There were many lessons that fell down around me (literally) in Pohnpei, but here are the ones I can remember:
1) Geckos aren't cute. Nor are the little lizards that act like geckos. They are creepy. They look creepy. They sound creepy. They are creepy embodied. And for those who would say "But they eat the bugs," my reply is that I never saw them eat any of the bugs swarming over my bed.
2) Water beds aren't bad for sleeping. They aren't the best if you are a mover like I am, but it wasn't bad. I never woke up with a back ache.
3) Spiders, even when harmless, are fucking terrifying at 5 inches in diameter especially when they are hanging over your bed.
4) The brave can be defeated, or there is a limit to bravery. See, I am not exactly a chicken shit. I know I have vertigo and I live with it, but that seems to be more of a physical/chemical thing than a mental thing (because I'm not afraid of heights). The thing is, I can take a lot and not fuss, but apparently I have a limit.
5) Geckos that fall on you are the devil's spawn.
6) Geckos that poop on you and your books repeatedly are cruel and should be dealt with.
7) Sleeping in a traditional bungalow sounds really cool, especially if you grew up watching Swiss Family Robinson. However, for those with defeated courage, living in a place with falling geckos and gecko poop, spiders too big to keep you sane, and humidity up the wazoo can be too much. I did enjoy my stay, but I don't think I shall repeat it, but then I long for winter.
8) You can forget the feel of air conditioning and then wonder what this marvelous invention is after a week without it in weather where your sunscreen can melt off of you.
9) People who might have sunscreen melt off them should not go on day-long tours and hike to waterfalls where they will sweat out all of their bodies moisture. Sometimes it can be too hot and humid.
10) Nan Madol is amazing and made the falling geckos worth it.
11) The geckos are sane some nights and leave you alone and insane the next and charge at you.
12) Comfort is relative, but luxury is luxury. And today the Sheraton on Guam is luxury. The lack of chirping and crawling and falling sounds makes it all the better.
13) You can miss the internet like it's a friend, even if you don't play World of Warcraft or something similar.
I miss home more than I can say. Sometimes, I miss it enough that I tear up. Two more days!
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
Juniper Time...or How I Discovered I Wanted to Visit Bend
For 9 in 0'09, I should also report on Juniper Time.
Kate Wilhelm is one of my favorite authors, I should confess that. I don't know why her and not others, but she's been on my list of used book store searches since I read Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang. I think it's because she isn't precious. She doesn't apply a Vaseline layer to make things prettier. She isn't exactly brutally honest, but she's honest.
Juniper Time is one of her science fiction novels (before the mystery novels, and after them, I suppose). There is a blight upon the world and a drought so extreme that people have been moved from some states entirely, people are living in ghettos full of crime and violence. There are some who aren't living there, but by parental luck. I expected none of this except the drought. I did not see the violence coming. I did not see how silly our male lead could be. I did not see what our female lead was up to. I was surprised. I'm still trying to decide if I agree with the idea behind the end, living as I do now and not thirty years ago. This is one reason I love older science fiction so much, it's taken from a time I have no direct experience with. Looking at 1984 or Brave New World now, you can still see the eerie truths, but you can smile at the places where the story is dated by its time, which does not demean the story or message.
I would write a synopsis of the book, but I feel that it would be unfair because I can't imagine explaining it. There's a drought. There's international conflict. There's a space station. And somehow, they are all related. Not that the space station is causing the drought.
Oh, but let me just say this: Bend, Oregon. Half of the book (or a little less) takes place in Bend and its environs. When I read "Bend", I thought Wilhelm was crazy or that I was crazy, but the crazy thing is getting a description of Bend from before I knew it. It's like reading about London before it was the heaving mass of a city it is now (except Bend is not anything like London).
So, I read Juniper Time in a whirlwind. I really liked it. I did not love it as I wanted to, but I realize now that it's because I'm not sure that I got enough of the end. It was a story where I wanted more and sort of resented that I didn't get more. Except let me add that no one can push a limit like Wilhelm. I remain shocked that she did what she did to one of her characters, but I love her for the shock.
Kate Wilhelm is one of my favorite authors, I should confess that. I don't know why her and not others, but she's been on my list of used book store searches since I read Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang. I think it's because she isn't precious. She doesn't apply a Vaseline layer to make things prettier. She isn't exactly brutally honest, but she's honest.
Juniper Time is one of her science fiction novels (before the mystery novels, and after them, I suppose). There is a blight upon the world and a drought so extreme that people have been moved from some states entirely, people are living in ghettos full of crime and violence. There are some who aren't living there, but by parental luck. I expected none of this except the drought. I did not see the violence coming. I did not see how silly our male lead could be. I did not see what our female lead was up to. I was surprised. I'm still trying to decide if I agree with the idea behind the end, living as I do now and not thirty years ago. This is one reason I love older science fiction so much, it's taken from a time I have no direct experience with. Looking at 1984 or Brave New World now, you can still see the eerie truths, but you can smile at the places where the story is dated by its time, which does not demean the story or message.
