouth and are quieter stories and better written. If it weren't for Grisham, Emily would most likely never get published.
I've never forgotten that. Keep that in mind when you want to rant and rave about the latest pop best-selling novel. It made it possible for that other book you loved, the one you had to hunt for, to get published.
I've learned or been reminded of a few things regarding art appreciation, taste and culture this month.
1.no one is an expert in any type of art or culture, no matter what they say or think.
2.taste varies from day to day, mood to mood, person to person and changes constantly.
3. you can't understand someone else's taste until you step outside of your own mind and let go of your own ego. And even then, I doubt it. We spend far too much time locked inside our own heads and own lives to see clearly in those of others, I think.
4. some people read to think - others to escape their thoughts and moods and still others...to feel, to fall inside another's mind and another's emotions. But most often it's to solve a riddle inside our own heads whatever that may be and is insanely personal to us.
5. There's no such thing as good or bad taste, or good or bad books...some books are better crafted than others...technically or have a better "technique", while others tell a more interesting story or twist an old one in a new way. But it's always in the eye of the beholder and no one reads the same book.
I found that out reading the 50 Shades reviews...it's like everyone read a different version of the same book - I've yet to find a reviewer who read the one I got, although there was one who came close on Amazon - who stated, well at least in this book they talk to each other - they communicate and have conversations and do so honestly. They don't lie. It's a relief, said the reviewer, and refreshing to see this, finally. I agree.
90% of romance novels, mystery novels, thrillers, and literary novels - have misunderstandings - the characters don't talk to each other. I often want to shake the characters and the writers. Damn-it - have these characters TALK. How hard is that? Are you afraid to do dialogue? Dialogue - good dialogue is a bit of a fight - it's two people jockeying for control of the conversation and what they want to reveal. I think a lot of writers need to read more plays. I'm guessing James is good at dialogue because her hubby is a television script writer and read the book, and she works in TV. You can tell. So many literary writers suck at it. Or don't do it at all. Making me think - dialogue is a lost art.
2.Behind on my tv viewing, because I've been reading at night instead. Lost in pulp fiction. Gotta love it. Although the getting lost in a book thing...appears to be hereditary.
Momster: I haven't done anything all day today but read. Didn't go to the gym, nothing. I feel so guilty.
Me: You know this is oddly reassuring...apparently the apple really doesn't fall far from the tree -
Momster: Had troubles getting into the book and it just took off-
Me: Yeah, I know what you mean. Then you just can't stop reading the thing. This must be hereditary.
Momster is reading a literary historical novel called Time In Between by a Spainish novelist, about a dressmaker who becomes a spy during WWII. And, guess what? It's not about the holocaust. I know, go figure.
3. Since I can no longer read personal blogs (aka live journal and/or dreamwidth) at work due to the evil device known as Websense which blocks them, I've been reading the NY Times and book reviews/movie reviews at lunch. Which isn't all that different than what I was reading on lj to be honest - it's just on sites that aren't considered entertainment.
Read a fascinating interview yesterday with Ridely Scott and Damon Lindenoff on Promethus, the new sci-fi flick coming out this summer via Scott. First he's done since Blade Runner. Ridely Scott is my favorite sci-fi film director. This one delves deeper into the mythology of the Alien verse. And it stars Naomi Rapace as an archeologist named Elizabeth Shaw who goes off on an expedition to hunt down an alien race that may or may not be responsible for humanity's origins. It also stars Guy Pierce, Charize Therone (as a cool and nefarious corporate head), and Michael Fassbender as an artificial lifeform (aka robot). Scott states in the interview that the idea behind Promethus is to follow a loose thread from his original Alien film that no one else picked up on, and he'd hoped Cameron would in Aliens, but Cameron is too much of a logician to get into mythology. (True, that's the problem with Cameron, he's not that interested in world-building, so falls on cliches a lot, see similar problems in Whedon's work - which makes sense since Whedon fanboys Cameron. I, as you all know, fangurled all three, but think Ridely Scott is the genuis of the bunch. The fact that Scott is executive producing The Good Wife, only furthers my case.) The loose thread is who was the huge humanoid pilot with his chest cavity exploded carrying the dangerous biotechnical weaponery in Alien? And why was he doing it? And why did he land on that planet? Also, Scott wants to explore the notion that Kubrick often did...do we really want to meet our maker?
