Going about town, if I see a young person without a cell phone glued to their head, I wonder if theirs is broken.
What are they all talking about??
Friday, April 20, 2007
A Bit of Fry and Laurie
"I suppose if I'm honest, I have been using my penis as a sort of car substitute." - Stephen Fry.
I warmly recommend A Bit of Fry and Laurie, British comedy show from the early nineties.
It is funny, actually, how clearly one can spot the development of films and TV show over the times. I thought that this show was from the early eighties, and that puzzled me. It was simply too good, too sharp. Too avant garde.
An example of their brilliance is the continuing sketch series about the head of British intellingence, "Control". I'm sure that if you look at the scripts for it, it is silly and not very funny at all. What gives it its unique humor is the way both Hugh Laurie and Stephen Fry plays their roles as if the show was a cheap and poor TV show with very stilted and bad actors. And yet they do it with subtlety. These guys are really good.
Quoth TTL :
"In my case you are preaching to the converted. I am a huge fan, with every episode on DVD.
I have come to the conclusion that this series is the most linguistically sophisticated comedy ever broadcast on TV. In addition to being hilariously funny, the best sketches are quite simply great poetry.
The lovely Emma Thompson gets credit for bringing Fry and Laurie together."
Emma Thompson, lovely? Not half! as the Brits say. (That's an empatic agreement.)
Update: while watching another show, Q.I., in which Stephen Fry hosts, I had the realization that Fry is just frightening intelligent. It's not that he rubs it in anybody's face, but there was just something about the way he speaks that suddenly made it clear to me. He speaks colloqually, but with great clarity and precision, never any muddiness or mistakes. You just get the presence of a big mind.
I do think, though, that in Q.I. at least sometimes he made one too many gay jokes, him being just slightly too much "out". It's not all that funny or interesting, in my taste. As far as I'm concerned he can be into donkeys or watermelons, it's all the same to me.
He starred of course in the excellent film "Wilde". This interview talks about that.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Big Numbers
Big Numbers depicted in pictures.
"Big Numbers" is not the title of this art, it is just a title I gave it, a nostalgic nod to an Alan Moore comic from the early nineties which sadly was aborted. Sad because it promised to be one of the most seminal "comic" books ever made. It was totally ground breaking both visually and story-telling technique wise. Only two of ten issues came out, and it seems no more ever will. I miss it.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Wallpaper
... and in this case, the literal kind.
I like this picture, from Mike Johnston, quite a lot. It has an unusual composition, and it's very... peaceful.
Monday, April 16, 2007
God speaks up in the Onion
"I don't care what faith you are, everybody's been making this same mistake since the dawn of time," God said. "The Muslims massacre the Hindus, the Hindus massacre the Muslims. The Buddhists, everybody massacres the Buddhists. The Jews, don't even get me started on the hardline, right-wing, Meir Kahane-loving Israeli nationalists, man. And the Christians? You people believe in a Messiah who says, 'Turn the other cheek,' but you've been killing everybody you can get your hands on since the Crusades."
Growing increasingly wrathful, God continued: "Can't you people see? What are you, morons? There are a ton of different religious traditions out there, and different cultures worship Me in different ways. But the basic message is always the same: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism... every religious belief system under the sun, they all say you're supposed to love your neighbors, folks! It's not that hard a concept to grasp."
From a September 2001 issue of the satirical mag The Onion. I can't believe I never heard of this one.
Growing increasingly wrathful, God continued: "Can't you people see? What are you, morons? There are a ton of different religious traditions out there, and different cultures worship Me in different ways. But the basic message is always the same: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism... every religious belief system under the sun, they all say you're supposed to love your neighbors, folks! It's not that hard a concept to grasp."
From a September 2001 issue of the satirical mag The Onion. I can't believe I never heard of this one.
Pixar's Cars
"Cars" is the first Pixar movie I did not buy immediately. But finally I got tired of waiting for the rental copy, and I bought it.
The delay was due to the trailer not really doing much for me. Also, I felt that cars is a dubious choice for animated characters. Unlike bugs or toys, they don't have arms or faces, so it's a little forced, methinks.
That said, I'd have to say they pulled it off. Actually, looking at real cars after having seen this movie, I half expect them to move and open their eyes.
"Cars" is not the best or funniest Pixar movie. My faves are Monsters Inc, Toy Story 2, and The Incredibles. But "Cars" was still very worthwhile, I enjoyed it. And it is visually gorgeous. The scenery especially is amazing.
If you get the DVD, be sure not to miss the extras. The two shorts included, for one thing, are falling-over funny.
I also appreciate the basic message of the movie: winning is not everything. The western world is still a bit fixated on Being Number One. And contests can be fun and they can be inspiring, but ultimately they are just games, they are not life.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Hans Christian Andersen
Free download of tales of Hans Christian Andersen.
Powerful Danish writer, and not just for kids anymore.
Powerful Danish writer, and not just for kids anymore.
Means and language
Final Identity has left a new comment on the post "The Millionaire Next Door":
I'm a genius at living below my means. I think extended time as a graduate student is a real boon to anyone who wants to learn to lower their material expectations.
My problem is earning, in the first place. When I say I can live below my means, my "means" are usually below what I should be getting, for someone as talented and bright as myself.
Oh, and about that self-publishing link. The dude says that he is "oblivious" to his own talent as a writer; that he can do it without effort, in the manner that a great discus-thrower would seem effortless to a beginner.
