No one can accuse me of not being prolific. Except maybe those who really are prolific.
Aeon Flux (2005)
Contrary to the general consensus, Aeon Flux's only redeeming feature is not the fact that it features a slinky, catsuit clad Charlize Theron (although it is a plus). Ok, it's not a masterpiece; in fact, it's not even great. I'd rate it as ok to good. It probably won't hold up to repeat viewings. Based on the bizarre MTV cartoon of the same name, the story takes place in a future where a deadly disease has wiped out almost everybody, and only a handful of people have survived thanks to the efforts of a scientist who now rules over them. They live in a seemingly utopian city, but something is amiss and a rebel organization is fighting to overthrow the totalatarian regime. The eponymous heroine of the story is one of these rebels, who begins to question if their cause is just. The story is fairly derivative, the acting is adequate, as is the action. What I liked about it was the production design of the film, which was sumptuous and sometimes unique... So, fairly entertaining and nice to look at.
Das Boot (Director's Cut) (1981)
Amazing film. Wolfgang Peterson's breakout effort is about a German submarine on a tour of duty towards the end of World War II. The tide is starting to turn against the Germans, whose crews are steadily growing younger as new recruits are continually drafted in. Jurgen Prochnow plays the stoic and battle hardened veteran who captains the sub and bemoans his overly patriotic and inexperienced crew. There's not much in the way of actual plot in the film. Much like another excellent ocean based film - Master and Commander - this film is mostly concerned with the details of life aboard a cramped and claustrophobic submarine, and how the crew copes with their mundane lifestyle which is interrupted every so often by moments of nail biting tension and horror. The attention to detail and authenticity make this an incredibly immersive experience that spans the gamut of emotion. Terrific performances makes one quickly forget the fact that the protagonists are people almost always depicted as "the bad guys" whom audiences are used to siding against. I can't finish without mentioning the memorable theme music which is reinterpreted quite effectively throughout the film.
Carlito's Way (1993)
Al Pacino has delivered some terrific performances in his time, and this one should definitely be listed among them. Brian de Palma's excellent crime flick is about a drug dealer named Carlito Brigante (Pacino) who gets out of prison five years into his sentence thanks to his crafty lawyer (Sean Penn). Prison has changed him, and he wants out of the business - he just needs a little money to make his getaway. He gets a legit job running a nightclub, and tries to stay out of trouble. Unfortunately, despite his fading reputation on the street, the world he's trying to get away from keeps pulling him back in. A further complication is the woman he had to leave behind when he was incarcerated - she's given up on her dreams, so Carlito endeavours to share his future with her. The film is thoroughly entertaining and has some excellent set pieces. It's also poignant and full of terrific and distinctive performances. Definitely worth wathcing.
Corpse Bride (2005)
First up I should admit that I'm not a big fan of the spiritual precursor to this film, A Nightmare Before Christmas, which, while unquestionably a beautiful visual accomplishment, left me cold (I was trying to break my personal comma record with that sentence). So I was pleasantly surprised to find Corpse Bride to be much more engaging. Like 'Nightmare', 'Bride' is a stop motion animation film featuring a liberal dose of the macabre. It's about a shy young man who's being married off to a shy young woman, but instead winds up getting married to a corpse and shanghaied into moving to the land of the dead (not Romero's, unfortunately). While visually engaging, it isn't as creative as Nightmare - the designs don't seem as memorable to me. Being a musical animated film, it features a handful of decent songs. What really worked for me was the fact that the characters were likable - granted this is purely subjective, but there you go. It's good (and surprisingly short) and, unless you happen to abhor this sort of film, worth a watch.
Well, I've really managed to ramble on today. Limiting these to one paragraph each is only an effective discipline when the paragraphs aren't obscenely long. At least I'm not as verbose as I used to be though...
Friday, October 20, 2006
Revenge is Sour - George Orwell
Recent violent events and people's reactions to them reminded me of this insightful article by George Orwell.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Snow Crash (by Neal Stephenson)
I really ought to be quicker than this. I finished Snow Crash (by Neal Stephenson, 1992) a couple of weeks ago and meant to write about it, but being the procrastinator that I am, I saved a draft and spent the next two weeks not finishing it off. Which is not to say that I couldn't be bothered because I didn't like the book, which I did. Quite a bit actually.
