One of the great things about being unemployed is that you can sit back and watch TV shows you wouldn't be able to watch if you were at work. (I can't watch TV much at night as my Dad dominates the telly with his endless reruns of Law and Order.)
Today I saw a show I'd taped, The Making of a Legend: Gone With the Wind. I'm an official Gone With the Wind junkie (see the link on this site to the GWTW Forever site).
I have the DVD of the feature film, I just hadn't realised how much had gone into making it.
I knew, of course, that GWTW was the only book Margaret Mitchell wrote. Scarlett was initially called Pansy, and the book was not initially written for publication. Then a publisher read it and was interested, but didn't like the name Pansy, so Margaret Mitchell agreed to change it to Scarlett.
And then David O. Selznick secured the rights for $50,000 to produce GWTW.
I watched the show as they showed the search for Scarlett. It seemed they had an easier time deciding on Rhett Butler - the public demanded they choose Clark Gable. The only problem was that Gable was with MGM and Selznick wanted to do the project alone. It wasn't for ages and after lots of money and negotiations that he made a deal with MGM - they would let him 'use' Gable, and they'd also lend some money to fund the project, so long as they got half the profits of GWTW for the next 7 years.
Then it turned out that Gable didn't particularly like the deal, as he didn't want to play Rhett, so they 'sweetened' the deal for him by giving him ... $50,000 so he could pay off his wife and get rid of her and a weekend off so he could marry his new girlfriend (an interest payoff!)
Anyhow, I watched a lot of the auditions with the different Scarletts and Ashleys. After seeing what Vivien Leigh and Leslie Howard can do - especially Vivien Leigh - watching the different screen tests is like watching a series of Australian Idol auditions, you just feel how wrong they are and you want a nasty judge to pop up and give them a gong and tell them they're absolute crap.
It was amazing to see how much work went into creating - or destroying - some of those sets. They decided one way to make a set was to burn down an old set and then rebuild. An idea they had was to burn down the old set and then film it as the burning of Atlanta. At the time they hadn't got Leigh and Gable working yet so a stunt double is what you see when you see the horse and carriage driving through burning Atlanta at the time. And they really did just burn down a whole set, film it, and then rebuild a set.
Then some sets were only partially built - for instance some of the big houses were built without roofs - it was less expensive - then an art director comes in later and "draws in" different style roofs later to make the different places.
And the scene in Atlanta with the soldiers all lying wounded ... well while they called in many extras to lie there as wounded men, but they didn't have enough so they put in some dummies as well and instructed extras how they could pull a string on the dummy so the dummy could move a little so it looked alive. (Apparently Margaret Mitchell's husband said when he saw that scene that if they'd had that many soldiers, they would have won the war!) I know, I know, I guess they cheated too because those extras, they only pretended to be wounded. Many of them weren't really shot or anything at all. They only pretended to be shot. And int he scene where Dr Meade is supposed to amputate the leg - I think he doesn't amputate it at all. It's all faked!
So much work went into the recreation, it was amazing, especially when you consider there was not the advantage of the special effects that we have today.
I watched in amazement as every detail of dress was attended to ... the only thing I think I could compare it to was watching This is It when I watched the perfectionism that went in to making the Michael Jackson tour show. How many people actually put the time and effort and research into their shows any more. It's immense and it's amazing.
By the way I still love Scarlett's green barbecue dress - it must be her most famous - but now I've really taken a fancy to that little light blue jacket and white dress she wears to the store when she's caught with Ashley.
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Thursday, 19 November 2009
Tuesday, 4 August 2009
Review: The Infinite Wisdom of Harriet Rose
Harriet Rose is no ordinary teenager. In fact, she doesn't even go to an ordinary school. I don't know of many high schools that have taught philosophy for three years, but then, I'm from Australia and this was set in England. The culture is different. I guess we do something like economic studies or drama or something instead.
This book has been compared to The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole Aged 13 3/4 and Bridget Jones' Diary. I'd say that's a bit of a stretch, except that the lead character is English and annoying. As the book opens, Harriet is a somewhat arrogant 14 year old whose father has died, and she has a claim on philosophical thought. She wants to give money to charity for her birthday, and she bounces around words like "metaphysical" and "epistemological".
Her Nana and mother decide to give her a special present - they publish for her a book of her philosophical thoughts in memory of her father, and suddenly she's a superstar author. There's also a subplot involving a romance with a cute French student, first year philosophy.
Now, the book wouldn't be so bad if Harriet wasn't so annoying. There are moments of humour but too many seem forced and Harriet can make you feel like you're being forced through them.
Why, then, do characters like Adrian Mole and Bridget Jones work so well, and they're equally if not more annoying? Adrian is more blinded, more arrogant and less personable than Harriet. Yet I laughed out loud with him and wanted more.
During the whole of Harriet's experience, I felt that the author, though pointing out Harriet's foibles, desperately wanted us to take Harriet's side. Despite the fact that Harriet was an idiot, she deserved the best, and we were urged to love her and feel sorry for her when things went wrong. One obvious device used here was Harriet's father's death. Others were her 'horrible' friend, and her 'mean' headmistress, and the unfailingly supportive family, but of course Harriet really deserves to get the guy, to win in the end. Doesn't she? Yet I felt like bashing her head in, often. And I didn't really think her philosophical ravings were that interesting.
The ending of the book is not bad, and I think is much better than what I expected. It lifts it up a few points. If you get a fair way in, even if it dulls off, i would suggest hanging in for the ending.
As many pointed out, this book is not well-placed as to what it wants to be. It is not like a Harry Potter or the Simpsons where people say it can be enjoyed on many levels. Instead, I think adults interested in philosophy will be sadly disappointed, adults who will understand the broad jokes will find the school references and adolescent humour difficult to relate to, and children may find the philosophical meditations a bit boring, and not quite get all those references. Perhaps for some older teenagers or some adults indulging in a bit of nostalgic teen reading. very much a book for the females.
If you aren't particularly sure and want a very good laugh, and characters blinded to their own foibles appeal to you, I would suggest reading any and all of Sue Townsend's Adrian Mole series rather than Harriet Rose. They are far superior in style and content, and commentary.
This all sounds pretty harsh on the author, Diana Janney, and in fairness, there are some nice bits of dialogue and some cute bits of humour, but altogether they didn't come together as smoothly as I like. There were some lively character depictions, especially that of Nana whom I felt I knew better than Harriet by the time the book was done. I felt that it was a good attempt but could have been put together better; I wouldn't dismiss this author at all. But i would not be rereading this book.
Harriet may be a philosopher, but she doesn't really open a window on the soul nor does she find much time for contemplation, and her book doesn't really make you care to contemplate either. She walks about with a T-shirt saying "Why?" but when I finished the book, I was not asking about the life, the Universe and everything.
I was wondering "why?" this book did I really pick up, and what will I pick up next.
I chose "The Harp in the South" by Ruth Park. I'm preferring it.
P.S. Before reading The Infinite Wisdom of Harriet Rose by Diana Janney, I read a debut children's book called Time Stops for No Mouse by Michael Hoeye. A very different book. it was an adventure fantasy involving talking mice. However all up I preferred Ms Janney's book.
This book has been compared to The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole Aged 13 3/4 and Bridget Jones' Diary. I'd say that's a bit of a stretch, except that the lead character is English and annoying. As the book opens, Harriet is a somewhat arrogant 14 year old whose father has died, and she has a claim on philosophical thought. She wants to give money to charity for her birthday, and she bounces around words like "metaphysical" and "epistemological".
Her Nana and mother decide to give her a special present - they publish for her a book of her philosophical thoughts in memory of her father, and suddenly she's a superstar author. There's also a subplot involving a romance with a cute French student, first year philosophy.
Now, the book wouldn't be so bad if Harriet wasn't so annoying. There are moments of humour but too many seem forced and Harriet can make you feel like you're being forced through them.
Why, then, do characters like Adrian Mole and Bridget Jones work so well, and they're equally if not more annoying? Adrian is more blinded, more arrogant and less personable than Harriet. Yet I laughed out loud with him and wanted more.
During the whole of Harriet's experience, I felt that the author, though pointing out Harriet's foibles, desperately wanted us to take Harriet's side. Despite the fact that Harriet was an idiot, she deserved the best, and we were urged to love her and feel sorry for her when things went wrong. One obvious device used here was Harriet's father's death. Others were her 'horrible' friend, and her 'mean' headmistress, and the unfailingly supportive family, but of course Harriet really deserves to get the guy, to win in the end. Doesn't she? Yet I felt like bashing her head in, often. And I didn't really think her philosophical ravings were that interesting.
The ending of the book is not bad, and I think is much better than what I expected. It lifts it up a few points. If you get a fair way in, even if it dulls off, i would suggest hanging in for the ending.
As many pointed out, this book is not well-placed as to what it wants to be. It is not like a Harry Potter or the Simpsons where people say it can be enjoyed on many levels. Instead, I think adults interested in philosophy will be sadly disappointed, adults who will understand the broad jokes will find the school references and adolescent humour difficult to relate to, and children may find the philosophical meditations a bit boring, and not quite get all those references. Perhaps for some older teenagers or some adults indulging in a bit of nostalgic teen reading. very much a book for the females.
If you aren't particularly sure and want a very good laugh, and characters blinded to their own foibles appeal to you, I would suggest reading any and all of Sue Townsend's Adrian Mole series rather than Harriet Rose. They are far superior in style and content, and commentary.
This all sounds pretty harsh on the author, Diana Janney, and in fairness, there are some nice bits of dialogue and some cute bits of humour, but altogether they didn't come together as smoothly as I like. There were some lively character depictions, especially that of Nana whom I felt I knew better than Harriet by the time the book was done. I felt that it was a good attempt but could have been put together better; I wouldn't dismiss this author at all. But i would not be rereading this book.
Harriet may be a philosopher, but she doesn't really open a window on the soul nor does she find much time for contemplation, and her book doesn't really make you care to contemplate either. She walks about with a T-shirt saying "Why?" but when I finished the book, I was not asking about the life, the Universe and everything.
I was wondering "why?" this book did I really pick up, and what will I pick up next.
I chose "The Harp in the South" by Ruth Park. I'm preferring it.