I would write a synopsis of the book, but I feel that it would be unfair because I can't imagine explaining it. There's a drought. There's international conflict. There's a space station. And somehow, they are all related. Not that the space station is causing the drought.
Oh, but let me just say this: Bend, Oregon. Half of the book (or a little less) takes place in Bend and its environs. When I read "Bend", I thought Wilhelm was crazy or that I was crazy, but the crazy thing is getting a description of Bend from before I knew it. It's like reading about London before it was the heaving mass of a city it is now (except Bend is not anything like London).
So, I read Juniper Time in a whirlwind. I really liked it. I did not love it as I wanted to, but I realize now that it's because I'm not sure that I got enough of the end. It was a story where I wanted more and sort of resented that I didn't get more. Except let me add that no one can push a limit like Wilhelm. I remain shocked that she did what she did to one of her characters, but I love her for the shock.
Possession...or how Byatt needs more editing on occasion
Not that anyone other than Cathy reads this, or pretends to anyway, but I have to write because I have finally finished Possession by A.S. Byatt. I am conflicted as to how I feel about it. My sister asked how many stars I would give it out of five and I was giving it four until I remembered how Byatt cheated. Here are the complaints:
1) She cheated. Balls out cheated. I'll say the same thing of any other writer who does this, but I was surprised when Byatt did. I thought she would have thought better of her audience than to pander to us. See, we spend the majority of the book in the present (or really the 1980s) looking back at things written from the late 1850s. We are in the present, the story is in the present, but we are looking at texts from the past. Ninety-nine percent of the book fits that mold, and then Byatt cheats and gives us bits of the past that we would not know from what we have in the present. And it didn't really add to the book, it provided no great insight. And the final one was the biggest cheat of all, it was pandering.
2) The unnecessary bits. If you read it, you know what I'm talking about. If you haven't and decide you are going to read it, take my advice and skip or skim sections you feel you are going to die of boredom in. Yes, I just said skip. Trust me, I skipped, and here's why: I am not a literary scholar. I like a good mystery, but when a book is longer than 500 pages and I have to read the journal of a teenage Breton girl, I will skip and skim. If I am given pages upon pages of a poem that drags on, I am going to skip it. Maybe "Swammerdam" had a brilliance I couldn't see, but then it wasn't really meant for me was it?
3) The Cropper chapter. So unnecessary. I almost stopped reading there. Really, I did, then I felt guilty and skipped him instead.
4) Being made to research like the two main characters. If I wanted to do that, I would be doing that, not reading a novel for enjoyment.
However, I did really like the book. I liked Maud and adored Roland. I liked them and the story much more than the film, which I bugged my sister about trying to remember (plus I decided that Aaron Eckhart [although a decent enough guy and generally good actor] was miscast and not because he played Roland as an American, but because he has a confidence he can't really shed). I did feel involved in it (although I was a cheat because I already knew the kicker), I flipped the pages eagerly at the end for the resolution. It is a novel of great feeling, which I appreciate. But I still say Byatt cheated.
I should also add that mid-book, I stopped. I couldn't take it. I closed the book and thought I'd never return. I think it was in the middle of a letter that told me nothing about nothing. During that pause, I read Pride and Prejudice and was reminded how much I love Austen. We should note here that it was easier to read a book written in the early nineteenth century than a book written in the 1980s. And now, I am with Wuthering Heights. I desperately want to understand why reading about England seems natural to me while in tropical Guam.
1) She cheated. Balls out cheated. I'll say the same thing of any other writer who does this, but I was surprised when Byatt did. I thought she would have thought better of her audience than to pander to us. See, we spend the majority of the book in the present (or really the 1980s) looking back at things written from the late 1850s. We are in the present, the story is in the present, but we are looking at texts from the past. Ninety-nine percent of the book fits that mold, and then Byatt cheats and gives us bits of the past that we would not know from what we have in the present. And it didn't really add to the book, it provided no great insight. And the final one was the biggest cheat of all, it was pandering.
2) The unnecessary bits. If you read it, you know what I'm talking about. If you haven't and decide you are going to read it, take my advice and skip or skim sections you feel you are going to die of boredom in. Yes, I just said skip. Trust me, I skipped, and here's why: I am not a literary scholar. I like a good mystery, but when a book is longer than 500 pages and I have to read the journal of a teenage Breton girl, I will skip and skim. If I am given pages upon pages of a poem that drags on, I am going to skip it. Maybe "Swammerdam" had a brilliance I couldn't see, but then it wasn't really meant for me was it?
3) The Cropper chapter. So unnecessary. I almost stopped reading there. Really, I did, then I felt guilty and skipped him instead.
4) Being made to research like the two main characters. If I wanted to do that, I would be doing that, not reading a novel for enjoyment.
However, I did really like the book. I liked Maud and adored Roland. I liked them and the story much more than the film, which I bugged my sister about trying to remember (plus I decided that Aaron Eckhart [although a decent enough guy and generally good actor] was miscast and not because he played Roland as an American, but because he has a confidence he can't really shed). I did feel involved in it (although I was a cheat because I already knew the kicker), I flipped the pages eagerly at the end for the resolution. It is a novel of great feeling, which I appreciate. But I still say Byatt cheated.