Snow Crash was Neal Stephenson's breakout novel - it's a cyberpunk sci-fi story set in the near future. In this future, America has changed drastically - both economically and politically. Corporations are omnipresent and powerful and are substitutes for the government, providing privatized policing and defence. There are several sovereign states throughout the country that are 'franchised' in various physical locations, in much the same way fast food outlets are franchised. The equivalent of the Internet is the 'Metaverse', which is a universe that is experienced via VR technology, and in which people interact using graphical avatars and can lead a whole other virtual life.
The heroes of our story are Hiro Protagonist, a 30-something sword wielding hacker and ex pizza delivery guy, and Y.T., a teenage girl who is a 'Kourier' - a type of professional courier that uses a skateboard as their mode of transport. The book follows these two characters as they become embroiled in separate (but possibly connected) adventures. The plot revolves around a mysterious new Metaverse virus called Snow Crash that can somehow afflict people in the real world. At the same time, a real world virus is being distributed by some shady religious franchises that cause people to 'babble' in a strange language. A shady figure named Raven and a powerful communications magnate may be involved.
Snow Crash is a mystery / thriller filled with technology and littered with pop culture references. It delves into hacking, religion, the workings of both a virtual world and a futuristic 'anarcho-capitalist' (who says you don't learn anything from sci-fi?) society, and quite deeply into Sumerian mythology. I felt that the world building and thematic explorations were the book's strong point - the characterization and plotting, while far from bad, don't quite achieve the same standard. Stephenson's writing style is dry and descriptive, which I figure is appropriate for a cyberpunk novel. It is also laced with very effective black humour througout, and the situations the hapless Hiro gets himself into and improbably gets himself out of are hilarious (this is in stark contrast to Y.T, who always seems to have some control over a given situation).
To conclude, I will say that I had a great time reading this, and even though I'm familiar with most of the concepts presented in the book in some form or another, I still found it to be interesting. It might not be the type of book that non geeks will enjoy, but for those whose neural pathways have been forged in geek foundries (whatever the hell that means), it's like manna from heaven.
Snow Crash was Neal Stephenson's breakout novel - it's a cyberpunk sci-fi story set in the near future. In this future, America has changed drastically - both economically and politically. Corporations are omnipresent and powerful and are substitutes for the government, providing privatized policing and defence. There are several sovereign states throughout the country that are 'franchised' in various physical locations, in much the same way fast food outlets are franchised. The equivalent of the Internet is the 'Metaverse', which is a universe that is experienced via VR technology, and in which people interact using graphical avatars and can lead a whole other virtual life.
The heroes of our story are Hiro Protagonist, a 30-something sword wielding hacker and ex pizza delivery guy, and Y.T., a teenage girl who is a 'Kourier' - a type of professional courier that uses a skateboard as their mode of transport. The book follows these two characters as they become embroiled in separate (but possibly connected) adventures. The plot revolves around a mysterious new Metaverse virus called Snow Crash that can somehow afflict people in the real world. At the same time, a real world virus is being distributed by some shady religious franchises that cause people to 'babble' in a strange language. A shady figure named Raven and a powerful communications magnate may be involved.
Snow Crash is a mystery / thriller filled with technology and littered with pop culture references. It delves into hacking, religion, the workings of both a virtual world and a futuristic 'anarcho-capitalist' (who says you don't learn anything from sci-fi?) society, and quite deeply into Sumerian mythology. I felt that the world building and thematic explorations were the book's strong point - the characterization and plotting, while far from bad, don't quite achieve the same standard. Stephenson's writing style is dry and descriptive, which I figure is appropriate for a cyberpunk novel. It is also laced with very effective black humour througout, and the situations the hapless Hiro gets himself into and improbably gets himself out of are hilarious (this is in stark contrast to Y.T, who always seems to have some control over a given situation).
To conclude, I will say that I had a great time reading this, and even though I'm familiar with most of the concepts presented in the book in some form or another, I still found it to be interesting. It might not be the type of book that non geeks will enjoy, but for those whose neural pathways have been forged in geek foundries (whatever the hell that means), it's like manna from heaven.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Moonlighting Season 2
Ah Moonlighting... Watching this show is like hanging out with old friends. How can you not enjoy the merry misadventures of David Addison and Maddie Hayes, the lovable, unqualified detectives who run the Blue Moon Detective Agency and manage to accidentally solve most of their cases? David and Maddie are the dynamic duo who revel in witty barbs, door slamming, and outrageous chase scenes. And let's not forget all that repressed attraction poorly covered up by their outward 'battle of the sexes'.
Season 2 is as irreverent and funny as the first. The plots are self-conciously outrageous, the comic timing and interplay between the two leads is perfect, and the writing has to be among the sharpest to have been transmitted over the airwaves.