P.S. Before reading The Infinite Wisdom of Harriet Rose by Diana Janney, I read a debut children's book called Time Stops for No Mouse by Michael Hoeye. A very different book. it was an adventure fantasy involving talking mice. However all up I preferred Ms Janney's book.
Friday, 31 July 2009
Us and Them
Back to racism ... dammit.
I just read a blog that got me all hot and bothered and what better way to vent than to blog. It's easier than running into the kitchen and breaking a whole lot of crockery which would just have to be replaced anyhow.
Anyhow, the trouble with this blog is that the people on it think they are very liberal and very clever and compassionate but unfortunately they aren't very good at thinking of some of the obvious difficulties in societies, which is the problem with many social reformers. Everything is a straight line to them because naturally everything would be so easy - if everyone was like them. Oh darn, yeah I was reading John Fowles' The Collector recently.
Here, some bloggers mentioned that these darn people, certain people in society, caused trouble, one gave this example:
Two Australian born men she knows, whenever they are asked where they are from, they say "Italy" when, as the blogger argued, the answer should be "Australia" [they can always clarify that they have an Italian heritage, she argues]. She says such attitudes foster mistrust and a divide between cultures.
SHE always says she's Australian, she never explains she's part Norwegian and Scottish and she doesn't see why it's necessary to explain your origin at all (I can see a little superior smirk here).
Now, that is certainly one way to see it. These men are fostering a divide in Australia, she is being peaceable.
On the other hand, let's look at some other ways of seeing this:
a) Why is anyone concerned about where they come from at all - by asking you are implying that you want to categorise someone, and by being huffy about a wrong answer even more so that there are right and wrong answers, not that you are going to just make conversation about kangaroos or pizza, and therefore is the asking of the question and the reaction fostering the divide, not the answer?
b) It seems to me that it may be easy enough for Ms Norwegian-Scottish to say I'm Aussie-nothing-further-thanks. But one way to consider this is that people who come from backgrounds where they are in the minority and what's more their heritage gives them physical differences that are easily recognisable, have probably encountered this phenomenon. the lose-lose situation.
You say you are from "Italy" or "China" or "India" and people say look-at-that-idiot-doesn't-want-to-be-Aussie-his-kind-never-does-one-more-reason-why-we-should-not-allow-fucking-immigrants-into-this-country-they-never-fit-in. I bet you've seen this sentiment sprayed all over blogs or letters to the editor or opinion columns.
On the other hand, you say "I'm Australian" and you don't bother to explain your ethnic origin. That may be ok if you are Anglo or you look Anglo. But if you aren't in that privileged group, there are plenty of times many will have got barraged with:
"No really ... where were you BORN ... oh, born here, so what about your parents ... born here too?! ... oh wow, that's something, you mean both parents? ... so do they speak English? ... you speak English at home ... you speak any other languages ... so which country are you from ... which region ... I mean originally ... you go back there often ... got family out there ...."
A person may be forgiven for thinking it's easier to just say from the start "I'm from Japan" or "Taiwan". After all that barrage, it implies that that's what the questioner wanted to hear in the first place. And by pushing you with all these questions, it also implies that the questioner doesn't want to see you as an Australian same as an Anglo who rarely goes through the same treatment.
And if they won't accept you as one of them, then who is pushing the 'us and them' culture, really?
The answer "you can just say "I'm an Australian-born Chinese or Japanese or Italian"" or whatever may see comfortable to many Anglos but in reality why should we have to say it when if you're Australian-born Norwegian-Scottish you just poshly say you don't feel the need and never even incur the hassling.
Social conditioning occurs at both ends; they might give answers which cause us to despise and isolate and mistrust them, but they may give such answers because they feel our hate and the isolation and expectations and mistrust caused by it. So how does the cycle end?
It is unrealistic to put all the burden on just one group or one end, but so easy to do it. 'Specially when it's not you who has to take that burden or blame.
I just read a blog that got me all hot and bothered and what better way to vent than to blog. It's easier than running into the kitchen and breaking a whole lot of crockery which would just have to be replaced anyhow.
Anyhow, the trouble with this blog is that the people on it think they are very liberal and very clever and compassionate but unfortunately they aren't very good at thinking of some of the obvious difficulties in societies, which is the problem with many social reformers. Everything is a straight line to them because naturally everything would be so easy - if everyone was like them. Oh darn, yeah I was reading John Fowles' The Collector recently.
Here, some bloggers mentioned that these darn people, certain people in society, caused trouble, one gave this example:
Two Australian born men she knows, whenever they are asked where they are from, they say "Italy" when, as the blogger argued, the answer should be "Australia" [they can always clarify that they have an Italian heritage, she argues]. She says such attitudes foster mistrust and a divide between cultures.
SHE always says she's Australian, she never explains she's part Norwegian and Scottish and she doesn't see why it's necessary to explain your origin at all (I can see a little superior smirk here).
Now, that is certainly one way to see it. These men are fostering a divide in Australia, she is being peaceable.
On the other hand, let's look at some other ways of seeing this:
a) Why is anyone concerned about where they come from at all - by asking you are implying that you want to categorise someone, and by being huffy about a wrong answer even more so that there are right and wrong answers, not that you are going to just make conversation about kangaroos or pizza, and therefore is the asking of the question and the reaction fostering the divide, not the answer?
b) It seems to me that it may be easy enough for Ms Norwegian-Scottish to say I'm Aussie-nothing-further-thanks. But one way to consider this is that people who come from backgrounds where they are in the minority and what's more their heritage gives them physical differences that are easily recognisable, have probably encountered this phenomenon. the lose-lose situation.
You say you are from "Italy" or "China" or "India" and people say look-at-that-idiot-doesn't-want-to-be-Aussie-his-kind-never-does-one-more-reason-why-we-should-not-allow-fucking-immigrants-into-this-country-they-never-fit-in. I bet you've seen this sentiment sprayed all over blogs or letters to the editor or opinion columns.
On the other hand, you say "I'm Australian" and you don't bother to explain your ethnic origin. That may be ok if you are Anglo or you look Anglo. But if you aren't in that privileged group, there are plenty of times many will have got barraged with:
"No really ... where were you BORN ... oh, born here, so what about your parents ... born here too?! ... oh wow, that's something, you mean both parents? ... so do they speak English? ... you speak English at home ... you speak any other languages ... so which country are you from ... which region ... I mean originally ... you go back there often ... got family out there ...."
A person may be forgiven for thinking it's easier to just say from the start "I'm from Japan" or "Taiwan". After all that barrage, it implies that that's what the questioner wanted to hear in the first place. And by pushing you with all these questions, it also implies that the questioner doesn't want to see you as an Australian same as an Anglo who rarely goes through the same treatment.
And if they won't accept you as one of them, then who is pushing the 'us and them' culture, really?
The answer "you can just say "I'm an Australian-born Chinese or Japanese or Italian"" or whatever may see comfortable to many Anglos but in reality why should we have to say it when if you're Australian-born Norwegian-Scottish you just poshly say you don't feel the need and never even incur the hassling.
Social conditioning occurs at both ends; they might give answers which cause us to despise and isolate and mistrust them, but they may give such answers because they feel our hate and the isolation and expectations and mistrust caused by it. So how does the cycle end?
It is unrealistic to put all the burden on just one group or one end, but so easy to do it. 'Specially when it's not you who has to take that burden or blame.
Monday, 27 July 2009
Keeping the Potter Franchise Alive
It seemed Harry Potter ended with The Deathly Hallows, but then out came Tales of Beedle the Bard.
Now, I'm sure many Potterheads would like to see Harry live on and what better way than to besiege Rowling with ideas for spin-offs, sequels and prequels and beg her to continue to keep Harry alive?
A fellow blogger has compiled a set of "totally original" Potter story continuations. I'm sure you'll agree that any of these would make viable books, and would be extremely filmable.
Perhaps an intense Potter martial arts version could be released.
Something like ...
Harry, Ginny, Ron and Hermione are travelling in the mountains when they are beset upon by some Oriental Muggles. Despite their magical powers, all four are captured. It seems a Jackie Chan backflip can overpower someone on a broomstick any day.
Taken back to the little village, the Muggles kindly bathe the wounds of the four and lend them robes to wear as their wizarding robes were torn in battle. The four are forced to live in the little village and gradually come to respect the strange rites of the Muggles. Ron annoys Hermione by falling for a good looking slim Asian chick, but after a while she gets so involved in learning fourteen different Asian dialects all at once that she forgets Ron's being an idiot.
It comes to light that the Muggles hadn't meant any harm to the four. Furthermore they begin to initiate each into how to use a different Oriental weapon, and appoint Harry as the leader and give him a blue bandanna. Ron gets a yellow one and Hermione is given a purple one and Ginny a red one. These will help distinguish them, and they ask that they help them in times of war as their last true Ninja warrior is dying and ...
Damn, I'm not sure if I should call this "Harry Potter and The Last Ninja" or "Teenage Mutant Ninja Wizards".
I'll come up with an ending later. Surely.
Now, I'm sure many Potterheads would like to see Harry live on and what better way than to besiege Rowling with ideas for spin-offs, sequels and prequels and beg her to continue to keep Harry alive?
A fellow blogger has compiled a set of "totally original" Potter story continuations. I'm sure you'll agree that any of these would make viable books, and would be extremely filmable.
Perhaps an intense Potter martial arts version could be released.
Something like ...
Harry, Ginny, Ron and Hermione are travelling in the mountains when they are beset upon by some Oriental Muggles. Despite their magical powers, all four are captured. It seems a Jackie Chan backflip can overpower someone on a broomstick any day.
Taken back to the little village, the Muggles kindly bathe the wounds of the four and lend them robes to wear as their wizarding robes were torn in battle. The four are forced to live in the little village and gradually come to respect the strange rites of the Muggles. Ron annoys Hermione by falling for a good looking slim Asian chick, but after a while she gets so involved in learning fourteen different Asian dialects all at once that she forgets Ron's being an idiot.
It comes to light that the Muggles hadn't meant any harm to the four. Furthermore they begin to initiate each into how to use a different Oriental weapon, and appoint Harry as the leader and give him a blue bandanna. Ron gets a yellow one and Hermione is given a purple one and Ginny a red one. These will help distinguish them, and they ask that they help them in times of war as their last true Ninja warrior is dying and ...
Damn, I'm not sure if I should call this "Harry Potter and The Last Ninja" or "Teenage Mutant Ninja Wizards".