I should also add that mid-book, I stopped. I couldn't take it. I closed the book and thought I'd never return. I think it was in the middle of a letter that told me nothing about nothing. During that pause, I read Pride and Prejudice and was reminded how much I love Austen. We should note here that it was easier to read a book written in the early nineteenth century than a book written in the 1980s. And now, I am with Wuthering Heights. I desperately want to understand why reading about England seems natural to me while in tropical Guam.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
television tragedies
A tragic thing happens every spring, and it's not the heinous allergy season I'm deeply entrenched with right now. And in the grand scheme of things, "tragic" is probably a bit of a stretch, but for those affected, the desperation that will ensue feels tragic...TV renewal season.
The problem comes with being a fan of smart television. Smart television is rarely rewarded. The great victory of the years rests in Friday Night Lights, and I worry that NBC gave us that only to let us down on the other prime shows: Chuck, Southland, Life, and maybe Kings (I haven't decided on it yet). Worry supplemented by the stupid addition of a primetime Jay Leno show. With a primetime talk show (which is dirt cheap for NBC), the dramas much more intended for adults are going to be cut and suffer.
Then, there's Better Off Ted on ABC. Dollhouse and Lie To Me on Fox. And the ever challenged How I Met Your Mother.
All this goodness and the networks still keep something as tired and boring as Heroes.
The problem comes with being a fan of smart television. Smart television is rarely rewarded. The great victory of the years rests in Friday Night Lights, and I worry that NBC gave us that only to let us down on the other prime shows: Chuck, Southland, Life, and maybe Kings (I haven't decided on it yet). Worry supplemented by the stupid addition of a primetime Jay Leno show. With a primetime talk show (which is dirt cheap for NBC), the dramas much more intended for adults are going to be cut and suffer.
Then, there's Better Off Ted on ABC. Dollhouse and Lie To Me on Fox. And the ever challenged How I Met Your Mother.
All this goodness and the networks still keep something as tired and boring as Heroes.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
My sister's beloved Adalia
The crazy thing happened yesterday as I started shopping for a new suitcase. It was surprise, even though I knew it was coming...I became a published crochet designer. And I'm super scared. Looking at the photos, there are things I wish I had done and things I wish the magazine had done, but it's all done now and I can't change it except to say that maybe more motifs are called for on the top of the back, and maybe in a stronger fiber.
That said, it's super exciting. Super scary and super exciting. The pattern is easy, and would be easier if not for words. I'm always amazed at how words (and abbreviations) get in the way. It reminds me of that saying (that I first heard in Playing By Heart spoken by Angelina Jolie before people knew who she was [and when Gillian Anderson was the superstar in that movie, next to the superstars of Sean Connery and Gena Rowlands]) that talking about love is like dancing about architecture. Sometimes crochet patterns are written like someone's dancing about architecture. Diagrams make it easier. Symbols make things clear.
Anyway, March 31st will be a weird day all around: the magazine goes on sale in stores, and I celebrate my 31st birthday (likely in Guam). And the only person I really want to see the magazine (or really my name in the magazine) is one of my grandmothers, because without her, I wouldn't be there.
Oh, and my sister gets tons of credit on that top too. Tons of credit, including the name.
On a completely separate note, here are some links to animated short films. Goodness all around. I wish I could show you Imagemakers, because I'm sure you'd love it.
The Periwig Maker
9
Thursday, March 5, 2009
It's time to admit defeat. Aside from the yarn that is not arriving in time and is therefore going to prevent me from finishing the afghan.
Here's what's left and can't be taken care of easily:
-the afghan
-the comfort scarf
-the House Unity scarf
-the birthday scarf
And although the end of the month is a way off, I have to prioritize for the second half of the month because I won't have all of my supplies. I have to prioritize supplies too. And books. And patterns.
Here's what's left and can't be taken care of easily:
-the afghan
-the comfort scarf
-the House Unity scarf
-the birthday scarf
And although the end of the month is a way off, I have to prioritize for the second half of the month because I won't have all of my supplies. I have to prioritize supplies too. And books. And patterns.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Worry
I have discovered the land of worry. It sits alongside the land of caution, and I have tripped from caution to worry. The thing is I'm going to be in Guam for six weeks, which means that I'm going to be living in a hotel room for six weeks. Yes, a hotel room for six weeks. I can handle the idea of a hotel room for six weeks, but all of the reviews on TripAdvisor for the Guam hotels make me worry. And now, I've read one that described a brown tree snake in the bathtub and another coming out of the fire sprinkler. That is what the land of worry looks like.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
The To-Do List
These are the leftovers from the holidays and 2008 in general.