Do ducks duck? Do bees bee? Does Spock beam up? I don't know... What I do know is that Moonlighting is one of the best and most unique TV shows I've ever seen, and is a shoo in for the best show of the 80s (despite the weaker later seasons). Explanations can't really do it justice though - it has to be experienced. Needless to say, I'm a fan...
Season 2 is as irreverent and funny as the first. The plots are self-conciously outrageous, the comic timing and interplay between the two leads is perfect, and the writing has to be among the sharpest to have been transmitted over the airwaves.
Do ducks duck? Do bees bee? Does Spock beam up? I don't know... What I do know is that Moonlighting is one of the best and most unique TV shows I've ever seen, and is a shoo in for the best show of the 80s (despite the weaker later seasons). Explanations can't really do it justice though - it has to be experienced. Needless to say, I'm a fan...
Monday, October 16, 2006
Space: Above and Beyond
I watched Space: Above and Beyond over the last few months. It's a sci-fi / military TV show set in the year 2063, and it revolves around a Marine Corps squadron called the "Wildcards" during an interplanetary war with a hostile alien species. Only one season was made before the show was cancelled, which is a shame. While not a tragic cancellation, it wasn't half bad and showed signs of improving.
The show goes for a dark and gritty feel for the most part, and begins with the protagonists joining the military, each for their own reasons. A hostile alien species is encountered at the site of a new earth colony and war breaks out, causing our heroes to be drafted in sooner than anticipated. Throughout the 24 episodes, they become an elite unit called in for critical missions. The episodes consist of arc based and stand alone episodes that touch on various themes and range from large scale stories to more personal ones.
The characters are well rounded - both flawed and heroic and you really get to know them over the course of the show's run, but at some level it's hard to buy them as hardened marines, and their speedy transition into veterans rings false. The universe created has some depth and believability, and mixes elements of politics, military trappings, and corporate scheming together with sci-fi elements like (socially stigmatized) artificially gestated humans, robotic AI beings, and planetary colonization.
Unfortunately, there's a clear lack of focus on what type of show this was intended to be (that, or the suits tried to mix things up because of poor ratings), with the focus shifting jarringly from one aspect to another or one character to another without a strong sense of cohesion. This lack of consistency also results in many things being unclear and lacking context - we are never presented with a broad enough picture of how the war is playing out, for instance, and the political and corporate shenanigans aren't interwoven into the show. Contrast this with the likes of Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica (the new one), which do such a brilliant job of bringing disparate elements together and making the viewer believe that elements introduced into the storylines are always in existence, even when they are not the focus of a given story.
Another annoyance is that while sci-fi elements are incorporated into the show, they are presented in ill conceived ways. Newtonian physics is seemingly ignored, and the sheer vastness of space and the difficulties of space travel are facts that are never addressed and often blatantly contradicted. The AI beings are another example of dubious logic, of which there are several more that I shall not waste time going into.
The acting is a strong point of the show; while the 'tough guy' attitude is occasionally overblown (maybe that's how it really is in the military, but I doubt it), the protagonists come across as real people. There are several wonderfully written and acted character moments, especially in the latter half of the series. The production values are excellent (apparently this was one expensive show), but the old school CGI effects are mostly bland and the space action sequences uninteresting. I have to confess one thing though - the pompous theme music really grew on me!
If it had lasted longer, Space: Above and Beyond may have found its footing, as the last batch of episodes seemed to be more consistent and played to the shows strengths - a war drama in space, with less emphasis on poorly implemented sci-fi elements. As it stands, it's an interesting show that is entertaining and engaging while being frustrating at the same time. Worth watching for dedicated sci-fi fans. I found it to be interesting as a precursor to Battestar Galactica, which has all of its strengths and none of its weaknesses.
The show goes for a dark and gritty feel for the most part, and begins with the protagonists joining the military, each for their own reasons. A hostile alien species is encountered at the site of a new earth colony and war breaks out, causing our heroes to be drafted in sooner than anticipated. Throughout the 24 episodes, they become an elite unit called in for critical missions. The episodes consist of arc based and stand alone episodes that touch on various themes and range from large scale stories to more personal ones.
The characters are well rounded - both flawed and heroic and you really get to know them over the course of the show's run, but at some level it's hard to buy them as hardened marines, and their speedy transition into veterans rings false. The universe created has some depth and believability, and mixes elements of politics, military trappings, and corporate scheming together with sci-fi elements like (socially stigmatized) artificially gestated humans, robotic AI beings, and planetary colonization.