4. The other thing I read was a review of 50 Shades by a frustrated and rather jealous, literary writer living in Conneticut. She got blasted in the comments and sort of deserved it actually, poor dear. I do feel her pain. When you work your ass off writing an book, struggle to get it published, only to see someone like James or Meyer become an instant best-selling novelist/phenomena a la Jacqueline Suzanne or Judith Krantz - you sort of want to pull your hair out in a fit of fury. Although not that sorry - the woman is doing well, has several books published and won several awards. But she does write rather boring "mid-life" crisis whine books. That's what I call them at any rate. I can't read them. When I read I want to escape the depressed and lonely whiner in my head, not reinforce it. I'm guessing from the sales figures and replies to her review that I'm not alone in this sentiment? (She wrote The Watershed Year - it's basically about a thirty-seven year old who has lost a dear friend, who has sent her emails urging her to adopt a child on her own...a little Russian child, which she does...and the book is basically her struggle finding meaning. Sigh. I don't need to read a book about this, I can talk to someone at my church and they'll tell me the same story. This is the sort of thing I read books to escape! Which is something writers need to keep in mind - doesn't matter how well-written your tale is or how well you tell it, if people don't want to hear the tale, they are going to ignore you. This actually in a nutshell explains why I can't watch Breaking Bad. Yes - it's a brilliantly written story, but seriously - I don't want that subject matter in my head. Ugh. So I don't want to hear the story - no matter who decides to tell it. I can hear that story in the elevator to my workplace or in the park I walk around each day at work. I have to work hard to ignore that story, why would I want to watch it in my limited spare time? )
That said...the review reminded me of two separate tales that I feel the sudden need to share with all of you, whether you want me to or not:
1. 1989, Senior Year, College - burning the midnight oil literally in the computer room located in the basement of the library. (I couldn't afford my own computer - so all my papers were written on the school's computers. This was back in the days of MS DOS, floppy discs, and holed paper with green lines. It was either that or type them, which I often did on an electric typewriter. But for my thesis - we used the school's printer and computers). At any rate - I'm sitting at the computer, surrounded by books on James Joyce, Freud, Jung, and William Faulkner, along with the novels Ulyssess and Sound and the Fury - busily writing my senior thesis. Next to me is...a guy who basically looks like the combination of William Pratt and Spike at the age of 21. He is lean, dressed in black pants, black t-shirt, has a black leather jacket with various silver adornments, sliver chain necklace, earring, and rings. His hair is white blond and curly. He's wearing John Lennon black rimmed glasses, and black boots. He's surrounded by graphic novels and books on the Superhero trope. Including Neitzche's Man and Superman. The graphic novels are Watchman, Frank Miller's Batman Year One, Dark Knight Rises. We are sitting next to each other, and have been for hours. I finally decide to comment - because...I've read all those books. I tell him those comics are cool and convey my envy. Pleased, we have a rather fascinating conversation about what is considered "literature" and what isn't and how snotty academics are in general. Apparently he was given a rough time regarding his thesis topic, but he managed to defend it. It was the opposite of mine - he was doing the Hero/Unknowable Daddy issue trope and how it had been subverted. I was doing the Mother-Goddess trope and how it had been subverted or the Sick Mommy trope.
But our conversation was basically about the pretentiousness of the English Lit Department and "literary canon". And how they just award people who write like they do in order to validate their own existence and enable their ability to endlessly write literary analysis. Which results in cultural tunnel vision. I remember being furious on his behalf. It was quite the bonding moment. [ETA: My only regret is there was no sex. Sigh, if only 45 year old self could go back in time and inhabit 21 year old self's body, the fun we could have.]
2. 1995, NYC, Editorial Offices of Random House - Informational Interview with Robert Loomis, Senior Editor for John Grisham and Emily Praeger. I've gotten the interview through kid-bro, whose girlfriend (later wife)'s dad is living with Emily Praeger.
Loomis tells me two things that I've never forgotten.
* Say what you will about John Grisham. But he tells his stories with integrity. They come from his heart. And you can tell. No one else can tell those stories as he can. They are his and that's why they sell. He writes what he knows. He may not be technically as good as Emily Praeger in the craft, but he does what he does very well. And that's what you need to look for in a writer and what you have to be as a writer - be true to your story, tell the story that is inside you. (This in a way echoes what one of my creative writing teacher's taught me..."Only write if you have something to say." Don't just write to write or to be famous or to be a best-seller, because that's impossible. Write because you have to and you have something to say.)
* The best-sellers, the pulp novelists like John Grisham, Danielle Steele, Sydney Sheldon, Judith Krantz...they make it possible for us to represent the Emily Praeger's. Without them we wouldn't be able to afford Emily or other nitch literary works that need to build word of mouth and are quieter stories and better written. If it weren't for Grisham, Emily would most likely never get published.
I've never forgotten that. Keep that in mind when you want to rant and rave about the latest pop best-selling novel. It made it possible for that other book you loved, the one you had to hunt for, to get published.
I've learned or been reminded of a few things regarding art appreciation, taste and culture this month.
1.no one is an expert in any type of art or culture, no matter what they say or think.
2.taste varies from day to day, mood to mood, person to person and changes constantly.
3. you can't understand someone else's taste until you step outside of your own mind and let go of your own ego. And even then, I doubt it. We spend far too much time locked inside our own heads and own lives to see clearly in those of others, I think.
4. some people read to think - others to escape their thoughts and moods and still others...to feel, to fall inside another's mind and another's emotions. But most often it's to solve a riddle inside our own heads whatever that may be and is insanely personal to us.
5. There's no such thing as good or bad taste, or good or bad books...some books are better crafted than others...technically or have a better "technique", while others tell a more interesting story or twist an old one in a new way. But it's always in the eye of the beholder and no one reads the same book.
I found that out reading the 50 Shades reviews...it's like everyone read a different version of the same book - I've yet to find a reviewer who read the one I got, although there was one who came close on Amazon - who stated, well at least in this book they talk to each other - they communicate and have conversations and do so honestly. They don't lie. It's a relief, said the reviewer, and refreshing to see this, finally. I agree.
90% of romance novels, mystery novels, thrillers, and literary novels - have misunderstandings - the characters don't talk to each other. I often want to shake the characters and the writers. Damn-it - have these characters TALK. How hard is that? Are you afraid to do dialogue? Dialogue - good dialogue is a bit of a fight - it's two people jockeying for control of the conversation and what they want to reveal. I think a lot of writers need to read more plays. I'm guessing James is good at dialogue because her hubby is a television script writer and read the book, and she works in TV. You can tell. So many literary writers suck at it. Or don't do it at all. Making me think - dialogue is a lost art.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-04 02:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-04 03:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-05-05 12:59 am (UTC)I did finally remember his name...Tulio Browning.
no subject
Date: 2012-05-05 01:01 am (UTC)