For accountability's sake, things still left to do:
1)* scarf for Dad - needs washing and seaming
2) scarf for friend - halfway...minimal progress
3) scarf for friend - planned, not started...no progress
4) bag for Mom - needs a lining...no progress
5) hemp bag - need to restart...no progress
6)* 1st wedding afghan - washed, needs sewing
7)* 2nd wedding afghan - started, maybe 1/8 done
8) Liesl - needs to be blocked...no progress
9) House Unity scarf - ongoing...no progress
11) Twine Bag - languishing...no progress
12)* Ben's Hat - needs wash
13) Lexie's Hat - wash and block...no progress
Things completed:
scarf for other
scarf for other
baby blanket
1st sweater
2nd sweater
Moebius basket
*Birdie's sweater
All items currently sleeping in my queue will not be impacted by this because when I look at them, I can never decide if I want to finish them.
*Updated on 2/17/09.
For accountability's sake, things still left to do:
1)* scarf for Dad - needs washing and seaming
2) scarf for friend - halfway...minimal progress
3) scarf for friend - planned, not started...no progress
4) bag for Mom - needs a lining...no progress
5) hemp bag - need to restart...no progress
6)* 1st wedding afghan - washed, needs sewing
7)* 2nd wedding afghan - started, maybe 1/8 done
8) Liesl - needs to be blocked...no progress
9) House Unity scarf - ongoing...no progress
11) Twine Bag - languishing...no progress
12)* Ben's Hat - needs wash
13) Lexie's Hat - wash and block...no progress
Things completed:
scarf for other
scarf for other
baby blanket
1st sweater
2nd sweater
Moebius basket
*Birdie's sweater
All items currently sleeping in my queue will not be impacted by this because when I look at them, I can never decide if I want to finish them.
*Updated on 2/17/09.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Why Neko's awesome...
I've already complained about the lack of a new Neko Case album, and as if in response, this becomes available today:
People Got A Lotta Nerve - Neko Case
P.S. Because Neko's super cool and I posted this to my lame ass blog, $5 will be donated to Best Friends Animal Society. If you read this by some chance, you can do this too.
People Got A Lotta Nerve - Neko Case
P.S. Because Neko's super cool and I posted this to my lame ass blog, $5 will be donated to Best Friends Animal Society. If you read this by some chance, you can do this too.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
If I were to tell the complete truth, I would say that there are three things I'm looking forward to this year: film versions of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, The Road, and Watchmen. That's it. That's all of the anticipation I have right now (production companies will blame the writers, but I blame the production companies).
Anyway, this company known as 20th Century Fox is threatening one third of my joy. I'm fascinated by this notion that the Warner Bros. Watchmen will hurt Fox. I agree that Warner Bros. was silly and its lawyers lacking in their understanding of the rights Fox held for Watchmen. However, Fox's claim that the Warner Bros. movie will irreparably harm them is complete crap. Yes, they should get money for the movie; yes, they own the rights to it; but for a studio that had done nothing with the rights for a decade and had seemingly decided to ignore that they owned the rights to it, to claim that the film will irreparably harm them even if they get money, is shit.
There are only two tiny bits of potential truth to Fox's claim:
1) Watchmen turns out to be awesome and the masses realize that Warner Bros. is a much better production company and better serves difficult material; and the audience questions why Fox couldn't get it to work. This could damage Fox's reputation, but my understanding is that money rules Hollywood, and if Fox gets money for Warner Bros.' effort, why complain? No one goes to a movie because Warner Bros. or Paramount or Fox is involved, people go because they want to see the movie. And I doubt many movies go to one company over another because they did super on a movie years before.
2) Fox wins their argument, Watchmen isn't released, the movie is never seen, and the fans decide to boycott Fox. Unfortunately, this fury won't do much. A bunch of angry fans won't hurt a company. Because how many people are really going to be angry about the Watchmen case? What percentage of that mob is the movie-going public? The truth is that the fanboys and fangirls of the world are a notable group and they can make an opening day. They line up for movies days before. They are the loyal ones. But, if we're honest, they're only a fraction of the money a movie needs to bring in to be successful. A faction of angry Watchmen fans won't destroy Fox with a boycott, but they could destroy the Wolverine movie. The one thing you don't want to do is piss off the boys who could write about how cool your movie is, because if you blink, those boys could decide that your prequel isn't worth the effort, and your movie release two months after the expected Watchmen release date could just be pathetic.
Although, I'm not completely on Warner Bros.' side, because they're the assholes who postponed Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.
Anyway, this company known as 20th Century Fox is threatening one third of my joy. I'm fascinated by this notion that the Warner Bros. Watchmen will hurt Fox. I agree that Warner Bros. was silly and its lawyers lacking in their understanding of the rights Fox held for Watchmen. However, Fox's claim that the Warner Bros. movie will irreparably harm them is complete crap. Yes, they should get money for the movie; yes, they own the rights to it; but for a studio that had done nothing with the rights for a decade and had seemingly decided to ignore that they owned the rights to it, to claim that the film will irreparably harm them even if they get money, is shit.
There are only two tiny bits of potential truth to Fox's claim:
1) Watchmen turns out to be awesome and the masses realize that Warner Bros. is a much better production company and better serves difficult material; and the audience questions why Fox couldn't get it to work. This could damage Fox's reputation, but my understanding is that money rules Hollywood, and if Fox gets money for Warner Bros.' effort, why complain? No one goes to a movie because Warner Bros. or Paramount or Fox is involved, people go because they want to see the movie. And I doubt many movies go to one company over another because they did super on a movie years before.
