Welcome to the wild American west that's still outside the law. This show follows a present-day motorcycle club called the Sons of Anarchy as they sell illegal weapons, fight turf wars with rival gangs, and try to stay one step ahead of the law and keep their small California town Charming just the way they like it.
The story driving the show is basically Hamlet. I hope it doesn't mean that everyone ends up dead, although right now the club is up to its ears in problems with the ATF, the Aryan Brotherhood, the IRA, and their own infighting as the balance of power tilts from the club's president to its VP.
Here is Jax (played by Charlie Hunnam), a.k.a. Hamlet, complete with skull so he can talk to his dad.
Is this show realistic? I hope real motorcycle clubs aren't like this. The show's violence is as sadistic as that in Game of Thrones; credibility and retaliation mean everything to these guys. It's almost more appalling because it's modern day and all too relatable. If the show were realistic it would also mean there's a huge underground network of guns, drugs, and sex in the U.S. Sadly, that much is probably true. I watch in fascination ("oh god, he's not going to...oh sh*t! that must hurt") but I have not the smallest desire to experience this world.
Ultimately the show is downright compelling for several reasons. The first is that I find myself rooting for people who are doing bad things and it's fascinating to see how messed up my moral compass gets. The second is that alliances and enemies shift almost every episode, which makes for a bevy of plot twists and dramatic reveals. The third is that the comedic relief is so intense and so incredibly funny. There is no humor in Game of Thrones; everything just always gets worse. The writers in Sons build the tension to a breaking point and when they throw in a gag sequence and you laugh as hard as you can to wash the pain away.
November is going to be a constant struggle between my appetite for reading and my sensible need to complete graduate school applications.
Anyhow, I finished Girl With a Pearl Earring last week and it was beautiful and it was sad and I wonder how many people still paint with crushed bone and also I want to learn Dutch.
I'm almost done with Audrey which means I'll get to start my library books. Possibly tomorrow. As long as I do some apps ugh
Hey ladies!
I'm alive! So, I've started my program again this semester, and so my readings are mostly about families, groups, and grief counseling. Very interesting, but not exactly blog-worthy. This summer, Jon and I worked our way through The Sword of Truth novels by Terry Goodkind. However, we only made our way through 2 of the books BECAUSE- I read them aloud. Since I think y'all have both read these books, I'll save the synopsis, but I will say that, like most long fantasy novels I read, I did NOT like the main character. Seriously, why are the male leads in those books always so annoying? Also, the main female character is super super whiny. Now- here is what I learned about reading long books aloud.
1. I should never attempt to do voices while reading aloud. I'd read the descriptions, like raspy, and give it a try the first couple of times a character was introduced. Each time, Jon went, "Oh no. Stop. That's... no." However, he did take the responsibility of making sound effects....
2. Chapters are longer than you think. Seriously.
3. There are lot of parts of books that I usually skim. Jon insisted that we not skip whole sections(!) so every word was considered! And might I say- I really enjoyed it! A lot of times when I listen to books on tapes, I am amazed by the ways that authors manage to say things so perfectly. Even so, listening to entire paragraphs about how the trees look bores me. However, reading it aloud made all the difference. I wasn't bored because I was focusing on reading it and still amazed at the wordings. I highly recommend doing this.
4. I am horrible with names. Absolutely terrible. To make it worse, usually the main character was Richard, then it would switch to sections where Rachel was the main character. Then Rachel and Richard met. I went nuts. I was switching names all the time. I always knew who I was talking about, but it seemed like every page at least, Jon would stop me and ask, "Wait- who?" And I'd re-read it and laugh. It made for some very interesting scenarios.
SO- I highly recommend reading books aloud. I'd do it again in a heartbeat. It also provides a fun and relaxing way to end the day! And I recommend the first two books of the Sword of Truth novels! They are a fun read.
or, Tony Judt's Wordcraft is Trumped Only, Perhaps, by That of Stephen Fry.
I received this book for free some years ago from an erudite source whose taste I am slowly learning to trust (I did like his Geography of Thought, and expect to struggle with the Dirac book he indirectly lent me for eternity but no doubt I will enjoy it too). My love of The Memory Chalet surprised me as it was a gentle slope of increased affection; I hardly noticed I couldn't put the book down until it was the middle of a new Supernatural episode and I realized I was muting the commercials to inhale another couple of paragraphs. (This is unheard-of.)