I'll come up with an ending later. Surely.
Wednesday, 22 July 2009
Why the Half-Blood Prince?
Yesterday I went to see Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.
I liked the movie, I definitely thought it was much better done then The Order of the Phoenix which was the last Harry Potter Book and my least favourite adaptation. This had a good mix of humour, action, and special effects and I thought was well acted.
Now, as is my habit, I went to IMDB and had a look at others' comments. Some, like me, loved it, others, mainly Potter junkies, hated it, and made catalogues of what had been cut or changed in the film. Mainly what had been cut (usually prefacing by saying they knew a movie had to cut a little but did it have to cut this much?)
In my opinion, well, the Potter books are long so if you want to cut it to a reasonable length, and still have detail in effects in some scenes, you're going to have to sometimes cut whole plot sequences or themes out. And characters. Other possibilities are to make a longer film or series or to have superficial treatment of every part of the film.
Whether you agree with how it's cut up is subjective.
To me, it wasn't badly done, I didn't mind the hacking, but then I'm not a Potter junkie even though I enjoyed the books and movies.
Just one thing I did find a bit annoying.
The Half-Blood Prince is revealed in the movie (not surprisingly, towards the end ... whoops did I spoil that for anyone?) ... but the moment is brief and it's never explained WHY that person is called the Half-Blood Prince. In the book it's explained better. I mean, the title of the freaking movie is Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, as well as figuring out who that person is, you'd figure they'd explain why 'Half-Blood' or what or power or meaning or whatever 'Half-Blood' has. Nope, nada. They might as well have called the person the Blodgybooga Prince.
I think that is one point the movie people should have fixed up, more important than the other stuff that people go on about missing because they thought it was cool or they would have loved to see it or they were personally attached to it, or they thought it was important for the next part of the movie. Even though it is not very exciting and is probably considered minor by many HP lovers. It would have only taken a couple of minutes. Heck, I left thinking if I didn't read the book, I'd be completely confused about the title of the movie!
Bah!
I liked the movie, I definitely thought it was much better done then The Order of the Phoenix which was the last Harry Potter Book and my least favourite adaptation. This had a good mix of humour, action, and special effects and I thought was well acted.
Now, as is my habit, I went to IMDB and had a look at others' comments. Some, like me, loved it, others, mainly Potter junkies, hated it, and made catalogues of what had been cut or changed in the film. Mainly what had been cut (usually prefacing by saying they knew a movie had to cut a little but did it have to cut this much?)
In my opinion, well, the Potter books are long so if you want to cut it to a reasonable length, and still have detail in effects in some scenes, you're going to have to sometimes cut whole plot sequences or themes out. And characters. Other possibilities are to make a longer film or series or to have superficial treatment of every part of the film.
Whether you agree with how it's cut up is subjective.
To me, it wasn't badly done, I didn't mind the hacking, but then I'm not a Potter junkie even though I enjoyed the books and movies.
Just one thing I did find a bit annoying.
The Half-Blood Prince is revealed in the movie (not surprisingly, towards the end ... whoops did I spoil that for anyone?) ... but the moment is brief and it's never explained WHY that person is called the Half-Blood Prince. In the book it's explained better. I mean, the title of the freaking movie is Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, as well as figuring out who that person is, you'd figure they'd explain why 'Half-Blood' or what or power or meaning or whatever 'Half-Blood' has. Nope, nada. They might as well have called the person the Blodgybooga Prince.
I think that is one point the movie people should have fixed up, more important than the other stuff that people go on about missing because they thought it was cool or they would have loved to see it or they were personally attached to it, or they thought it was important for the next part of the movie. Even though it is not very exciting and is probably considered minor by many HP lovers. It would have only taken a couple of minutes. Heck, I left thinking if I didn't read the book, I'd be completely confused about the title of the movie!
Bah!
Sunday, 19 July 2009
Does pregnancy stir your loins?
Is pregnancy sexy?
Today, I was wandering around at Wynyard station, minding my own business and I happened to wander into the newsagent. As one does, I checked out the stand of Mills and Boon toitles that were available, maybe 18-20 titles or so. It wasn't in most titles, but in enough to stand out ... there were quite a few titles with the word 'pregnant' or 'pregnancy' in it.
The titles were mainly weird, and long-winded, like they'd used up all the snappy and cool titles and now had to move onto the long-winded ones to make sure they weren't repeating old titles.
For instance, one was called The Tuscan Tycoon's Pregant Housekeeper.
Others included phrases such as Purchased for Pregnancy in the title and I don't think they were talking about one of those over the counter pharmaceutical tests.
Now, I kind of understood why the proliferation of words like "tycoon" and "billionaire" and passion" in the titles. These are words that traditionally are supposed to get a girl's heart pounding, especially if it's "Billionaire with a bad heart condition, and with no whiney ass kids fighting for their rights to the will when he pops it", which is probably an even better way to title a Mills and Boon, and probably would have been done if it had fit on the spine of one of those miniatures.
But pregnancy? I wasn't aware that tummy cramps, walking around like the side of the house, cravings to eat twice your share at meal times and antenatal classes were so erotic.
I must be so out of it.
I'm just going to write my new erotic thriller, The Mysterious Woman in the Lacy Maternity Gown. In all not so good bookshops as soon as I think of something more than the title to write down.
Today, I was wandering around at Wynyard station, minding my own business and I happened to wander into the newsagent. As one does, I checked out the stand of Mills and Boon toitles that were available, maybe 18-20 titles or so. It wasn't in most titles, but in enough to stand out ... there were quite a few titles with the word 'pregnant' or 'pregnancy' in it.
The titles were mainly weird, and long-winded, like they'd used up all the snappy and cool titles and now had to move onto the long-winded ones to make sure they weren't repeating old titles.
For instance, one was called The Tuscan Tycoon's Pregant Housekeeper.
Others included phrases such as Purchased for Pregnancy in the title and I don't think they were talking about one of those over the counter pharmaceutical tests.
Now, I kind of understood why the proliferation of words like "tycoon" and "billionaire" and passion" in the titles. These are words that traditionally are supposed to get a girl's heart pounding, especially if it's "Billionaire with a bad heart condition, and with no whiney ass kids fighting for their rights to the will when he pops it", which is probably an even better way to title a Mills and Boon, and probably would have been done if it had fit on the spine of one of those miniatures.
But pregnancy? I wasn't aware that tummy cramps, walking around like the side of the house, cravings to eat twice your share at meal times and antenatal classes were so erotic.
I must be so out of it.
I'm just going to write my new erotic thriller, The Mysterious Woman in the Lacy Maternity Gown. In all not so good bookshops as soon as I think of something more than the title to write down.
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
De Ja Vu
I was just watching the DVD of Anne of Green Gables The Sequel the other day which is a hefty almost 4 hours long and is based on three of the follow up books to Anne of Green Gables by L. M. Montgomery.
It isn't bad, certainly it's only based on the books and deviates from them marvellously. In some ways I enjoyed it more than the first DVD, probably because I'm not so attached to the sequel books as to the first book. So the fact that the plot deviates a lot didn't bother me so much.
I know that TV series such as this are supposed to evoke a sense of de ja vu, but must they do it so self-consciously? I suppose I watched 4 hours in one stretch (hey, I've just lost my job, I have nothing to do round the house all day but watch nostalgic videoes) and if it were shown episodically on TV it may have felt differently.
But I felt that in the Anne of Green Gables DVDs, they overdid the bit about repeating key "Anne" phrases till they became laborious. "Luckily I have an imagination" "she really is a kindred spirit" "I see that [whatever] hasn't damaged your tongue, Anne" seemed to pepper everyone's speech, with a knowing look and twinkle in the eye. Bah. Or maybe it just seemed that way to me. As far as I know, Ms Montgomery cooled off using that so much in the later books anyhow.
But what really got me was the play scene with Mary Queen of Scots. There's that fainting scene. Am I dreaming but were those complaints made by the girl who had to do the fainting snitched straight from Amy in Louisa May Alcott's Little Women?
Amy is told she's "stiff as a poker" at the fainting scene, and she complains that she doesn't choose to get all dirty tumbling down getting bruises, and if she can down easily, she will go. Jo then demonstrates how to faint for her, and does so with drama.
In Anne of Green Gables, "Hattie" in Mary Queen of Scots is told she is stiff at fainting, and she complains she doesn't choose to get all dirty fainting, and if she can go down easily, she will. Anne jumps in and does a demonstration, but Hattie can't imitate her well.
I know this is meant to evoke childhood memories, but nicking something out of another childhood girly book? Or am I forgetful, and did L.M. Montgomery and Louisa May Alcott happen to write something very similar, and the screenplay writer just faithfully adapted that very scene from Ms Montgomery's work?
Anyhow, felt weird.
It isn't bad, certainly it's only based on the books and deviates from them marvellously. In some ways I enjoyed it more than the first DVD, probably because I'm not so attached to the sequel books as to the first book. So the fact that the plot deviates a lot didn't bother me so much.
I know that TV series such as this are supposed to evoke a sense of de ja vu, but must they do it so self-consciously? I suppose I watched 4 hours in one stretch (hey, I've just lost my job, I have nothing to do round the house all day but watch nostalgic videoes) and if it were shown episodically on TV it may have felt differently.
But I felt that in the Anne of Green Gables DVDs, they overdid the bit about repeating key "Anne" phrases till they became laborious. "Luckily I have an imagination" "she really is a kindred spirit" "I see that [whatever] hasn't damaged your tongue, Anne" seemed to pepper everyone's speech, with a knowing look and twinkle in the eye. Bah. Or maybe it just seemed that way to me. As far as I know, Ms Montgomery cooled off using that so much in the later books anyhow.
But what really got me was the play scene with Mary Queen of Scots. There's that fainting scene. Am I dreaming but were those complaints made by the girl who had to do the fainting snitched straight from Amy in Louisa May Alcott's Little Women?
Amy is told she's "stiff as a poker" at the fainting scene, and she complains that she doesn't choose to get all dirty tumbling down getting bruises, and if she can down easily, she will go. Jo then demonstrates how to faint for her, and does so with drama.
In Anne of Green Gables, "Hattie" in Mary Queen of Scots is told she is stiff at fainting, and she complains she doesn't choose to get all dirty fainting, and if she can go down easily, she will. Anne jumps in and does a demonstration, but Hattie can't imitate her well.