Unfortunately, there's a clear lack of focus on what type of show this was intended to be (that, or the suits tried to mix things up because of poor ratings), with the focus shifting jarringly from one aspect to another or one character to another without a strong sense of cohesion. This lack of consistency also results in many things being unclear and lacking context - we are never presented with a broad enough picture of how the war is playing out, for instance, and the political and corporate shenanigans aren't interwoven into the show. Contrast this with the likes of Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica (the new one), which do such a brilliant job of bringing disparate elements together and making the viewer believe that elements introduced into the storylines are always in existence, even when they are not the focus of a given story.
Another annoyance is that while sci-fi elements are incorporated into the show, they are presented in ill conceived ways. Newtonian physics is seemingly ignored, and the sheer vastness of space and the difficulties of space travel are facts that are never addressed and often blatantly contradicted. The AI beings are another example of dubious logic, of which there are several more that I shall not waste time going into.
The acting is a strong point of the show; while the 'tough guy' attitude is occasionally overblown (maybe that's how it really is in the military, but I doubt it), the protagonists come across as real people. There are several wonderfully written and acted character moments, especially in the latter half of the series. The production values are excellent (apparently this was one expensive show), but the old school CGI effects are mostly bland and the space action sequences uninteresting. I have to confess one thing though - the pompous theme music really grew on me!
If it had lasted longer, Space: Above and Beyond may have found its footing, as the last batch of episodes seemed to be more consistent and played to the shows strengths - a war drama in space, with less emphasis on poorly implemented sci-fi elements. As it stands, it's an interesting show that is entertaining and engaging while being frustrating at the same time. Worth watching for dedicated sci-fi fans. I found it to be interesting as a precursor to Battestar Galactica, which has all of its strengths and none of its weaknesses.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Movie roundup - from the last couple of weeks...
Jurassic Park (1993)
I loved this movie to death when it first came out, and all these years later... I still do! It's gained a few detractors over the years, but they're wrong. Jurassic Park is a classic adventure film - spectacular, tense, littered with bursts of excitement. All these years later the special effects still more than hold their own against the current state of the art, and in many respects are less rough around the edges than todays mass produced CGI. The dinos are the star attraction, but a strong cast makes the humans memorable as well. I still can't figure out where that mysterious cliff in the T-Rex paddock materializes from though...
American Graffiti (1973)
Once upon a time, George Lucas made films with characters, and this is one of them. Taking place during one night in a small town in the 60s, it follows a group of teenagers at crossroads in their lives. Doesn't sound like anything special, but it's got some fine performances and is heartfelt and funny. And there's no trace of bad bluescreen or cheesy CGI cartoon characters anywhere!
The Deer Hunter (1978)
A war film that opts to focus less on battle and more on a small group of men who go off to war and the community they hail from. It examines various relationships and how they change as a result of the participation of three men in the Vietnam War. It's layered and deliberately paced, and builds up to a tragic finale... Fantastic performances from everyone involved - the Russian roulette scenes are unforgettable. I'm not a big fan of war / drama films in general, but there's no arguing the quality of this one...
A History of Violence (2005)
After Sauron's defeat, Aragorn moves to a small American town and starts a family. Jokes aside, Viggo Mortensen is fantastic in this excellent Cronenberg film. After killing (defensively) a couple of sociopathic crooks who try to make trouble in his smalltown diner, Tom Stall becomes a hero. This attracts the attention of a bunch of mafia men who claim that Tom is actually a gangster like them. A lot of violence does indeed take place, some of it quite brutal, but the film is really a character piece about the viral nature of violence and the inherently violent nature of people. Well worth watching...
King of New York (1990)
Christopher Walken is brilliant in the aforementioned "The Deer Hunter", and he's pretty good in this as well... but I'd be hard pressed to recommend it. Walken plays a drug lord who, upon his release from prison, tries to do some good in the city by funding community projects with his drug business, while concurrently eliminating his gangster opponents. A bunch of cops try to bring him down. Featuring a lot of violence and gratuitous nudity and no characters to root for, the film continually stretches plausability and is ultimately underwhelming.
Snakes on a Plane (2006)
Despite all the hype, this didn't turn out to be the hit some people were expecting. The title really does say it all - the film is all about snakes. On a plane. And Samuel L. Jackson is the man who has to deal with them at 30,000 feet. It's ridiculous to be sure, and occasionally seems to take itself more seriously than it should, but it's still a load of fun (especially with a crowd). Not one I'll deliberately watch again, but I can easily see myself catching this playing on TV while channel surfing and watching it through to the end. I'm not sure if that's a recommendation or not - you probably get the idea.