2) Fox wins their argument, Watchmen isn't released, the movie is never seen, and the fans decide to boycott Fox. Unfortunately, this fury won't do much. A bunch of angry fans won't hurt a company. Because how many people are really going to be angry about the Watchmen case? What percentage of that mob is the movie-going public? The truth is that the fanboys and fangirls of the world are a notable group and they can make an opening day. They line up for movies days before. They are the loyal ones. But, if we're honest, they're only a fraction of the money a movie needs to bring in to be successful. A faction of angry Watchmen fans won't destroy Fox with a boycott, but they could destroy the Wolverine movie. The one thing you don't want to do is piss off the boys who could write about how cool your movie is, because if you blink, those boys could decide that your prequel isn't worth the effort, and your movie release two months after the expected Watchmen release date could just be pathetic.
Although, I'm not completely on Warner Bros.' side, because they're the assholes who postponed Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
a summary of things
On the first night of the new year, I feel I can safely say these things:
1) I was most disappointed by of Montreal in 2008. I love them, and I will get beyond this whole disappointment bit, but I like two songs on Skeletal Lamping, while I loved all of Hissing Fauna, Are You the Destroyer?.* My hopes were probably just too high. I could end up loving it in two months, you never know.
2) The Stills continued their streak of not living up to Logic Will Break Your Heart. I've only started listening to Logic... again, because before the third album, Logic... did break my heart** because all I had was the very subpar second album. Fortunately, Oceans Will Rise came along, but it's still not what they could be.
3) The new TV shows were generally boring. Right now, I just want new episodes of How I Met Your Mother. If you had told me three years ago that this show would become the highlight of my week, I wouldn't have believed you, but then all of the cast members stepped up to what Neil Patrick Harris was offering, and then the show became perfect. (Especially without Stella.) Although, now Friday Night Lights, Battlestar Galactica, and Lost are coming back, and they are formidable competition.
4) I use Hulu mainly to watch episodes of Alfred Hitchcock Presents. I know, I'm a weirdo.
5) Neko Case needs to come out with a new album. I feel I've waited patiently, but since the Pixies sort of got back together, my patience isn't what it was in 2000 and there was no hope.
6) The albums that apparently defined my 2008 were: Sunset Rubdown's Random Spirit Lover (which was a 2007 album, but it is what I wake up to everyday), Kate Nash's Made of Bricks (I didn't find it until 2008), Portishead's Third, and Alaska in Winter's Dance Party in the Balkans.
And this became an unintentional entertainment summary. Otherwise, it was sort of a boring year. I turned 30 in Yorkshire. I became a supervisor for the first time. And I seriously considered buying house only to watch the country's financial stability crumble. Maybe I'll be a homeowner by the end of 2010.
Oh, I was also obsessed with the Twilight books, but then that faded and now I'm all about Y: The Last Man.
*When an title ends in a punctuation mark and the title appears at the end of a sentence, should the sentence get an extra punctuation?
**Pun so not at all intentioned.
1) I was most disappointed by of Montreal in 2008. I love them, and I will get beyond this whole disappointment bit, but I like two songs on Skeletal Lamping, while I loved all of Hissing Fauna, Are You the Destroyer?.* My hopes were probably just too high. I could end up loving it in two months, you never know.
2) The Stills continued their streak of not living up to Logic Will Break Your Heart. I've only started listening to Logic... again, because before the third album, Logic... did break my heart** because all I had was the very subpar second album. Fortunately, Oceans Will Rise came along, but it's still not what they could be.
3) The new TV shows were generally boring. Right now, I just want new episodes of How I Met Your Mother. If you had told me three years ago that this show would become the highlight of my week, I wouldn't have believed you, but then all of the cast members stepped up to what Neil Patrick Harris was offering, and then the show became perfect. (Especially without Stella.) Although, now Friday Night Lights, Battlestar Galactica, and Lost are coming back, and they are formidable competition.
4) I use Hulu mainly to watch episodes of Alfred Hitchcock Presents. I know, I'm a weirdo.
5) Neko Case needs to come out with a new album. I feel I've waited patiently, but since the Pixies sort of got back together, my patience isn't what it was in 2000 and there was no hope.
6) The albums that apparently defined my 2008 were: Sunset Rubdown's Random Spirit Lover (which was a 2007 album, but it is what I wake up to everyday), Kate Nash's Made of Bricks (I didn't find it until 2008), Portishead's Third, and Alaska in Winter's Dance Party in the Balkans.
And this became an unintentional entertainment summary. Otherwise, it was sort of a boring year. I turned 30 in Yorkshire. I became a supervisor for the first time. And I seriously considered buying house only to watch the country's financial stability crumble. Maybe I'll be a homeowner by the end of 2010.
Oh, I was also obsessed with the Twilight books, but then that faded and now I'm all about Y: The Last Man.