I know this is meant to evoke childhood memories, but nicking something out of another childhood girly book? Or am I forgetful, and did L.M. Montgomery and Louisa May Alcott happen to write something very similar, and the screenplay writer just faithfully adapted that very scene from Ms Montgomery's work?
Anyhow, felt weird.
Thursday, 2 July 2009
False Advertising
What really annoys me is shortened versions tryign to pass themselves off as taller.
I'm not talking about high heels, although I'm not a high heel wearer and that's another thing I don't see a need to do. I mean, why try to convince anyone that little old me is actually 2 metres tall. I'm not fooling anyone, especially when I fall over.
And that's just it, you're not fooling anyone. The shortened versions get noticed!
My gripe is about books!
Recently I had a discussion about whether cut-down/shortened/abridged versions of classics should be "allowed". Some people are very precioius about them and don't think they should exist. I believe they should be allowed - I'm all in favour of options - so long as the original is still in print for those who want to access it.
However my belief is that any abridged version should be clearly marked as abridged. The consumer, I believe, should be able to assume that a verison is in its complete form unless it's marked abridged/cut down/shortened whatever. And the marking shoudl be fairly obvious. Say on the cover or spine or on a sticker on the front if applicable.
Unfortunately, it seems many versions like to tuck their notification away. In rather obscure places. Say it's written in the copyright page, or discussed in the foreword/intro.
I think this is more than a little annoying and the buyer shouldnt' be expected to rummage through these places before they discover it's not the full version. Frankly, I'd be pissed off. i've had that experience before, fortunately just with library books. And I've heard some people discuss it on the web.
Sometimes it's not even said straight out, for instance I read of some people complaining that they had read Murakami's Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. A comparison was made with other translations and it was found chapters were missing. A reviewer noted that the copyright page said it was 'adapted' not 'translated' from the Japanese, but this didn't explicitly say it was a shortened version.
That would be very annoying if you had wanted the full-length version!
I am all in favour of shortened versions being available for people; some people do not want to read the whole of a long book but would like to share in the experience of popular stories. However please mark them so, so that consumers know what they are getting! And so they can make an informed decision as to which version they would prefer.
Thank you.
I'm not talking about high heels, although I'm not a high heel wearer and that's another thing I don't see a need to do. I mean, why try to convince anyone that little old me is actually 2 metres tall. I'm not fooling anyone, especially when I fall over.
And that's just it, you're not fooling anyone. The shortened versions get noticed!
My gripe is about books!
Recently I had a discussion about whether cut-down/shortened/abridged versions of classics should be "allowed". Some people are very precioius about them and don't think they should exist. I believe they should be allowed - I'm all in favour of options - so long as the original is still in print for those who want to access it.
However my belief is that any abridged version should be clearly marked as abridged. The consumer, I believe, should be able to assume that a verison is in its complete form unless it's marked abridged/cut down/shortened whatever. And the marking shoudl be fairly obvious. Say on the cover or spine or on a sticker on the front if applicable.
Unfortunately, it seems many versions like to tuck their notification away. In rather obscure places. Say it's written in the copyright page, or discussed in the foreword/intro.
I think this is more than a little annoying and the buyer shouldnt' be expected to rummage through these places before they discover it's not the full version. Frankly, I'd be pissed off. i've had that experience before, fortunately just with library books. And I've heard some people discuss it on the web.
Sometimes it's not even said straight out, for instance I read of some people complaining that they had read Murakami's Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. A comparison was made with other translations and it was found chapters were missing. A reviewer noted that the copyright page said it was 'adapted' not 'translated' from the Japanese, but this didn't explicitly say it was a shortened version.
That would be very annoying if you had wanted the full-length version!
I am all in favour of shortened versions being available for people; some people do not want to read the whole of a long book but would like to share in the experience of popular stories. However please mark them so, so that consumers know what they are getting! And so they can make an informed decision as to which version they would prefer.
Thank you.
Monday, 22 June 2009
Mr Right: Have you got the Top Ten?
Women are often accused of having checklists when it comes to dating, well apparently this guy has made a checklist for us. In his book "How to Love", Gordon Livingston lists a top ten attributes a perfect partner must have most of in order for the relationship to succeed. They are kindness, optimism, courage, loyalty, tolerance, flexibility, beauty, humour, honesty and intelligence.
Well I fail the test and Mr Coffee has me so I guess that's Doom City for us.
According to the article, Livingston makes several key points:
a) He doesn't believe in love at first sight, in fact he believes that leads to bad relationships as we're automatically drawn to beautiful people but we need to get to know them better
b) He doesn't believe in traditional marriage therapy e.g. negotiating differences or working out what's wrong, he believes in choosing the right person in the first place rather than dealing with differences.
c) He pinpoints those ten "essential virtues" which I listed above as what your perfect partner will have most of
I don't have a whole lot of experience in relationships but from my very limited experience, here's a few thoughts ...
Basically I won't argue with a) too much. I have never felt love at first sight for a person. I do think gettign to know people is how I work; although attraction at first sight is often used as a filter to decide whether or not you're going to bother to get to know someone else better. It can also adjust your prejudices and make you feel good about yourself. Looks aren't everything, but I think they do count for something. This doesn't mean looking gorgeous, it can just mean looking approachable or friendly or fun or non-threatening or whatever suits at the time.
As for b), well I don't have too much experience as I said, but I would say ... let's not throw working on your relationship out the window. Every relationship needs work, as anyone whose been in a relationship knows. If you just float around trying to find someone who fits a checklist and when you hit a bump, think "instead of trying to negotiate this one, move on to the next person" you probably won't stay with anyone forever.
The trick is mainly to be able to recognise whether your differences are ones that are fundamental or superficial, whether they are worth the marriage or not, and not to have the stubbornness of saying "must stay together whether I die in the attempt" nor "one cross word and I'm outta here" attitude, but somewhere in between.
At any rate, when I saw Mr Livingston's checklist, I thought to myself, this guy would not be one to consult for marriage therapy. His 10 essential virtues may work for some people, heck, they may work for many people.
The thing is, he's narrowed down the list to 10 and disregarded the fact that there are some things that certain people just don't care about, in fact some people mightn't care about quite a few of those things. The phrasing is quite cague in the article - probably to cover his butt "a partner who possesses most of these" and then the virtues could be reinterpreted by someone to fit into a hypothetical situation, so that in any situation, an ideal partner might be desired to hold at least 7 of these virtues.
But that's more a sleight of hand than anything else.
In actual fact, if done like that it's not pinpointing a damn thing.
What really matters, as most people would say is either or both:
a) the person is someone who has qualities/traits that you value/admire/desire in another
b) the person has qualities you generally admire/value/desire and are compatible with your own values and traits
I don't know how many people actually believe all these so-called new theories for love; how many new ones can they come up with? I guess even if they don't believe them they have to come up with something new.
Really, I would prefer it if they stuck to the old ideas but had a neat story around it; instead they seem to forego the stories and try to rehash an advice book format under the guise that they have something new to say about love. It's shameful.
Well I fail the test and Mr Coffee has me so I guess that's Doom City for us.
According to the article, Livingston makes several key points:
a) He doesn't believe in love at first sight, in fact he believes that leads to bad relationships as we're automatically drawn to beautiful people but we need to get to know them better
b) He doesn't believe in traditional marriage therapy e.g. negotiating differences or working out what's wrong, he believes in choosing the right person in the first place rather than dealing with differences.
c) He pinpoints those ten "essential virtues" which I listed above as what your perfect partner will have most of
I don't have a whole lot of experience in relationships but from my very limited experience, here's a few thoughts ...
Basically I won't argue with a) too much. I have never felt love at first sight for a person. I do think gettign to know people is how I work; although attraction at first sight is often used as a filter to decide whether or not you're going to bother to get to know someone else better. It can also adjust your prejudices and make you feel good about yourself. Looks aren't everything, but I think they do count for something. This doesn't mean looking gorgeous, it can just mean looking approachable or friendly or fun or non-threatening or whatever suits at the time.
As for b), well I don't have too much experience as I said, but I would say ... let's not throw working on your relationship out the window. Every relationship needs work, as anyone whose been in a relationship knows. If you just float around trying to find someone who fits a checklist and when you hit a bump, think "instead of trying to negotiate this one, move on to the next person" you probably won't stay with anyone forever.
The trick is mainly to be able to recognise whether your differences are ones that are fundamental or superficial, whether they are worth the marriage or not, and not to have the stubbornness of saying "must stay together whether I die in the attempt" nor "one cross word and I'm outta here" attitude, but somewhere in between.
At any rate, when I saw Mr Livingston's checklist, I thought to myself, this guy would not be one to consult for marriage therapy. His 10 essential virtues may work for some people, heck, they may work for many people.
The thing is, he's narrowed down the list to 10 and disregarded the fact that there are some things that certain people just don't care about, in fact some people mightn't care about quite a few of those things. The phrasing is quite cague in the article - probably to cover his butt "a partner who possesses most of these" and then the virtues could be reinterpreted by someone to fit into a hypothetical situation, so that in any situation, an ideal partner might be desired to hold at least 7 of these virtues.
But that's more a sleight of hand than anything else.
In actual fact, if done like that it's not pinpointing a damn thing.
What really matters, as most people would say is either or both:
a) the person is someone who has qualities/traits that you value/admire/desire in another
b) the person has qualities you generally admire/value/desire and are compatible with your own values and traits
I don't know how many people actually believe all these so-called new theories for love; how many new ones can they come up with? I guess even if they don't believe them they have to come up with something new.
Really, I would prefer it if they stuck to the old ideas but had a neat story around it; instead they seem to forego the stories and try to rehash an advice book format under the guise that they have something new to say about love. It's shameful.
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
An Argument for White Australia
And here we are ... baaaack to another racial commentary, brought to you by Maria.
I just had to get this in, I read it on a blog which was Muslim bashing. I can't quite figure out why it is that when we get to Muslims, the headlines always start going on about racial intolerance, because Islam's a religion, not a race. but they do. It's like this: Americans, Aussies, Japs, Greeks, and Muslims. Or something like that, go figure.
Anyhow, this was the one about the Muslim school in Camden which is now not going to be built.