I think I found it more precious for the complete lack of knowledge I had about it before I opened it to the first page and began to read. I had assumed it to be a novella, something Woolf-ish or modern, contemplative; but it's nonfiction. Judt took me on a tour of his life with an expertise I have experienced (in The Color of Water) but have not come to expect of memoirs, especially those of stuffy English scholars.
I hesitate to say any more. I highly recommend the book, and also that you read nothing about it or its author before starting, and let him tell you his life without outside influence. (I wonder if I've said too much as it is.)
This summer Christina and I read The Brothers Karamazov in order to watch the 1958 film adaptation. We're going to discuss it here - there are spoilers aplenty but were you honestly going to read it anyway? You should just read our concise and interesting analysis!
Father Fyodor, Brothers Dmitri, Alyosha, and Ivan
Scratch paper proves Dostoevsky put some thought into this
A: I vacillate between loving this book and hating it. I adore all three of the brothers but the bad choices that everyone made and the trial outcome drive me nuts. Not to mention Ivan going crazy; that made me so sad. I bet reading books like this is what made Ayn Rand create Objectivism. How did you feel about it? Do you think the lessons in this book are applicable to modern life?
C: The book was sad. It was well written up until the resolution; the narrator is sassy and self-deprecating and felt as real a character to me as anyone else in the story. The movie became a fanart of the original, which was a good move, because we needed to see justice done and the brothers happy. I would've liked Katya and Ivan to get on, and of course we can daydream about them all getting along happily in the American West, but for what little the movie did it went a long way to curing my dissatisfaction with the book. I wonder what Dostoevsky was thinking, leaving us hanging with Dmitri's fate like that. He kept such good track of the story up until that point! I did not adore the brothers in the book. I think the only character I grew to love was Grushenka. She was hateful at first of course, and she was the cause of the entire mess (except for Smerdyakov), but she was bitter and cynical and became loving and willing to bind her life to a drowning man's... I could never do that, but I admire her for it, and her transformation gives me hope for myself. Plus, look at her! Who can't love that face?
A: We're not just going to dream about their new life; we're going to write it. American Moors II, after we finish rewriting Jane Eyre! How could you not love sweet Alyosha who tied all the pieces together and was a good listener and believed in his brother no matter what, and who led the boys around Illyusha's bedside and helped them through such sad times? And Dmitri, who is never able to get a handle on money and who loves well but not wisely? (Thanks Shakespeare!) I may also love him because he and I are both fans of Last of the Mohicans. Awesome that Dostoevsky references that right?
I suppose my love of Ivan is a little more radical. I thought the Grand Inquisitor poem was smashing - I believe humans too often want to follow things greater than them and do what they are told to do, and don't want to choose freely. And his ideas about how Jesus would fare in the Inquisition - amazing! I'd never thought about it before. Ivan's thoughts made him one of my favorite characters early on -- like during the part of the book where Dmitri is doing some psycho-stalking that makes me dislike him.
Exhibit A: hiding in bushes
The point is - Ivan was so smart and so troubled, and I wanted to comfort him. The murder was not his fault; he'd have to stop it every time and Smerdyakov would only have to succeed once. I thought Dostoevsky was taking the trial in a direction where Ivan--the smart one voicing many of Dostoevsky's own ideas--would figure out how to solve everything and exonerate Dmitri. Instead Dostoevsky makes Ivan descend into madness. Why why WHY?
I loved Grushenka too! I want to watch Maria Schell in other things - she was excellent in the movie. But Katya, she was terrible! I thought she was worse than Anna Karenina - did you?
C: It's cruel of me to say it, but Alyosha's the kind of person I can't understand or relate to at all. He's very compassionate, which is great, but the amount of faith the guy has is a total turn-off. I don't mean sexually, I mean in any respect. He's not real. Reality does not allow people like that to prevail. Unfortunately that archetype -- the one who allows God to guide his every thought and action, and who therefore comes to no harm -- is rather common in classic lit. It just annoys the hell out of me. Where are my saintly scientists?? Ivan I thought at first might be my man, but he turns to God in the end, and he always believed he was seeing the Devil, which sucks and isn't his fault but precludes him from being the hero I'm looking for. And for Dmitri, God is a nonentity. He spends no time wondering about Him, or asking the big questions -- he thinks with his heart and his libido. So again, kind of a turn-off. To answer your question about Dostoevsky's motives toward Ivan's character: I think Ivan's transformation from cold atheist to believer could be something Dostoevsky himself experienced. The madness thing might be explained by his motive to write this story at all, which I think was not to describe morals or do any of the things you look for in stories. I think he started with a question: "Can the legal system logically make the wrong choice?/Is there a situation in which all the evidence points towards guilt when the man is truly innocent?" And he demonstrates that it can. Which might be an argument against man's justice system in favor of God's?