*When an title ends in a punctuation mark and the title appears at the end of a sentence, should the sentence get an extra punctuation?
**Pun so not at all intentioned.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
The Emerging Official 9 for '09 List
Long: The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky
Free: Possession by A.S. Byatt
Dusty: Kiss & Tell by Alain de Botton
Used: Kindred by Octavia Butler
Letter (R): Glamorama by Bret Easton Ellis
Strange: The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene
Cover: The Quiet Girl by Peter Hoeg
AN: Juniper Time by Kate Wilhelm
Distance: Spring Snow by Yukio Mishima
Free: Possession by A.S. Byatt
Dusty: Kiss & Tell by Alain de Botton
Used: Kindred by Octavia Butler
Letter (R): Glamorama by Bret Easton Ellis
Strange: The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene
Cover: The Quiet Girl by Peter Hoeg
AN: Juniper Time by Kate Wilhelm
Distance: Spring Snow by Yukio Mishima
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Books, books, books
I'm thinking about books today because I'm tackling the 9 for '09 challenge this year. And nine books in nine vague categories means that I'm thinking about said vague categories. Official decisions will be made this weekend. So, here are the categories and my ideas:
Long: I would guess that on average I read books with about 300 pages in them. And so, there are three real options for me: The Brothers Karamazov, Middlemarch, and Catch-22. The first two are long in ways that long isn't an adequate adjective. The third was a book I read a part of in high school, but never finished because it was too long to fit my freaky high school schedule. So, it's up for consideration.
Free: Two options...High Fidelity and Possession. There are others, but those are the two that leave me with layers of guilt. Poor Suzanna is still missing her copy of Possession because of me.
Dusty: Yeah, um, there are a lot of book in this category, so, well, um, this will require thought.
Used: You know, I'm thinking that the recent used book purchases are going to qualify. And because I've been thinking about Octavia Butler a lot lately, I think Kindred might be the winner, unless The Girl at the Lion d'Or sneaks in for a surprise.
Letter: Yeah, again, many options, much thought. But I think my letter is R. I've always felt that it's the dominant letter in my name.
Strange: A genre outside of my normal range? Non-fiction, anyone? My sister is going to be in charge of this one, because she reads non-fiction and I recoil from it, and she knows me enough to know what I can and cannot take.
Cover: Prettiest or ugliest cover? That requires time again.
AN (Alive or Not!): You know what? I'm jumping in on this one. Kate Wilhelm is awesome and hard to find. So, Juniper Time by the Hugo award-winning author will represent her.
Distance: Another why-the-hell-not option...Yukio Mishima's Spring Snow. Yes, you read that right. Yukio Mishima for the girl who usually hangs out with the SF world. Mishima and I got along tons in high school, so it's time to remember and refresh. And it takes place in Tokyo.
Long: I would guess that on average I read books with about 300 pages in them. And so, there are three real options for me: The Brothers Karamazov, Middlemarch, and Catch-22. The first two are long in ways that long isn't an adequate adjective. The third was a book I read a part of in high school, but never finished because it was too long to fit my freaky high school schedule. So, it's up for consideration.
Free: Two options...High Fidelity and Possession. There are others, but those are the two that leave me with layers of guilt. Poor Suzanna is still missing her copy of Possession because of me.
Dusty: Yeah, um, there are a lot of book in this category, so, well, um, this will require thought.
Used: You know, I'm thinking that the recent used book purchases are going to qualify. And because I've been thinking about Octavia Butler a lot lately, I think Kindred might be the winner, unless The Girl at the Lion d'Or sneaks in for a surprise.
Letter: Yeah, again, many options, much thought. But I think my letter is R. I've always felt that it's the dominant letter in my name.
Strange: A genre outside of my normal range? Non-fiction, anyone? My sister is going to be in charge of this one, because she reads non-fiction and I recoil from it, and she knows me enough to know what I can and cannot take.
Cover: Prettiest or ugliest cover? That requires time again.
AN (Alive or Not!): You know what? I'm jumping in on this one. Kate Wilhelm is awesome and hard to find. So, Juniper Time by the Hugo award-winning author will represent her.
Distance: Another why-the-hell-not option...Yukio Mishima's Spring Snow. Yes, you read that right. Yukio Mishima for the girl who usually hangs out with the SF world. Mishima and I got along tons in high school, so it's time to remember and refresh. And it takes place in Tokyo.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
Things I learned trapped in a freak snow storm in Victorville, California:
1) Driving in snow in May in Wyoming is not really driving in snow, unless the snow is from a freak Arctic blast that everyone said wouldn't do anything but make things cold.
2) Snow's pretty when you don't have to do something. Like all of that snow I witnessed in school, that was pretty until I had somewhere to go, like class and discovered the streets could turn into rivers. So, while sitting in the safety of a hotel room, it's pretty; but when trying to figure out roads you don't know in heavy snow when the freeway has shut down and cars are driving towards you on said freeway, snow is menacing.
3) One should do one's best not to get sick when a freak snow storm hits, because no one knows how to drive in it, which makes the roads too treacherous for you to go buy cough drops and bottled water (because Southern California tap water gives me a headache like daffodils give me a headache).