Some guy made some weird comment in favour of a White Australia, and this was their not-so-comprehensible argument, let's see if you can figure it out, because I can't and maybe someone else can help me. The guy was called Jim T and obviously doesn't have the wit of TimT, fellow blogger of Will Type For Food, but did befuddle me, which TimT does, often. Just not in the good way.
Jim T started off by saying that he thought multiculturalism was a failure in Australia. It didn't work. He particularly was against Muslims. Why was it, he pondered, that every migrant group except Muslims could adapt to the country they migrated to? Except Muslims! And that's why we really shouldn't accommodate Muslims - worst of the lot!
Then Jim T started a new train of thought. Multiculturalism had gone really bad, and if you thought about it, lots of these migrants didn't adapt that well anyhow. Didn't fit in. So we should stop immigration for "other groups" anyhow, even if they weren't Muslims. Stop the Asians and the Lebanese and the Mediterraneans and ... oh, if you were caucasian, especially if you were British, then an exception was made, you would be allowed to migrate to Australia. Let's stop horsing around though and make sure that migrant groups other than whites did not come to this beautiful country.
Now, pardon me, but I have trouble figuring out Jim T's argument here.
He seems to have two points:
1. We value people who can adapt to whatever land/culture they migrate to, they are the type we should welcome.
2. We should stop welcoming anyone other than the whites, with special emphasis on British whites. Anglo-Saxons that is.
Now, if we're going to put "ability to adapt to land/culture they migrate to" as a group, down to past behaviour, the British Anglo-Saxons have shown themselves to be pone of the worst groups, and certainly one of the worst groups to land on the shores of Australia.
Other groups who have landed on these shores have done much better jobs of fitting in with the existing culture; the British way was to colonise and change the life to what they were used to back home. It's a bit funny when they then object to people being small mementoes and rituals of their life to comfort them when they brought a whole legal system and government structure with them because they couldn't hack it with the natives' way of life.
In fact, the Australian Aborigines who were here before the Britons have had to do much more trying to fit in with the British way of life than the Britons have had to with fitting in with the Aborigines, if you were really honest about it.
And then Jim T's argument is that the British are the ones we want to import more of, and leave the rest out.
Now I can understand he may be very pro-White-Australia - and sure, more English-speaking-Caucasians-used-to-a-Western-Way-of-life he may feel blend in better with the existing status quo once it's laid out for them. But let's get the reasons right - it's not because they're good at adapting to whatever society they go to. It's because they probably won't have to adapt much.
Other people who come out here from countries that are way different from ours often have to learn laws and social protocol and a new language, many have to cope with the stresses and strains of everyday life that we have to combined with things like homesickness, and many also manage to do things like have a successful career, make new friends, start families, maintain homes and manage businesses. I think that's pretty remarkable when you consider juggling all that; often some of us are bummed out trying to manage one job and a relationship and can't get it together to get dinner right at the same time! I think a lot of credit has to be given to such people, they are doing it against the odds, and many make a very good fist of it. So they might screw up every so often and they have funny accents? Who the heck is perfect?
By the way, I read a great story recently this weekend in a collection called The Seeds of Time by John Wyndham. It's called Dumb Martian, and it's about a man who buys a Martian and considers her dumb because she doesn't know the language or certain basic skills and speaks strangely at first - can't pronounce certain consonants. And he abuses her. It's obvious as the story goes on that she is extremely bright and given the right stimulus she can learn heaps - it's just that he thinks of her as stupid because she started on the backfoot and she's not one of his kind - he keeps calling her "Dumb Mart". In the end of course, she outdoes him.
A lesson to us all.
I just had to get this in, I read it on a blog which was Muslim bashing. I can't quite figure out why it is that when we get to Muslims, the headlines always start going on about racial intolerance, because Islam's a religion, not a race. but they do. It's like this: Americans, Aussies, Japs, Greeks, and Muslims. Or something like that, go figure.
Anyhow, this was the one about the Muslim school in Camden which is now not going to be built.
Some guy made some weird comment in favour of a White Australia, and this was their not-so-comprehensible argument, let's see if you can figure it out, because I can't and maybe someone else can help me. The guy was called Jim T and obviously doesn't have the wit of TimT, fellow blogger of Will Type For Food, but did befuddle me, which TimT does, often. Just not in the good way.
Jim T started off by saying that he thought multiculturalism was a failure in Australia. It didn't work. He particularly was against Muslims. Why was it, he pondered, that every migrant group except Muslims could adapt to the country they migrated to? Except Muslims! And that's why we really shouldn't accommodate Muslims - worst of the lot!
Then Jim T started a new train of thought. Multiculturalism had gone really bad, and if you thought about it, lots of these migrants didn't adapt that well anyhow. Didn't fit in. So we should stop immigration for "other groups" anyhow, even if they weren't Muslims. Stop the Asians and the Lebanese and the Mediterraneans and ... oh, if you were caucasian, especially if you were British, then an exception was made, you would be allowed to migrate to Australia. Let's stop horsing around though and make sure that migrant groups other than whites did not come to this beautiful country.
Now, pardon me, but I have trouble figuring out Jim T's argument here.
He seems to have two points:
1. We value people who can adapt to whatever land/culture they migrate to, they are the type we should welcome.
2. We should stop welcoming anyone other than the whites, with special emphasis on British whites. Anglo-Saxons that is.
Now, if we're going to put "ability to adapt to land/culture they migrate to" as a group, down to past behaviour, the British Anglo-Saxons have shown themselves to be pone of the worst groups, and certainly one of the worst groups to land on the shores of Australia.
Other groups who have landed on these shores have done much better jobs of fitting in with the existing culture; the British way was to colonise and change the life to what they were used to back home. It's a bit funny when they then object to people being small mementoes and rituals of their life to comfort them when they brought a whole legal system and government structure with them because they couldn't hack it with the natives' way of life.
In fact, the Australian Aborigines who were here before the Britons have had to do much more trying to fit in with the British way of life than the Britons have had to with fitting in with the Aborigines, if you were really honest about it.
And then Jim T's argument is that the British are the ones we want to import more of, and leave the rest out.
Now I can understand he may be very pro-White-Australia - and sure, more English-speaking-Caucasians-used-to-a-Western-Way-of-life he may feel blend in better with the existing status quo once it's laid out for them. But let's get the reasons right - it's not because they're good at adapting to whatever society they go to. It's because they probably won't have to adapt much.
Other people who come out here from countries that are way different from ours often have to learn laws and social protocol and a new language, many have to cope with the stresses and strains of everyday life that we have to combined with things like homesickness, and many also manage to do things like have a successful career, make new friends, start families, maintain homes and manage businesses. I think that's pretty remarkable when you consider juggling all that; often some of us are bummed out trying to manage one job and a relationship and can't get it together to get dinner right at the same time! I think a lot of credit has to be given to such people, they are doing it against the odds, and many make a very good fist of it. So they might screw up every so often and they have funny accents? Who the heck is perfect?
By the way, I read a great story recently this weekend in a collection called The Seeds of Time by John Wyndham. It's called Dumb Martian, and it's about a man who buys a Martian and considers her dumb because she doesn't know the language or certain basic skills and speaks strangely at first - can't pronounce certain consonants. And he abuses her. It's obvious as the story goes on that she is extremely bright and given the right stimulus she can learn heaps - it's just that he thinks of her as stupid because she started on the backfoot and she's not one of his kind - he keeps calling her "Dumb Mart". In the end of course, she outdoes him.
A lesson to us all.
Thursday, 16 April 2009
"He Grinned" - or, a Review of Blaze of Glory: Laws of Magic series
I've just read a book called Blaze of Glory, first in a series called "Laws of Magic". It wasn't hyped by anyone to me except ther publishers but I'm afraid I had higher hopes for it than those met - perhaps because it was shortlisted for an award and also because the cover looked halfway cool. OK I'm a sucker for that sort of thing.
It's a fantasy book and apparently it involves political intrigue but I'm sorry if the 'intrigue' thing I have to report is not that intriguing, at least not to me. It's written for teens but hey, I constantly read books for much younger age groups and enjoy them wholeheartedly, this one failed to grab me the way those others did. It wasn't terrible but it wasn't fantastic and I wouldn't exactly go round tooting its horn for fantasy awards.
What I really like in a fantasy book is that the situation, the place, the plot, the characters, preferably the whole lot, are captivating. They don't have to be likable - I read the Engineer Trilogy by K. J. Parker recently and the characters are really dislikable but at least you keep reading, even if only to find out how some of them will meet nasty ends.
In this one, I thought that Aubrey Fitzwilliam, the main character was someone I plain just didn't care for. His sidekick, George, is much more likable and I thought it'd be great if george gave Aubrey the boot for once and all, but apparently that wouldn't be a great idea since it's Aubrey who is the powerful magical one.
Aubrey seemed to me fairly bland, a know-it-all and pretty humourless.
But what really got to me was the fact that Aubrey grins.
What, you say?
I kept reading this book and it seemed that in answer to everything or everytime he was looked at or wanted to express something, the author wrote "Aubrey grinned" or "He grinned". For one thing, Aubrey didn't seem like a character whom you'd be particularly happy to be grinning the whole time - he's self-satisfied and ego-filled as it is. Two, the mood of the book didn't exactly lend itself to grinning all the time. And three, constantly writing this phrase started to grate on me as just an annoying stylistic feature - didn't the writer have anything else to write, did the character have no depth or did the writer just get lazy?
I was waiting for the writer to have a jab at Aubrey and write something about a magical spell that had gone wrong where Aubrey had cast a spell which had left him with a constant fatuous smirk on his face that he couldn't wipe off, a pity since he had such an interest in politics, it would really let him down to be the guy with the smirk, maybe he'd only be Treasurer for ten years and never be Prime Minister.
But, never.
A joke like that might've made me at least smile a bit.
It's a fantasy book and apparently it involves political intrigue but I'm sorry if the 'intrigue' thing I have to report is not that intriguing, at least not to me. It's written for teens but hey, I constantly read books for much younger age groups and enjoy them wholeheartedly, this one failed to grab me the way those others did. It wasn't terrible but it wasn't fantastic and I wouldn't exactly go round tooting its horn for fantasy awards.
What I really like in a fantasy book is that the situation, the place, the plot, the characters, preferably the whole lot, are captivating. They don't have to be likable - I read the Engineer Trilogy by K. J. Parker recently and the characters are really dislikable but at least you keep reading, even if only to find out how some of them will meet nasty ends.