"Did y'all f*** it up again? Don't make me come down there."
A: Classic literature is usually written by people aiming to preach morals of some sort, so yeah, characters with unshakeable belief in God are rather common. But I know people like that in real life too, in the 21st century no less. I don't see much in common between my life and the lives of the characters so I can't say I relate to them either, but I definitely sympathize with them since they're all caught in unfair situations and I want them to be happy. If I knew Dmitri, Ivan, and Alyosha in real life I daresay I would like them as they are.
But though I liked the three leads I can't say I liked the plot. Parricide isn't new. Botched court cases aren't new. (Perhaps they were new when this was written.) There was no satisfying triumph, and I hate stories whose specific point is to tell you that things are bad without offering suggestions for how to fix them. Plus this story hinged on some disappointing turns of events, i.e., Katya betraying Dmitri (plausible, yes, but appropriate for what is supposedly one of the greatest books of all time?) and Ivan going crazy.
That's one reason I liked the movie, it smoothed over all those rough edges while making the characters even more interesting.
If you couldn't relate to the main characters and they weren't the heroes you were looking for. What made you love it so much?
You'd be amazed how much fanart is out there about this book. This is a surprisingly accurate summary! From left to right: Grushenka, Fyodor, Dmitri, Katya, Ivan, Smerdyakov, Alyosha, Krasotkin, Zhuchka. ((C)spoonybards)
C: The greatest books of all time don't have to show us at our best; many of them are classics because they are the firsts to tell it like it is. Classic lit is just historical real talk. I appreciate stories that tell it like it is, even if the characters aren't heroes and the resolution sucks. They give me a sense of history in a fun way, unlike what reading news articles or essays from the time would do. I think the "greats" become such by virtue of their generally perceived accuracy. Lots of people read them at the time or soon after because they could see the connections to their own lives. I'm not a small-town Russian in 1870, nor am I trapped in a marriage I am dissatisfied with, nor do I have two lovers, nor do I enjoy debauchery... My life is just so different from these books that it's tough to connect on anything other than a scholarly level.
A: Interesting. Many classics are valued for their ability to capture an era for sure, but I tend to think of the best classics as the ones that transcend the time period and speak to some human element that most can relate to no matter where we are or when we read it. That's why I got bored during the discussions about peasant revolutions and whether or not the Russian church should embrace elders, but I loved the dynamics between the brothers. It's also why I was disappointed that nothing really seemed applicable to life now. Or perhaps I'm just not in the mood to receive the message that we should keep faith in the face of injustice and the absence of miracles.
27-year-old William Shatner could sell me on it though, especially with that firm jawline.
Books I've read since finishing GEB: Leonardo: The First Scientist
Marathon: The Ultimate Training Guide
The Brothers Karamazov
The Color of Water
Interworld
The Ocean at the End of the Lane
Norwegian Wood
The Lake, the River, and the Other Lake
The Last Runaway
Anthem: An American Road Story
Turn Right at Machu Picchu
Flatland
Musicophilia
I'll talk to anyone about any of them, but summarizing even the best ones would be a struggle. I would recommend all except Interworld (unless you like YA sci-fi) and The Lake, the River, and the Other Lake (unless you like very real depictions of small-town Michigan) (there is a dark underbelly to this book) (like I really didn't want to read about pervy old men, thanks).
The best ones were: The Color of Water, The Ocean at the End of the Lane, Anthem, and Musicophilia.
The introduction to the book, by the author, misleads the reader into thinking the book is going to cover a diverse number of topics that don't have much to do with each other. The author himself claims that he is not really sure if there even is a central idea to the book. This isn't to say that the topics weren't diverse (they were) or that he wouldn't at times ramble confusingly (he did), but the connections he draws and the picture he paints of HOW WE THINK (obvious main idea by end) are brilliant AND easy to comprehend by people who don't have backgrounds in mathematics. Though really: everyone's got a background in mathematics. Math describes everything. (That was sort of a corollary to the main idea.)
I liked the book so much (and thus pursued its complete read-through) probably because the ideas were in line with what I already believed about the world. Of course I recommend it -- because I think others should be gently exposed to the idea that we are, on some levels, automatons with "no" free will, and this book accomplishes this with finesse.