V for Vendetta (2005)
And finally, the one I'd recommend the most out of this bunch. I went in expecting good things, and it didn't disappoint. The trailers made it look like an action film, which is far from the truth - what little action there is actually constitutes the weakest parts of the film. In truth it's very dialogue heavy, and I'd describe it more as a thriller / drama. Set in a dystopian future England where freedoms have been traded away to a fascist government in the name of security, the story revolves around an enigmatic, masked terrorist named V who plans to incite a revolution. A young woman named Evey gets caught up in his activities and is forced to decide if she should get involved in his plot. Some have said the dystopian world is too extreme, and this may be true, but so what? The same could be said of 1984, which is widely hailed as a classic. Regardless of its ideology, the film is exceptionally well made, thought provoking, funny, and entertaining - a rare combination.
I loved this movie to death when it first came out, and all these years later... I still do! It's gained a few detractors over the years, but they're wrong. Jurassic Park is a classic adventure film - spectacular, tense, littered with bursts of excitement. All these years later the special effects still more than hold their own against the current state of the art, and in many respects are less rough around the edges than todays mass produced CGI. The dinos are the star attraction, but a strong cast makes the humans memorable as well. I still can't figure out where that mysterious cliff in the T-Rex paddock materializes from though...
American Graffiti (1973)
Once upon a time, George Lucas made films with characters, and this is one of them. Taking place during one night in a small town in the 60s, it follows a group of teenagers at crossroads in their lives. Doesn't sound like anything special, but it's got some fine performances and is heartfelt and funny. And there's no trace of bad bluescreen or cheesy CGI cartoon characters anywhere!
The Deer Hunter (1978)
A war film that opts to focus less on battle and more on a small group of men who go off to war and the community they hail from. It examines various relationships and how they change as a result of the participation of three men in the Vietnam War. It's layered and deliberately paced, and builds up to a tragic finale... Fantastic performances from everyone involved - the Russian roulette scenes are unforgettable. I'm not a big fan of war / drama films in general, but there's no arguing the quality of this one...
A History of Violence (2005)
After Sauron's defeat, Aragorn moves to a small American town and starts a family. Jokes aside, Viggo Mortensen is fantastic in this excellent Cronenberg film. After killing (defensively) a couple of sociopathic crooks who try to make trouble in his smalltown diner, Tom Stall becomes a hero. This attracts the attention of a bunch of mafia men who claim that Tom is actually a gangster like them. A lot of violence does indeed take place, some of it quite brutal, but the film is really a character piece about the viral nature of violence and the inherently violent nature of people. Well worth watching...
King of New York (1990)
Christopher Walken is brilliant in the aforementioned "The Deer Hunter", and he's pretty good in this as well... but I'd be hard pressed to recommend it. Walken plays a drug lord who, upon his release from prison, tries to do some good in the city by funding community projects with his drug business, while concurrently eliminating his gangster opponents. A bunch of cops try to bring him down. Featuring a lot of violence and gratuitous nudity and no characters to root for, the film continually stretches plausability and is ultimately underwhelming.
Snakes on a Plane (2006)
Despite all the hype, this didn't turn out to be the hit some people were expecting. The title really does say it all - the film is all about snakes. On a plane. And Samuel L. Jackson is the man who has to deal with them at 30,000 feet. It's ridiculous to be sure, and occasionally seems to take itself more seriously than it should, but it's still a load of fun (especially with a crowd). Not one I'll deliberately watch again, but I can easily see myself catching this playing on TV while channel surfing and watching it through to the end. I'm not sure if that's a recommendation or not - you probably get the idea.
V for Vendetta (2005)
And finally, the one I'd recommend the most out of this bunch. I went in expecting good things, and it didn't disappoint. The trailers made it look like an action film, which is far from the truth - what little action there is actually constitutes the weakest parts of the film. In truth it's very dialogue heavy, and I'd describe it more as a thriller / drama. Set in a dystopian future England where freedoms have been traded away to a fascist government in the name of security, the story revolves around an enigmatic, masked terrorist named V who plans to incite a revolution. A young woman named Evey gets caught up in his activities and is forced to decide if she should get involved in his plot. Some have said the dystopian world is too extreme, and this may be true, but so what? The same could be said of 1984, which is widely hailed as a classic. Regardless of its ideology, the film is exceptionally well made, thought provoking, funny, and entertaining - a rare combination.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Catchup
My follow up post to this and this, which would have been written some time ago were it not for my hiatus.