In this one, I thought that Aubrey Fitzwilliam, the main character was someone I plain just didn't care for. His sidekick, George, is much more likable and I thought it'd be great if george gave Aubrey the boot for once and all, but apparently that wouldn't be a great idea since it's Aubrey who is the powerful magical one.
Aubrey seemed to me fairly bland, a know-it-all and pretty humourless.
But what really got to me was the fact that Aubrey grins.
What, you say?
I kept reading this book and it seemed that in answer to everything or everytime he was looked at or wanted to express something, the author wrote "Aubrey grinned" or "He grinned". For one thing, Aubrey didn't seem like a character whom you'd be particularly happy to be grinning the whole time - he's self-satisfied and ego-filled as it is. Two, the mood of the book didn't exactly lend itself to grinning all the time. And three, constantly writing this phrase started to grate on me as just an annoying stylistic feature - didn't the writer have anything else to write, did the character have no depth or did the writer just get lazy?
I was waiting for the writer to have a jab at Aubrey and write something about a magical spell that had gone wrong where Aubrey had cast a spell which had left him with a constant fatuous smirk on his face that he couldn't wipe off, a pity since he had such an interest in politics, it would really let him down to be the guy with the smirk, maybe he'd only be Treasurer for ten years and never be Prime Minister.
But, never.
A joke like that might've made me at least smile a bit.
Monday, 13 April 2009
Review: The Ellie Chronicles
Just wanted to note: Some time ago I finished all 7 of the "Tomorrow, When the War Began" series.
I recently completed the three of "The Ellie Chronicles", a follow up series.
These three books chronicle how Ellie Linton copes with the aftermath of the war.
She's looking after deaf kid Gavin, trying to look after her farm, there's still bits of war stuff going on and trying to get on with whatever semblance of normal life she can gather.
I read it to find out if it was possible for Marsden to keep up the pace after the 7 of the "Tomorrow" series - and I have to say, he delivers for all 3 books. They are excellent, whether you like them better or not will depend on what you prefer, hard, fast-paced war action or a bit more gritty individual character reflection with action interspersed, which is more of what the Chronicles delivers. More than delivers. I wish I could write like that!
I won't reveal the plot except to say I noted ONE blooper. There's a scene where Ellie says she's watching Grease and she first listens to "Hopelessly Devoted to You" (which reminds her of something) and then "Look at Me I'm Sandra Dee" comes along and she and her friend start dancing around the room like crazy.
For the record, "Look at Me I'm Sandra Dee" is sung before "Hopelessly Devoted to You" in the movie. Rizzo makes fun of Sandy in the first book, then runs off and leaves the gang, then Sandy goes off into the garden and sings "Hopelessly Devoted to You".
It's embarrassing to say I've watched Grease so many times I picked this up without really thinking about it too hard.
I think it's too late to contact Marsden and to get him to correct it ... but just thought I'd point it out ... I guess I'm just an annoying pedant!
I recently completed the three of "The Ellie Chronicles", a follow up series.
These three books chronicle how Ellie Linton copes with the aftermath of the war.
She's looking after deaf kid Gavin, trying to look after her farm, there's still bits of war stuff going on and trying to get on with whatever semblance of normal life she can gather.
I read it to find out if it was possible for Marsden to keep up the pace after the 7 of the "Tomorrow" series - and I have to say, he delivers for all 3 books. They are excellent, whether you like them better or not will depend on what you prefer, hard, fast-paced war action or a bit more gritty individual character reflection with action interspersed, which is more of what the Chronicles delivers. More than delivers. I wish I could write like that!
I won't reveal the plot except to say I noted ONE blooper. There's a scene where Ellie says she's watching Grease and she first listens to "Hopelessly Devoted to You" (which reminds her of something) and then "Look at Me I'm Sandra Dee" comes along and she and her friend start dancing around the room like crazy.
For the record, "Look at Me I'm Sandra Dee" is sung before "Hopelessly Devoted to You" in the movie. Rizzo makes fun of Sandy in the first book, then runs off and leaves the gang, then Sandy goes off into the garden and sings "Hopelessly Devoted to You".
It's embarrassing to say I've watched Grease so many times I picked this up without really thinking about it too hard.
I think it's too late to contact Marsden and to get him to correct it ... but just thought I'd point it out ... I guess I'm just an annoying pedant!
Thursday, 26 March 2009
Review: Little Women
Being unemployed means several things. It means being able to sit around all day in your pyjamas if you like. It also means watching a few DVDs you said to yourself you'd watch but haven't yet.
One of those was, for me, the version of "Little Women" starring Winona Ryder.
I watched it today and I was ... well, a little disappointed. I loved the book; I've read it a zillion times over and I guess the worst bit about it was that my FAVOURITE BITS were cut.
L
For those who don't have a thorough acquaintance with the book by Louisa M. Alcott, it is divided into two parts which are often published separately, but sometimes together under the title "Little Women". The first is called "Little Women, the second is called "Good Wives". The movie encompasses both, but doesn't delve into the activities of the other sequels "Jo's Boys" or "Little Men".
I don't think this was a bad decision at all. Except that, since the first half concentrates on the activities of one year in the March family and then the second book gives the "what happened next to the girls - careers, marriage, etc", I felt some of it was rushed and a lot of the characters weren't given time to develop properly.
Some relationships and motives aren't even explained very well. there are some scenes and anecdotes that are cut for obvious reasons or "merged". But some of the most fun ones are to - and while they aren't absolutely necessary to getting us to the endpoint, they do give us insight to the motives and character development so we can care about them.
For instance:
It makes perfect sense to cut the chapter where Marmee teaches Meg and Jo a lesson that all play and no work doesn't pay - because the chapter in the book basically describes how they get on each other's nerves and make mistakes through lazing about all day. Probably a less exciting scene on film.
But scenes like Amy's tea party gone wrong and Laurie's picnic would have been rather amusing. I also thought they could have made more of when Jo published her first piece of writing. The "Castles in the Air" piece might have been a bit of"all talk, no action" but it did reveal a bit about the girls and the dialogue could easily have been transposed into the attic or picnic scene.
And I would have loved to see John Brooke actually propose to Meg.
The making of Amy's will was "testament" somewhat to her character development, but it was completely cut - no wonder there were so many complaints about the movie that Amy never deserved Laurie and Jo should have married him, because there was never any opportunity given for:
a) Jo and Laurie to quarrel
b) Laurie to show that he was not very serious and he cared for art and had ways that were similar to Amy
c) Amy to be reformed, and to grow up properly
Grrrrrrr.
That is what I will say bout it. I also would have liked a bit more shown of the sweet relationship between Mr Laurence and Beth.
Far too much of this story seemed to leave the relationships and the personalities of the girls who make the book so special by the wayside, and in the end you ought to be caring about all of them - especially Jo, but all of them.
In general though, the actors did a good job and the scenery is really beautiful. I just kept adding in to the script as I went along, in my head.
One of those was, for me, the version of "Little Women" starring Winona Ryder.
I watched it today and I was ... well, a little disappointed. I loved the book; I've read it a zillion times over and I guess the worst bit about it was that my FAVOURITE BITS were cut.
L
For those who don't have a thorough acquaintance with the book by Louisa M. Alcott, it is divided into two parts which are often published separately, but sometimes together under the title "Little Women". The first is called "Little Women, the second is called "Good Wives". The movie encompasses both, but doesn't delve into the activities of the other sequels "Jo's Boys" or "Little Men".
I don't think this was a bad decision at all. Except that, since the first half concentrates on the activities of one year in the March family and then the second book gives the "what happened next to the girls - careers, marriage, etc", I felt some of it was rushed and a lot of the characters weren't given time to develop properly.
Some relationships and motives aren't even explained very well. there are some scenes and anecdotes that are cut for obvious reasons or "merged". But some of the most fun ones are to - and while they aren't absolutely necessary to getting us to the endpoint, they do give us insight to the motives and character development so we can care about them.
For instance:
It makes perfect sense to cut the chapter where Marmee teaches Meg and Jo a lesson that all play and no work doesn't pay - because the chapter in the book basically describes how they get on each other's nerves and make mistakes through lazing about all day. Probably a less exciting scene on film.
But scenes like Amy's tea party gone wrong and Laurie's picnic would have been rather amusing. I also thought they could have made more of when Jo published her first piece of writing. The "Castles in the Air" piece might have been a bit of"all talk, no action" but it did reveal a bit about the girls and the dialogue could easily have been transposed into the attic or picnic scene.
And I would have loved to see John Brooke actually propose to Meg.
The making of Amy's will was "testament" somewhat to her character development, but it was completely cut - no wonder there were so many complaints about the movie that Amy never deserved Laurie and Jo should have married him, because there was never any opportunity given for:
a) Jo and Laurie to quarrel
b) Laurie to show that he was not very serious and he cared for art and had ways that were similar to Amy
c) Amy to be reformed, and to grow up properly
Grrrrrrr.
That is what I will say bout it. I also would have liked a bit more shown of the sweet relationship between Mr Laurence and Beth.
Far too much of this story seemed to leave the relationships and the personalities of the girls who make the book so special by the wayside, and in the end you ought to be caring about all of them - especially Jo, but all of them.
In general though, the actors did a good job and the scenery is really beautiful. I just kept adding in to the script as I went along, in my head.
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
There's a Case for Every Case
I've seen the Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
And I read the Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.
And I can see there's the Mysterious Case of the Allbright Academy by Diane Stanley.
So ...
now I want to know how many different kinds of "cases" there are.
What variety do they come in: Can I get Amazing Cases, Difficult cases, Interesting Cases, Gee Whiz bang Cases, Righteous Cases?
Competition: What really good "case" book or movie would you want to see?
Naturally, cases come in all varieties: there are murder cases, rape cases, the upper and lower cases, stair cases and brief cases. Some are heavy and some are light. Some are better constructed than others, and some are open & shut cases whereas some you need a virtual - or real - sledgehammer to crack.
What case would YOUR case be?
And I read the Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.
And I can see there's the Mysterious Case of the Allbright Academy by Diane Stanley.
So ...
now I want to know how many different kinds of "cases" there are.
What variety do they come in: Can I get Amazing Cases, Difficult cases, Interesting Cases, Gee Whiz bang Cases, Righteous Cases?