4) Steel-toed boots in snow are evil. Fiberglass-toed boots are the way to go. Waterproof, preferably.
5) When driving on a freeway in near blizzard conditions (okay, white out conditions) in Southern California, all traffic rules are null and void. I left the freeway on an on-ramp, I'm still amazed that my straight-laced self could do it and not start hyperventilating.
6) The Tempurpedic-like beds in the Hilton Garden Inn take a few nights to get used to, but when you're used to them, you sort of regret leaving them. Although, Marriott beds remain the best ever.
7) There's never anything good on TV when you are too sick to be able to focus on reading and trapped in a hotel due to snow. And House, The Closer, and Law & Order are strangely perfect TV shows in hotel rooms (although, I already knew that).
8) Not even being snowed in can help you with your gift-making list and the time you need to complete it. (Things still unfinished: two hats, two bags, one sweater, and one scarf.)
1) Driving in snow in May in Wyoming is not really driving in snow, unless the snow is from a freak Arctic blast that everyone said wouldn't do anything but make things cold.
2) Snow's pretty when you don't have to do something. Like all of that snow I witnessed in school, that was pretty until I had somewhere to go, like class and discovered the streets could turn into rivers. So, while sitting in the safety of a hotel room, it's pretty; but when trying to figure out roads you don't know in heavy snow when the freeway has shut down and cars are driving towards you on said freeway, snow is menacing.
3) One should do one's best not to get sick when a freak snow storm hits, because no one knows how to drive in it, which makes the roads too treacherous for you to go buy cough drops and bottled water (because Southern California tap water gives me a headache like daffodils give me a headache).
4) Steel-toed boots in snow are evil. Fiberglass-toed boots are the way to go. Waterproof, preferably.
5) When driving on a freeway in near blizzard conditions (okay, white out conditions) in Southern California, all traffic rules are null and void. I left the freeway on an on-ramp, I'm still amazed that my straight-laced self could do it and not start hyperventilating.
6) The Tempurpedic-like beds in the Hilton Garden Inn take a few nights to get used to, but when you're used to them, you sort of regret leaving them. Although, Marriott beds remain the best ever.
7) There's never anything good on TV when you are too sick to be able to focus on reading and trapped in a hotel due to snow. And House, The Closer, and Law & Order are strangely perfect TV shows in hotel rooms (although, I already knew that).
8) Not even being snowed in can help you with your gift-making list and the time you need to complete it. (Things still unfinished: two hats, two bags, one sweater, and one scarf.)
Friday, December 12, 2008
The Wonder Spot and being all sorts of angry on a Friday night
Me again. This time about a book, and about a book I feel has been slighted.
I must admit up front that I haven't read anything by Curtis Sittenfeld, I just don't feel in anyway drawn into the plot summaries for her books. And that I'm sure is a sin in Ms. Sittenfeld's world, for I should be able to read beyond a book's cover and flap jacket. But really Prep is so not my thing even if I did go to school with kids who went to prep schools, and American Wife just sounds like I'd fall asleep. It's possible I could like her stuff, except I have to get beyond the summaries of her stuff.
But over the last few days, I've been thinking about my tiny list of books read this year and I was surprised to discover that I think my favorite is The Wonder Spot by Melissa Bank. Now, this would seem to go against all of my professions of love for Neil Gaiman, but it doesn't. I love Neil and his books, but when I think about it and let myself feel an answer instead of just being logical, I realize that it has to be Bank's book. It's the simplicity of the story; it's the so very Jane Austen-ness of the story; it's the honesty. It's not a book that will shock you, it won't even ask you to look at it, it's a wallflower. It is waiting for you to see it and notice it and its intrinsic value. It's waiting for you to let it be everything it can be. And it's the most human book I read this year.
So, what does Sittenfeld have to do with The Wonder Spot? This. I just found it, years too late to be relevant, but it pissed me off. And not because she's calling Bank a chick-lit author because, damn it, chick lit is not the worst thing to happen to women's literature. It's this, from the end of the review:
"Undeniably, there were times when I laughed or winced in recognition as I read; I understood exactly what Sophie meant, and that's when I liked the book best. But this, ultimately, is the reason I know 'The Wonder Spot' is chick lit: because its appeal relies so much on how closely readers relate to its protagonist. Good novels allow us to feel what the characters feel, no matter how dissimilar their circumstances and ours. 'The Wonder Spot' contains real meaning only if we identify with Sophie enough to infuse it with meaning of our own."
Now, did she just say that in order for a novel to be good, the character's circumstances need to be unlike my own? Really? That's what divides a good novel and chick lit? Seriously? How do you determine that?