First up, Superman Returns, which I was looking forward to way back in June, just before it came out. Well, it was good but failed to live up to what I expected from a Superman movie. It just wasn't mythic... the whole thing felt too dour, and this tone was at odds with Luthor's campy scheme. The action was spectacular but front loaded, and the ending dragged on for too long after a climax that failed to live up to the airplane rescue from the beginning of the film. Brandon Routh was good as Superman but unconvincing as Clark Kent - on both counts, he didn't surpass Christopher Reeve's iconic portrayal (although that's admittedly an unfair expectation). Lois Lane lacked the tenacity of her 70s/80s incarnation and was mostly bland. Kevin Spacey was perfectly OTT as Lex. Production values, as expected from a $200 million plus film, were of the highest calibre. All in all, good but not great. The best part of the movie? The opening sequence with John William's famous theme, which is without question my favourite movie theme.
Next, His Dark Materials, the first part of which is currently being turned into a movie due for release next year. I already wrote about the first one, and my opinion on the sequels is similar. The worlds Pullman creates and the multi layered story he weaves is always compelling, with a unique mix of subject matter - quantum mechanics and religion wrapped up in multiple parallel universes!
There are some things that irked me though - the writing style is often plain and descriptive, and sometimes too simplistic. I was hoping for a bit more depth as the series progressed, given the relatively serious tone of the book. It's also a bit leaden, and you wish there were more moments of levity (which was the case in the first book, come to think of it). By which I mean, in a really great adventure story, you wish you were there with the characters even when they're going through hell - I can't honestly say that I felt that while reading these books.
Which is not to say I don't recommend them... they're worth reading. They won't take too long to get through (considering that there're three books) and are well paced. Ultimately, the "His Dark Materials" trilogy is good, but I think it would've been better had the same story and characters been wrapped up in a slightly different package (if that makes any sense).
First up, Superman Returns, which I was looking forward to way back in June, just before it came out. Well, it was good but failed to live up to what I expected from a Superman movie. It just wasn't mythic... the whole thing felt too dour, and this tone was at odds with Luthor's campy scheme. The action was spectacular but front loaded, and the ending dragged on for too long after a climax that failed to live up to the airplane rescue from the beginning of the film. Brandon Routh was good as Superman but unconvincing as Clark Kent - on both counts, he didn't surpass Christopher Reeve's iconic portrayal (although that's admittedly an unfair expectation). Lois Lane lacked the tenacity of her 70s/80s incarnation and was mostly bland. Kevin Spacey was perfectly OTT as Lex. Production values, as expected from a $200 million plus film, were of the highest calibre. All in all, good but not great. The best part of the movie? The opening sequence with John William's famous theme, which is without question my favourite movie theme.
Next, His Dark Materials, the first part of which is currently being turned into a movie due for release next year. I already wrote about the first one, and my opinion on the sequels is similar. The worlds Pullman creates and the multi layered story he weaves is always compelling, with a unique mix of subject matter - quantum mechanics and religion wrapped up in multiple parallel universes!
There are some things that irked me though - the writing style is often plain and descriptive, and sometimes too simplistic. I was hoping for a bit more depth as the series progressed, given the relatively serious tone of the book. It's also a bit leaden, and you wish there were more moments of levity (which was the case in the first book, come to think of it). By which I mean, in a really great adventure story, you wish you were there with the characters even when they're going through hell - I can't honestly say that I felt that while reading these books.
Which is not to say I don't recommend them... they're worth reading. They won't take too long to get through (considering that there're three books) and are well paced. Ultimately, the "His Dark Materials" trilogy is good, but I think it would've been better had the same story and characters been wrapped up in a slightly different package (if that makes any sense).
Monday, October 09, 2006
Wired - The Warmth of Human Contact
There's an interesting article on Wired about communication in the tech age. The author makes some valid points.
"...our actual communication skills are eroding. Instant communication encourages superficiality in the way we talk to each other."
I'm not sure if our communication skills are actually getting worse, or if it's simply that we're communicating a lot more with a lot of people, which exposes us to more bad communicators whom we might not have interacted with before the ubiquity of the Internet. I think people who would have communicated well in those days do so even now - they just seem much rarer. The ease with which communication is now possible allows poor or lazy communicators to make themselves heard with little effort, and the end result is a volume of commentary that ranges from the glib to the downright stupid.