Competition: What really good "case" book or movie would you want to see?
Naturally, cases come in all varieties: there are murder cases, rape cases, the upper and lower cases, stair cases and brief cases. Some are heavy and some are light. Some are better constructed than others, and some are open & shut cases whereas some you need a virtual - or real - sledgehammer to crack.
What case would YOUR case be?
Monday, 23 February 2009
Mary Poppins Wants me to Read Sartre
Readers of this blog will be aware that recently I have been plagued with visions of Mary Poppins. Specifically, I had a dream that detailed a dark adaptation of the 'Mary Poppins' movie.
I'm convinced that Mary or P.L. Travers is using me to convey her wishes to the world that Tim Burton do a movie version of Mary Poppins. I'm sure Depp would jump at the chance to get into drag and be a dark Poppins.
And I have some great ideas for what this dark Poppins could do. Burton can contact me for ideas, though I may charge him more than "tuppence a bag".
But that wasn't the end of my Poppins dreams.
Oh no.
A week later, I had another set of Poppins dreams.
In them, Mary came to me and urged me to buy Sartre's complete works. I time travelle with Mary and visited a small village and met an old lady who turned out to be a relative of Sartre and she showed me about her house and was just going to make me a very good offer for his complete works ... when I woke up.
Hmmm.
Not sure if it's Hollywood, but there's something in it.
And maybe I'll crack open that Sartre.
I'm convinced that Mary or P.L. Travers is using me to convey her wishes to the world that Tim Burton do a movie version of Mary Poppins. I'm sure Depp would jump at the chance to get into drag and be a dark Poppins.
And I have some great ideas for what this dark Poppins could do. Burton can contact me for ideas, though I may charge him more than "tuppence a bag".
But that wasn't the end of my Poppins dreams.
Oh no.
A week later, I had another set of Poppins dreams.
In them, Mary came to me and urged me to buy Sartre's complete works. I time travelle with Mary and visited a small village and met an old lady who turned out to be a relative of Sartre and she showed me about her house and was just going to make me a very good offer for his complete works ... when I woke up.
Hmmm.
Not sure if it's Hollywood, but there's something in it.
And maybe I'll crack open that Sartre.
Tuesday, 13 January 2009
Check the author!
I've read, in the last few months, backstories, sequels, etc of 'classic works' that have not been written by the original author.
Most have lost the voice and idealism of the original author and you are left thinking "What the heck happened here?" and maybe they just did it to jazz it up. Some are really disastrous.
Books I've read recently that fall into this category are:
March by Geraldine Brooks - the backstory to Little Women by Louisa M. Alcott
Rebecca's Tale by Sally Beauman - the backstory to Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier
Rhett Butler's People by Donald McCaig - the backstory to Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
(I've also read, some time back, Scarlett by Alexandra Ripley, the sequel to Gone With the Wind)
One of the greatest criticisms readers have is that real feeling for style and the geograhic/time period is rarely carried over with flair. If these authors want to see how that's done well, they should take a lesson from Charles Tritten, who wrote Heidi Grows Up, the sequel to Heidi, and captured the style of original author Johanna Spyri beautifully (though not perfectly). Well at least I thought so, though I've only ever read the English translation. The story isn't really original but the voice is much closer to the original than any of the other books above got. Though Amazon.com readers obviously didn't agree with me!
March loses what some readers might see as the innocence that was endearing in the first novel and not really like the idea of Mr March doing all those things that are described - but if you ask me, it's the best of the three mentioned above as it's well-written and the most believable. Ms Brooks has done her homework, and though she has taken liberties, they make sense within the context.
I'm a fan of the book Rebecca and while I read Rebecca's Tale ... let's just say I thought it a bit lame. Rebecca had become for me an intriguing character, and one who was mysterious and could possibly do things and had done things beyond the reach of other women. The Tale seemed to make her life just a bit too ordinary, and even seemed to hint at her reason for Maxim hating her as being a bit petty and stupid - one I just couldn't believe. It by no means captured the amzingly unreal but also fragile Rebecca that had haunted me before, and I guess the events befoer at Manderley - well, seemed mundane? I guess this is what you get for reading the expose of a horror story!
But Rhett Butler's People really took the cake. I advise against reading it if you are a Gone With the Wind fan, or at least don't read it with high hopes. It's an easy skim if you have read the Mitchell novel before, and takes us to before the novel starts and after it ends. By the way, despite going on after the novel ends, it doesn't go into the events that are in Ripley's Scarlett. It makes up different events.
The problem is, to a devoted GWTW fan, it really looks like McCaig only read GWTW a couple of times. There is a severe lack of feeling in atmosphere and also in detail. Sometimes he retells scenes in GWTW and he sticks closely to the dialogue used in the book, and then slips up by a phrase or word or two or three. It could be said this is because he is trying to say that he is tellingit from a different character's perspective, and every character remembers the conversation in a different way, but when he gets so close and then drifts, it becomes a bit pesky to a devoted fan like myself who has the dialogue in the book by heart. I don't have the novel by me and I can correct his dentences for him!
I also felt that to appeal to real GWTW lovers, something of passion should be present in the scenes. Maybe not in the same way that GWTW was, but stil, something raw and strong. After all, Rhett had a strong and passionate character too, so why not? But it often seemed like he would get to a scene and merely recount the events and throw in a bit of "This is what Rhett is thinking" without giving it real atmosphere. It didn't grab you by the throat and make you want to stop.
As one other reviewer I've read said, this is embarrassingly written like a moony sentimentalist. Rhett goes about mooning for Scarlett and a lotof the descriptions are written like a Mills and Boon, and even Rhett's motivations for leaving Scarlett on the road from Atlanta are changed to that of a romantic child's. It seems strange that the author does this, in a book meant to capture the male perspective, when the original, meant to capture the female POV, is strong, hard-headed, passionate and earthy.
At any rate, the characterisation was flat. I felt like I was given an overview rather than a real feel for anyone in the book, and this was lazily done to be read in tandem with GWTW where you were supposed to have got your opinions and imagination about the characters from GWTW and this would simply structure and steer the chaacters a little in the way for you, here and there.
Besides, the way Melanie and Scarlett were characterised was absolutely terrible. Scarlett was flat and Melanie was shown to not believe in her husband's honour but simply be putting on an act, for show. Oh dear.
These books are actually out there, published. It makes me think I could get going with my The Darker Side of Mary Poppins and I should have no trouble getting it endorsed and accepted. Hi ho!
Most have lost the voice and idealism of the original author and you are left thinking "What the heck happened here?" and maybe they just did it to jazz it up. Some are really disastrous.
Books I've read recently that fall into this category are:
March by Geraldine Brooks - the backstory to Little Women by Louisa M. Alcott
Rebecca's Tale by Sally Beauman - the backstory to Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier
Rhett Butler's People by Donald McCaig - the backstory to Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
(I've also read, some time back, Scarlett by Alexandra Ripley, the sequel to Gone With the Wind)
One of the greatest criticisms readers have is that real feeling for style and the geograhic/time period is rarely carried over with flair. If these authors want to see how that's done well, they should take a lesson from Charles Tritten, who wrote Heidi Grows Up, the sequel to Heidi, and captured the style of original author Johanna Spyri beautifully (though not perfectly). Well at least I thought so, though I've only ever read the English translation. The story isn't really original but the voice is much closer to the original than any of the other books above got. Though Amazon.com readers obviously didn't agree with me!
March loses what some readers might see as the innocence that was endearing in the first novel and not really like the idea of Mr March doing all those things that are described - but if you ask me, it's the best of the three mentioned above as it's well-written and the most believable. Ms Brooks has done her homework, and though she has taken liberties, they make sense within the context.
I'm a fan of the book Rebecca and while I read Rebecca's Tale ... let's just say I thought it a bit lame. Rebecca had become for me an intriguing character, and one who was mysterious and could possibly do things and had done things beyond the reach of other women. The Tale seemed to make her life just a bit too ordinary, and even seemed to hint at her reason for Maxim hating her as being a bit petty and stupid - one I just couldn't believe. It by no means captured the amzingly unreal but also fragile Rebecca that had haunted me before, and I guess the events befoer at Manderley - well, seemed mundane? I guess this is what you get for reading the expose of a horror story!
But Rhett Butler's People really took the cake. I advise against reading it if you are a Gone With the Wind fan, or at least don't read it with high hopes. It's an easy skim if you have read the Mitchell novel before, and takes us to before the novel starts and after it ends. By the way, despite going on after the novel ends, it doesn't go into the events that are in Ripley's Scarlett. It makes up different events.
The problem is, to a devoted GWTW fan, it really looks like McCaig only read GWTW a couple of times. There is a severe lack of feeling in atmosphere and also in detail. Sometimes he retells scenes in GWTW and he sticks closely to the dialogue used in the book, and then slips up by a phrase or word or two or three. It could be said this is because he is trying to say that he is tellingit from a different character's perspective, and every character remembers the conversation in a different way, but when he gets so close and then drifts, it becomes a bit pesky to a devoted fan like myself who has the dialogue in the book by heart. I don't have the novel by me and I can correct his dentences for him!
I also felt that to appeal to real GWTW lovers, something of passion should be present in the scenes. Maybe not in the same way that GWTW was, but stil, something raw and strong. After all, Rhett had a strong and passionate character too, so why not? But it often seemed like he would get to a scene and merely recount the events and throw in a bit of "This is what Rhett is thinking" without giving it real atmosphere. It didn't grab you by the throat and make you want to stop.
As one other reviewer I've read said, this is embarrassingly written like a moony sentimentalist. Rhett goes about mooning for Scarlett and a lotof the descriptions are written like a Mills and Boon, and even Rhett's motivations for leaving Scarlett on the road from Atlanta are changed to that of a romantic child's. It seems strange that the author does this, in a book meant to capture the male perspective, when the original, meant to capture the female POV, is strong, hard-headed, passionate and earthy.
At any rate, the characterisation was flat. I felt like I was given an overview rather than a real feel for anyone in the book, and this was lazily done to be read in tandem with GWTW where you were supposed to have got your opinions and imagination about the characters from GWTW and this would simply structure and steer the chaacters a little in the way for you, here and there.
Besides, the way Melanie and Scarlett were characterised was absolutely terrible. Scarlett was flat and Melanie was shown to not believe in her husband's honour but simply be putting on an act, for show. Oh dear.