Well, I got news for him. I'm oblivious to his talent as a writer, too. He ain't got none, as far as I can tell.
Self-publishing may allow you to claim, "I'm a published author," or it may even allow you to make a lot of money off your production. But it doesn't mean that your book is any good, even if a jillion people buy it. (I suppose somewhere around a hundred-thousand-google dollars, on the way to half-a-jillion, you start not to care about whether it's any good, as you work out the complicated real estate logistics that will allow you to buy your second Caribbean island, but that's a different issue.)
When I write, I want it to be good. I know that editors at publishing houses, vaguely, in some manner, have a good sense of what "deserves" to be published. I know as well that their desire to publish good literature is mitigated by their need to publish marketable commodities, so it isn't always just a matter of writing well. But at least when the imprimatur is offered by a larger organization than merely myself, a place that has a lot of employees who have some degree of education and expertise in the field, then I start to think maybe I'm doing something well.
Eh, just call me an elitist. I could "self publish" a book of poems tomorrow. That doesn't mean I'm going to be the next Czeslaw Milosz.
Some comments:
I like how F.I. calls himself "talented and bright". I don't understand how some people are offended by others having a high opinion of themselves. Perhaps it is envy because these people don't manage to have a high opinion of themselves, I don't know. I think everybody should have a high opinion of themself. Not an inflated or unrealistic one, but a sound and robust one.
I agree with F.I. that John Reed is not a great writer, prose wise. But, swiftly choosing a standpoint here: so what? He is clearly helping a lot of people with his books, and he is keeping a lot bigger part of the profits than if he had used a separate publisher and distributor (or so he says, and I see no reason to think he is lying or delusional). Is that really less valuable than somebody who is writing the finest prose or poetry known to man, and who is published by some academic press at 500 copies, 23 of which ever get read?
Maybe traditional publishers have a role. But maybe it's smaller than they think. Just yesterday I was on the phone with the talented Gemma Gariel, and she is working with many publishers trying to get several books published, and she is exasperated by the low cultural level of the people she is working with. And when all comes to all, they are just a middle man, whose importance is being undermined by the Internet. If you need an editor, hire one! Probably you can find a better one than whatever 23-year-old a publisher would stick a beginning author with.
I'm a genius at living below my means. I think extended time as a graduate student is a real boon to anyone who wants to learn to lower their material expectations.
My problem is earning, in the first place. When I say I can live below my means, my "means" are usually below what I should be getting, for someone as talented and bright as myself.
Oh, and about that self-publishing link. The dude says that he is "oblivious" to his own talent as a writer; that he can do it without effort, in the manner that a great discus-thrower would seem effortless to a beginner.
Well, I got news for him. I'm oblivious to his talent as a writer, too. He ain't got none, as far as I can tell.
Self-publishing may allow you to claim, "I'm a published author," or it may even allow you to make a lot of money off your production. But it doesn't mean that your book is any good, even if a jillion people buy it. (I suppose somewhere around a hundred-thousand-google dollars, on the way to half-a-jillion, you start not to care about whether it's any good, as you work out the complicated real estate logistics that will allow you to buy your second Caribbean island, but that's a different issue.)
When I write, I want it to be good. I know that editors at publishing houses, vaguely, in some manner, have a good sense of what "deserves" to be published. I know as well that their desire to publish good literature is mitigated by their need to publish marketable commodities, so it isn't always just a matter of writing well. But at least when the imprimatur is offered by a larger organization than merely myself, a place that has a lot of employees who have some degree of education and expertise in the field, then I start to think maybe I'm doing something well.
Eh, just call me an elitist. I could "self publish" a book of poems tomorrow. That doesn't mean I'm going to be the next Czeslaw Milosz.
Some comments:
I like how F.I. calls himself "talented and bright". I don't understand how some people are offended by others having a high opinion of themselves. Perhaps it is envy because these people don't manage to have a high opinion of themselves, I don't know. I think everybody should have a high opinion of themself. Not an inflated or unrealistic one, but a sound and robust one.
I agree with F.I. that John Reed is not a great writer, prose wise. But, swiftly choosing a standpoint here: so what? He is clearly helping a lot of people with his books, and he is keeping a lot bigger part of the profits than if he had used a separate publisher and distributor (or so he says, and I see no reason to think he is lying or delusional). Is that really less valuable than somebody who is writing the finest prose or poetry known to man, and who is published by some academic press at 500 copies, 23 of which ever get read?
Maybe traditional publishers have a role. But maybe it's smaller than they think. Just yesterday I was on the phone with the talented Gemma Gariel, and she is working with many publishers trying to get several books published, and she is exasperated by the low cultural level of the people she is working with. And when all comes to all, they are just a middle man, whose importance is being undermined by the Internet. If you need an editor, hire one! Probably you can find a better one than whatever 23-year-old a publisher would stick a beginning author with.
About Denmark
I just read part of the much circulated article: How The Do It Better. (A disection.)
Something struck me, this sentence: "So how come the Danes are the happiest people in the world? Living in the dark, no less".
I always have to correct people on this. Because Denmark is part of Scandinavia together with Norway, Sweden, and Finland, people think it is a very cold and dark country. But if you just look at a map, you'll see that not only is it no more north than England, but like England it is surrounded by water, and even the warm Gulf Stream, which keeps the country mild in the winter. Hard frost is actually pretty rare in Denmark, and the summers can get very warm, too warm for me. (Oddly, it is a bit cooler here in Lancashire, UK, I don't know why.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)