And Hofstadter is a good teacher. He's a little corny, and his puns can be horrible. But he doesn't draw attention to much of the wordplay he puts in the book -- he tosses it in like spice, and the reader is rewarded for being awake and paying attention but doesn't lose much if they zone out every once in a while. I predict that if I reread it right now I would find much I missed the first time around. (Haha, but I'm not going to do that. If I ever attempt to read it cover-to-cover again, it'll be at least a decade before that happens.) He clearly cares that his ideas are clear. This is a picture book: there are 152 figures, and an uncounted number of diagrams, throughout the 742 pages. It's not an easy read, but it's not insurmountable by high-school graduates. Or even high-school students. Gosh, wouldn't it be great if this were required reading??? Yes.
Reading Game of Thrones books has now consumed at least sixty hours of my life so I better have come up with some good lessons right? Here are all three of them:
I guess this is lesson number four!
1. If you punish someone, have the guts to carry out the punishment yourself.
2. If you have a dungeon, make it underground with no light or sound, or high in the air with only three walls and a downward-sloping floor.
3. Everyone wants something; destroying people is only a matter of finding out what they want.
That's about it. The most important lesson George R. R. R. R. Martin teaches us is this: If you make a decision based on anything other than the most rational way to achieve your stated goal, you will lose. By lose I mean die. If your victory isn't worth sacrificing your love and honor to cold calculation, why are you fighting for it?
Twisted, I know.
The most ridiculous thing I hear about Game of Thrones is that it's a great treatise on political intrigue. Next time you hear this, correct your friends with these simple facts:
Westeros is a feudal society; the modern world is not. The peasants and farmers and knights swear fealty to the lords, and the lords swear fealty to the king. That type of sovereign system doesn't exist anywhere today. In the books there is no parliament, system of checks and balances, electoral process, or anything else that is a hallmark of modern government. Even most authoritarian regimes look more like democracies than they look like Westeros.
Wars of succession do not typify modern politics. Total war with multiple factions trying to obtain power is now the exception rather than the rule in modern politics. Unless you are trying to claim that Mexican drug wars and Somalian civil war represent typical contemporary politics, don't pretend that you are learning about modern politics by reading this series.
The common denominator between the politicians in the Song of Ice and Fire series and modern politicians is that both groups covet power. But since the types of intrigue used to obtain power have changed completely since the 1100s, and life and death are now rarely on the line, there is no merit in comparing fact to fiction.
So if you're reading the books, just follow my lead and admit that you got sucked in by what happens to each of the individual characters as their tale unfolds. This is basically Ye Olde Dayes of O'ur Lyves and I can't wait for my story to come on.
Post Script: If you like the show or the books, I think you'll like this too. But there be spoilers!
I think I have a solution. So I looked it up -- I began at Nado's helpful site and... what was there didn't match my formula. And it is complicated because it has to separately define 4 terms... I guess it's legit but I'm dumb and want things to be elegant even when they're not. So I also googled the problem and found another solution.
I had thought my issue was that I needed a formula that I could use to build the flip-tree, so I ignored that mental rule and just wrote a formula that described the tree but which cannot be used to build it. Which I guess is cheating. But oh well! I think I could have eventually reached this other formula online had I stayed calm following my breakthrough, reinstated my rule, and tried again, which makes me happy. The best thing about the effort I put into this is that I learned how to go about solving these sorts of problems.
If you're interested, I'll leave my solution and the other solutions in the comments.
Finished his last song and shot himself in the head.
One final statement against societal injustice.
It's time for the Oscars baby! I'm sure every picture up for Best Documentary is absolutely smashing but you owe it to yourself to take 80 minutes and watch Searching for Sugar Man, the true story of Detroit's recalled-to-life folk hero Sixto Rodriguez, better known as Sugar Man.
Rodriguez recorded two albums in the early seventies that flamed out quicker than abandoned Detroit buildings on Devil's night. They were failures everywhere except, as it turns out, for a little while in Australia and apparently in South Africa. There he was nicknamed Sugar Man (the title of the first track on his debut album) and his music became part of the rallying cry to end Apartheid. It was said that even Steve Biko was a fan of Sugar Man.