These books are actually out there, published. It makes me think I could get going with my The Darker Side of Mary Poppins and I should have no trouble getting it endorsed and accepted. Hi ho!
Friday, 9 January 2009
How lame - and cheap - is that?
Now, I've always prided myself on being a real meanie when it comes to books. Avid book buyer that I am, this is no time to not look out for the best specials and discounts!
I browse discount stores, look out for sales, and am very much in favour of giveaways. Hurrah!
This has made me just a bit too much of a Berkelouw's outlet store junkie, and I also signed up for the Borders enewsletter, which gives away coupons each week, usually 2 coupons (and has sometimes surprised us with three).
Coupons can be printed out and presented to Borders and say things like "20% off any full-priced title" or "30% off any kids' book" or "30% off any CD" or "Buy 'The Jane Austen Book Club for $14.95'" or "Buy any 3 Science Fiction titles for the price of two".
These have all been great fun and some of the coupons are better than others, and some aren't ones that I use if they don't fit in with a title that I want to buy.
Just lately, though, Borders has been putting out some really newsletters.
In the section where the coupons are, it writes down "deals" but they are in-store deals, ones that aren't specially available to the people who get the newsletter, you just get them if you walk into the store, and underneath each promotionis written "No coupon necessary"
For instance, if they are selling teddy bears they might write "Get our teddy bears for $19.95 each - no coupon necessary!"
Ahh yeah.
Or "20% off selected summer reads - no coupon necessary!" which simply means that there will be a 20% off table or area in Borders when you walk in.
The whole thing is written in the section where the coupons used to sit in a Borders enewsleter which psychologically makes you think it's a great deal, and also means that no one has to change the format of the newsletter around. If they don't want to offer a coupon this week, they just stick one of those "no coupon necessary" ones on the coupon section and send it off to you.
It's happening so often, if they aren't going to be bothered with coupons, at least for quite a few newsletters, I think they should devise a whole newsletter that looks different. One that doesn't look like it involves coupons, instead of one looking like it involves LAME coupons.
The very fact that they need to write in small writing "No coupon necessary" means that they know that many people are used to coupons being attached to that area and expect them to be there, so saying "Oh, we aren't obliged to give out coupons and we just wrote that there to promote our sale!" is nonsense.
I browse discount stores, look out for sales, and am very much in favour of giveaways. Hurrah!
This has made me just a bit too much of a Berkelouw's outlet store junkie, and I also signed up for the Borders enewsletter, which gives away coupons each week, usually 2 coupons (and has sometimes surprised us with three).
Coupons can be printed out and presented to Borders and say things like "20% off any full-priced title" or "30% off any kids' book" or "30% off any CD" or "Buy 'The Jane Austen Book Club for $14.95'" or "Buy any 3 Science Fiction titles for the price of two".
These have all been great fun and some of the coupons are better than others, and some aren't ones that I use if they don't fit in with a title that I want to buy.
Just lately, though, Borders has been putting out some really newsletters.
In the section where the coupons are, it writes down "deals" but they are in-store deals, ones that aren't specially available to the people who get the newsletter, you just get them if you walk into the store, and underneath each promotionis written "No coupon necessary"
For instance, if they are selling teddy bears they might write "Get our teddy bears for $19.95 each - no coupon necessary!"
Ahh yeah.
Or "20% off selected summer reads - no coupon necessary!" which simply means that there will be a 20% off table or area in Borders when you walk in.
The whole thing is written in the section where the coupons used to sit in a Borders enewsleter which psychologically makes you think it's a great deal, and also means that no one has to change the format of the newsletter around. If they don't want to offer a coupon this week, they just stick one of those "no coupon necessary" ones on the coupon section and send it off to you.
It's happening so often, if they aren't going to be bothered with coupons, at least for quite a few newsletters, I think they should devise a whole newsletter that looks different. One that doesn't look like it involves coupons, instead of one looking like it involves LAME coupons.
The very fact that they need to write in small writing "No coupon necessary" means that they know that many people are used to coupons being attached to that area and expect them to be there, so saying "Oh, we aren't obliged to give out coupons and we just wrote that there to promote our sale!" is nonsense.
Wednesday, 7 January 2009
The Singing Thorn Birds?
First there was Australia, which I didn't go to see because of the bad reviews. The supposed epic Australian saga
Now there is the talk of staging The Thorn Birds, that Australian epic family saga/romance/tragedy, as a musical!
I've read the book, and I've seen the mini-series, though I've forgotten lots of the mini-series. Now I'm wondering what a musical would be like.
I;m thinking, which are the most memorable scenes to me, and how would the songs go, and I'm wondering, will the stage try to make them serious and dramatic, Phantom-like, or kinda campy and funny, like The Producers?
The first realy memorable scene to me in the whole book is when meggie spews on Sister Agatha and then gets caned. Gosh, that really does it for me. You've got to have a song for that. The nuns could get together, Agatha covered in brown crap, and sing:
"How do you solve a problem like Meggie?
How do you get this disgusting creature to keep it down?
How do you find a word to describe Meggie?
A royal puker? A spewer? A chucker? A clown?"
Here are some other fantastic scenes which I'm sure we'll all find very easy to turn into songs - inspiration, anyone?:
Ralph de Bricassart finds Mary Carson dead in her room, half eaten by maggots (that's gotta to be one of the most memorable scenes in the book)
Hal dies
Fee goes into still shock when she finds out Frank is in gaol
Paddy gets killed in the fire, and the description is that he gets caught in a ring of fire and dies being burnt from the outside in, his heart and brain dying last of all and dies screaming Fee's name. Maybe he could sing Fee's name instead.
Meggie is pretty much forced in bed on her wedding night by Luke (The fact that "Luke" and "puke" rhymeis very convenient here)
Justine loses her virginity
Now there is the talk of staging The Thorn Birds, that Australian epic family saga/romance/tragedy, as a musical!
I've read the book, and I've seen the mini-series, though I've forgotten lots of the mini-series. Now I'm wondering what a musical would be like.
I;m thinking, which are the most memorable scenes to me, and how would the songs go, and I'm wondering, will the stage try to make them serious and dramatic, Phantom-like, or kinda campy and funny, like The Producers?
The first realy memorable scene to me in the whole book is when meggie spews on Sister Agatha and then gets caned. Gosh, that really does it for me. You've got to have a song for that. The nuns could get together, Agatha covered in brown crap, and sing:
"How do you solve a problem like Meggie?
How do you get this disgusting creature to keep it down?
How do you find a word to describe Meggie?
A royal puker? A spewer? A chucker? A clown?"
Here are some other fantastic scenes which I'm sure we'll all find very easy to turn into songs - inspiration, anyone?:
Ralph de Bricassart finds Mary Carson dead in her room, half eaten by maggots (that's gotta to be one of the most memorable scenes in the book)
Hal dies
Fee goes into still shock when she finds out Frank is in gaol
Paddy gets killed in the fire, and the description is that he gets caught in a ring of fire and dies being burnt from the outside in, his heart and brain dying last of all and dies screaming Fee's name. Maybe he could sing Fee's name instead.
Meggie is pretty much forced in bed on her wedding night by Luke (The fact that "Luke" and "puke" rhymeis very convenient here)
Justine loses her virginity
Saturday, 3 January 2009
Literary Theme Park!
And here's another one I got from the ABC'S First Tuesday Book Club website the literary theme park.
Apparently, and not that surprisingly, someone is already coming up with the idea of a Hary Potter theme park. I guess there'll be a whole school of Hogwarts, Diagon Alley, and little wizarding things to do and games of Quidditch to be had. You can probably pop balls into little owls mouths and if they come out in the right slots and add up to the magic number - and I do mean MAGIC number, you win a Harry toy. Throw cream pies at Dudley's face. Throw cream pies at BOTH of Professor Quirrell's faces. That sort of thing.
But what sort of literary theme park would you like to see, based on what book/series/author? And what would it be like? There have been some nominations on the ABC's website. Of course, they don't promise at all it'll get built ...
I would like to see an Anne of Green Gables tour. I want to do the whole Idlewild, Lake of Shining Waters, Snow Queen and Bonny, Lover's Lane, Violet Vale, Birch Path thing. There should be games where you can walk a ridge pole and win a wig of dyed green hair and somewhere where you can purchase alcoholic raspberry cordial, and a ride where you ave o dodge slates that nearly hit you on the head, and a barge ride down a river.
All sounds good to me!
What literary theme park or tour would you like to see or do, and what activities would you like to be on it?
Apparently, and not that surprisingly, someone is already coming up with the idea of a Hary Potter theme park. I guess there'll be a whole school of Hogwarts, Diagon Alley, and little wizarding things to do and games of Quidditch to be had. You can probably pop balls into little owls mouths and if they come out in the right slots and add up to the magic number - and I do mean MAGIC number, you win a Harry toy. Throw cream pies at Dudley's face. Throw cream pies at BOTH of Professor Quirrell's faces. That sort of thing.
But what sort of literary theme park would you like to see, based on what book/series/author? And what would it be like? There have been some nominations on the ABC's website. Of course, they don't promise at all it'll get built ...
I would like to see an Anne of Green Gables tour. I want to do the whole Idlewild, Lake of Shining Waters, Snow Queen and Bonny, Lover's Lane, Violet Vale, Birch Path thing. There should be games where you can walk a ridge pole and win a wig of dyed green hair and somewhere where you can purchase alcoholic raspberry cordial, and a ride where you ave o dodge slates that nearly hit you on the head, and a barge ride down a river.
All sounds good to me!
What literary theme park or tour would you like to see or do, and what activities would you like to be on it?
Five Word Review!
Another idea I read about on ABC'S First Tuesday Book Club website is the idea of a Five Word Book Review!
Choose a book, name the author, and then post a review in FIVE WORDS ONLY!
Many people have chosen to list five very appropiate adjectives, others have gone for a short five word sentence. Maybe you can think of something else?
Will you pick a book to praise or damn?!
Gee, and I thought those 25 word or less comps were hard!
Choose a book, name the author, and then post a review in FIVE WORDS ONLY!
Many people have chosen to list five very appropiate adjectives, others have gone for a short five word sentence. Maybe you can think of something else?
Will you pick a book to praise or damn?!
Gee, and I thought those 25 word or less comps were hard!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