See, I get that a good novel should allow us to feel what a character unlike ourselves feels. There's a reason I loved The Road. But just because I walk alongside a character in a number of experiences doesn't make a novel less worthy of being called good. And I'm fascinated by this sense of worth as defined by "learning." I think it's a myth. Is a Jane Austen novel good because I learned about Regency England? Hell no, it's good because of the content, the characters, the humanity, the honesty, the humor. So, to say that a novel isn't really a good novel because she, the character, and I probably have similar life experiences is silly. And then to essentially say that The Wonder Spot would have been good if the protagonist had ended up alone is horseshit. It would be daring to some degree, but not necessarily honest for Bank's protagonist. It's a bolder statement to defy the convention that she would be accepted for one thing and marginalized for another.
So, Ms. Sittenfeld, you're wrong. Maybe you didn't love the book, but the book defies you with being wonderful...And yes, I know I need to read more, but I don't have the luxury of not having a day job, and more than that, I have other things I like to do too.
On other topics: there should be snow on my mountain tomorrow morning! And I think my new literary crush is going to be on Brian K. Vaughn.
I must admit up front that I haven't read anything by Curtis Sittenfeld, I just don't feel in anyway drawn into the plot summaries for her books. And that I'm sure is a sin in Ms. Sittenfeld's world, for I should be able to read beyond a book's cover and flap jacket. But really Prep is so not my thing even if I did go to school with kids who went to prep schools, and American Wife just sounds like I'd fall asleep. It's possible I could like her stuff, except I have to get beyond the summaries of her stuff.
But over the last few days, I've been thinking about my tiny list of books read this year and I was surprised to discover that I think my favorite is The Wonder Spot by Melissa Bank. Now, this would seem to go against all of my professions of love for Neil Gaiman, but it doesn't. I love Neil and his books, but when I think about it and let myself feel an answer instead of just being logical, I realize that it has to be Bank's book. It's the simplicity of the story; it's the so very Jane Austen-ness of the story; it's the honesty. It's not a book that will shock you, it won't even ask you to look at it, it's a wallflower. It is waiting for you to see it and notice it and its intrinsic value. It's waiting for you to let it be everything it can be. And it's the most human book I read this year.
So, what does Sittenfeld have to do with The Wonder Spot? This. I just found it, years too late to be relevant, but it pissed me off. And not because she's calling Bank a chick-lit author because, damn it, chick lit is not the worst thing to happen to women's literature. It's this, from the end of the review:
"Undeniably, there were times when I laughed or winced in recognition as I read; I understood exactly what Sophie meant, and that's when I liked the book best. But this, ultimately, is the reason I know 'The Wonder Spot' is chick lit: because its appeal relies so much on how closely readers relate to its protagonist. Good novels allow us to feel what the characters feel, no matter how dissimilar their circumstances and ours. 'The Wonder Spot' contains real meaning only if we identify with Sophie enough to infuse it with meaning of our own."
Now, did she just say that in order for a novel to be good, the character's circumstances need to be unlike my own? Really? That's what divides a good novel and chick lit? Seriously? How do you determine that?
See, I get that a good novel should allow us to feel what a character unlike ourselves feels. There's a reason I loved The Road. But just because I walk alongside a character in a number of experiences doesn't make a novel less worthy of being called good. And I'm fascinated by this sense of worth as defined by "learning." I think it's a myth. Is a Jane Austen novel good because I learned about Regency England? Hell no, it's good because of the content, the characters, the humanity, the honesty, the humor. So, to say that a novel isn't really a good novel because she, the character, and I probably have similar life experiences is silly. And then to essentially say that The Wonder Spot would have been good if the protagonist had ended up alone is horseshit. It would be daring to some degree, but not necessarily honest for Bank's protagonist. It's a bolder statement to defy the convention that she would be accepted for one thing and marginalized for another.
So, Ms. Sittenfeld, you're wrong. Maybe you didn't love the book, but the book defies you with being wonderful...And yes, I know I need to read more, but I don't have the luxury of not having a day job, and more than that, I have other things I like to do too.
On other topics: there should be snow on my mountain tomorrow morning! And I think my new literary crush is going to be on Brian K. Vaughn.
Sometimes, my adoration for people and things gets a little out of hand. For instance:
xkcd...things like this and this make me wonder if you can chart Randall Munroe's relationship status and quality. And sometimes, I want to chart out his themes to see if there's a pattern.
Then, there's Michael Schaub. I started reading Bookslut back in 2005. That was when I was obsessed with book blogs (an obsession that appears to be coming back). But something happened in 2006: Michael Schaub vanished from the ranks of Bookslut. Now, Jessa posted something in 2007 about Michael being gone and people missing him, but there's been nothing since. And I'm not alone in missing him. Where is Michael? I have been scouring the internet for clues, all to no avail. Michael, where are you?
xkcd...things like this and this make me wonder if you can chart Randall Munroe's relationship status and quality. And sometimes, I want to chart out his themes to see if there's a pattern.
Then, there's Michael Schaub. I started reading Bookslut back in 2005. That was when I was obsessed with book blogs (an obsession that appears to be coming back). But something happened in 2006: Michael Schaub vanished from the ranks of Bookslut. Now, Jessa posted something in 2007 about Michael being gone and people missing him, but there's been nothing since. And I'm not alone in missing him. Where is Michael? I have been scouring the internet for clues, all to no avail. Michael, where are you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