On the other hand, ease of communication does encourage everyone to shoot off emails and messages without giving them much thought. This can be a good thing when used appropriately (especially when working on a project of some sort, where I find email 'conversations' to be common and useful), but an over-indulgence in this manner of communication is annoying. One thing that really bugs me personally is the use of shorthand, primarily used for SMS messages but more and more frequently in message board postings and email. If you want to say something, take the time to say it properly dammit!
"it's still the quality of the communication that counts."
And it always will be, one hopes.
"Perversely, a lot of younger people are growing more comfortable with texting than actually speaking to a living person."
I agree with his sentiment that speaking to people face to face is probably the best and most candid form of communication in most cases, especially when it comes to personal exchanges. On the other hand, some people are simply not as comfortable as others when it comes to face to face contact, or are less adept at getting their thoughts across verbally. I think his point about the quality of communication applies in this case as well - if you're going to get something across better by writing it down, then you should write it down. The type of communication being attempted is also relevant - talking shop via email is fine, but apologizing via a text message is coldly impersonal.
I think most would agree that limiting yourself wholly to only one form of communication is probably a bad thing, especially if that form is something as limited as text messaging!
"our increasing dependence upon technology has trivialized the art of living"
The communication issue is just a subset of all the other issues related to the so called 'digital' lifestyle, one that is steeped in multi-tasking. Does having too much on our plates result in a lack of depth in our lives? Even beginning to talk about that is too much for this post! I will say this, however - I now frequently find myself guilty of jumping from one thing to the next without fully committing my attention to any one of them. And I don't like it...
"...our actual communication skills are eroding. Instant communication encourages superficiality in the way we talk to each other."
I'm not sure if our communication skills are actually getting worse, or if it's simply that we're communicating a lot more with a lot of people, which exposes us to more bad communicators whom we might not have interacted with before the ubiquity of the Internet. I think people who would have communicated well in those days do so even now - they just seem much rarer. The ease with which communication is now possible allows poor or lazy communicators to make themselves heard with little effort, and the end result is a volume of commentary that ranges from the glib to the downright stupid.
On the other hand, ease of communication does encourage everyone to shoot off emails and messages without giving them much thought. This can be a good thing when used appropriately (especially when working on a project of some sort, where I find email 'conversations' to be common and useful), but an over-indulgence in this manner of communication is annoying. One thing that really bugs me personally is the use of shorthand, primarily used for SMS messages but more and more frequently in message board postings and email. If you want to say something, take the time to say it properly dammit!
"it's still the quality of the communication that counts."
And it always will be, one hopes.
"Perversely, a lot of younger people are growing more comfortable with texting than actually speaking to a living person."
I agree with his sentiment that speaking to people face to face is probably the best and most candid form of communication in most cases, especially when it comes to personal exchanges. On the other hand, some people are simply not as comfortable as others when it comes to face to face contact, or are less adept at getting their thoughts across verbally. I think his point about the quality of communication applies in this case as well - if you're going to get something across better by writing it down, then you should write it down. The type of communication being attempted is also relevant - talking shop via email is fine, but apologizing via a text message is coldly impersonal.
I think most would agree that limiting yourself wholly to only one form of communication is probably a bad thing, especially if that form is something as limited as text messaging!
"our increasing dependence upon technology has trivialized the art of living"
The communication issue is just a subset of all the other issues related to the so called 'digital' lifestyle, one that is steeped in multi-tasking. Does having too much on our plates result in a lack of depth in our lives? Even beginning to talk about that is too much for this post! I will say this, however - I now frequently find myself guilty of jumping from one thing to the next without fully committing my attention to any one of them. And I don't like it...
Monday, October 02, 2006
Blogicide
Or the habit of terminating blogs. I've seen this happen on several occasions. Someone maintains a blog for a reasonably lengthy period of time... and then the entries start to become less frequent... and then, one day, *poof*, the blog is gone. I've done it myself, and I'm beginning to suspect that it's a fairly common occurrence.
I'm not sure why it happens. Hell, I can't even satisfactorily explain why I killed my own blog. Sure, I grew disinterested in blogging, but that doesn't explain why I terminated the blog. I could have just left it there to gather dust, an archive of my mindless ruminations on the web. I deleted a helluva lot of posts. Perhaps it's because I hate reading over stuff I've written, especially when I look back on it years later. Perhaps I didn't like the idea of having stuff that could be associated with the "real me" left lying around on the web. Not that I was saying anything controversial mind you - just that I'm paranoid and worry about things coming back to bite me in the ass.
As to why other people do it, one can only speculate. Their reasons may be the same as mine. Or they may be reasons that I can't even imagine. Either way, I find it interesting and just a little amusing. It also makes me wonder whether they set up shop someplace else, like I did. Maybe to re-invent themselves, or to break free of the shackles associated with their old blogs.
I decided to go the anonymous route this time around. My first blog was known to people that I knew in real life, and while this seemed like a good idea at first, I grew to dislike it. Somehow, knowing the people who might read (although, admittedly most of them hardly ever checked it out) affected what I wrote, and the way I wrote it. I'm insanely private and keep even my banal thoughts close to my chest, and the whole 'open to the world' thing made me uncomfortable. Ironically, even though I write more freely now than I did before (i.e. without overthinking it), the stuff that ends up written is pretty similar!
There were some readers of my previous blog for whom the above does not apply... I didn't really worry about their perspective on my perspective (or something). I didn't bring them along for the ride though - I thought a nice, clean, anonymous reboot would be better. I regret that decision, and I miss the interaction... but it's too late to go back on it now... it's been too long. To them, I no longer blog. If they have (or ever do) tracked me down somehow and end up reading this, I'd like to let them know that I'm sorry for slinking off in the way I did. If you know me at all, you'll probably understand.
As for this blog, why do I update it? Why do I bother writing? I guess it's because I enjoy doing it and I regret deleting all the stuff I wrote before, no matter how bad it might have been. I write for myself now. I'm no longer concerned about who checks it out, or if people bother to check it out at all, be they friends, strangers, or ewoks. I used to be too caught up in the idea of blogging; I was too self-concious. I was obsessive enough to keep track of people's visits and so on. But not anymore. Now, the blog just is. And I'm much happier about it. The next time I get bored, I'll go into hibernation and pick things up again where I left off, instead of committing blogicide again.
This has been a rambling, unstructured, and somewhat more candid post than usual. I didn't intend to write all this when I started, but I went freeform for a while there. It was kinda fun! I should do it again sometime...
I'm not sure why it happens. Hell, I can't even satisfactorily explain why I killed my own blog. Sure, I grew disinterested in blogging, but that doesn't explain why I terminated the blog. I could have just left it there to gather dust, an archive of my mindless ruminations on the web. I deleted a helluva lot of posts. Perhaps it's because I hate reading over stuff I've written, especially when I look back on it years later. Perhaps I didn't like the idea of having stuff that could be associated with the "real me" left lying around on the web. Not that I was saying anything controversial mind you - just that I'm paranoid and worry about things coming back to bite me in the ass.
As to why other people do it, one can only speculate. Their reasons may be the same as mine. Or they may be reasons that I can't even imagine. Either way, I find it interesting and just a little amusing. It also makes me wonder whether they set up shop someplace else, like I did. Maybe to re-invent themselves, or to break free of the shackles associated with their old blogs.
I decided to go the anonymous route this time around. My first blog was known to people that I knew in real life, and while this seemed like a good idea at first, I grew to dislike it. Somehow, knowing the people who might read (although, admittedly most of them hardly ever checked it out) affected what I wrote, and the way I wrote it. I'm insanely private and keep even my banal thoughts close to my chest, and the whole 'open to the world' thing made me uncomfortable. Ironically, even though I write more freely now than I did before (i.e. without overthinking it), the stuff that ends up written is pretty similar!
There were some readers of my previous blog for whom the above does not apply... I didn't really worry about their perspective on my perspective (or something). I didn't bring them along for the ride though - I thought a nice, clean, anonymous reboot would be better. I regret that decision, and I miss the interaction... but it's too late to go back on it now... it's been too long. To them, I no longer blog. If they have (or ever do) tracked me down somehow and end up reading this, I'd like to let them know that I'm sorry for slinking off in the way I did. If you know me at all, you'll probably understand.
As for this blog, why do I update it? Why do I bother writing? I guess it's because I enjoy doing it and I regret deleting all the stuff I wrote before, no matter how bad it might have been. I write for myself now. I'm no longer concerned about who checks it out, or if people bother to check it out at all, be they friends, strangers, or ewoks. I used to be too caught up in the idea of blogging; I was too self-concious. I was obsessive enough to keep track of people's visits and so on. But not anymore. Now, the blog just is. And I'm much happier about it. The next time I get bored, I'll go into hibernation and pick things up again where I left off, instead of committing blogicide again.
This has been a rambling, unstructured, and somewhat more candid post than usual. I didn't intend to write all this when I started, but I went freeform for a while there. It was kinda fun! I should do it again sometime...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)