Student leader and anti-Apartheid activist in South Africa, killed in police custody
No one knew the first thing about Sugar Man, except he committed suicide onstage and wrote marvelously philosphical, electric trippy lyrics like
Cause I lost my job two weeks before Christmas And I talked to Jesus at the sewer And the Pope said it was none of his God-damned business While the rain drank champagne
My Estonian Archangel came and got me wasted Cause the sweetest kiss I ever got is the one I've never tasted Oh but they'll take their bonus pay to Molly McDonald, Neon ladies, beauty is that which obeys, is bought or borrowed
Those are complex, man. Eventually two amateur music sleuths decided to find out the truth once and for all about what happened to Sugar Man. This is the story of their detective work.
Wanted: Cute, mysterious musician with righteous indignance
Curiosity peaked, I downloaded Rodriguez's two original albums and am impressed.
His lyrics are psychedelic but almost always meaningful, and he skillfully produced many styles of music. Listen to "I
Wonder" for a catchy bass line, "Only Good for Conversation" for Jimi
Hendrix-style guitar wailing, and "Silver Words?" for a humble and
charming love song.
Okay STAHP HERE IF YOU DON'T WANNA NO SPOILAS
I said STOP in the NAME of LOVE
STOP DOES NOT MEAN TRY HARDER STOP PROCEED ONLY IF YOU WANT SPOILERS STOP YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED STOP
.............WHOA, heh, he's not dead after all.
He's in Detroit. Doing construction work.
Never saw a penny of South African record sales.
Has no idea his songs helped end Apartheid.
omfg SERIOUSLY??? Get the guy onstage!!!!
And that is just what those South African music sleuths did. They flew Rodriguez to Johannesburg for a series of sold-out concerts and this sweet sixty-something musician got to bond with fans who grew up on his songs. It must have been like finding out John Lennon is alive and well and that he'll be performing in your town this summer.
<----- Happy Sixto
This was in like 1998. Rodriguez continues to be alive and well and is touring all over the world. He gives most of his proceeds back to his community in Detroit. Watch this movie if you want proof that fairy tales exist in real life.
So I haven't moved forward in GEB for, like, two weeks or something ridiculous like that. Because I'm stuck on this one part. Hofstadter's cool because he sprinkles the text with try-it-yourselfs, and until this one on page 137 I've been successfully completing all of them. And I'm not going to be defeated now.
Here's the problem:
There's a recursive tree of whole numbers which can be represented by a function G(n). The number tree looks like this:
following the basic pattern (remember, it's recursive) which looks like this:
where (b) is the second iteration of the tree. (You put a G-tree at every place where it says G on the tree you currently have to get subsequent iterations.) Bored yet? But wait! There's an equation, G(n), to go with all this!
G(n) = n - G(G(n-1)) for n>0
G(0) = 0
If you input a number from a node on the tree as n in the equation, you get its immediate predecessor for G(n). So G(9)=6, etc. And this describes the G-tree.
Here's the dumbhateful tricky part:
Draw the numbered tree the same way, but number the nodes from right to left instead of from left to right.
Now find the function G'(n) (which describes the new "flip-tree").
I've been reading Scientific American articles for years -- Savannah can tell you if you don't believe me. I carried them (rather pretentiously, yes, I know) around in my backpack in middle and high school, and I really was reading the articles... but yeah, of course, it was also kind of my thing, the nerd thing that I got a rep for, and I liked that. I talked about being a quantum physicist when I was eleven. I was that kid. (Though I think I did understand to a degree what I was talking about.) (More or less.) (More than the kids who picked on me for it, anyway. Hah.)
In college I dropped it for a while but picked up the habit again after my parents purchased me a subscription (all my own!) for Christmas one year. I try to read them cover to cover, and in my pagecounting book list I estimate I read about 70 or so pages per issue. I highly recommend them for light reading -- seriously! Because they're not issues of Science or Nature, or any other genuine peer-reviewed journals. They're science for laypeople.
The information is mostly accurate but should be taken with a grain of salt. SciAm's popularity resides in its ability to stimulate creativity. It's daydream fodder. It's sci-fi, with just enough of reality to be worth talking about at the water cooler of an office building. It's meant to educate the American people! Lift our standards of general knowledge! It's supposed to change our culture and make us all more critical and analytical about everything in our lives, and also allow us to live a little, vicariously through the scientists who are doing these neat experiments.
But it's not entirely factual, as I mentioned. If you read it, don't tell your friends about what you read as though it's all true. This magazine doesn't give you the numbers, or the statistical analyses, or accurate predictions about how and when the results of these experiments are going to change our lives. It's just fun.
And everyone should read at least one article a year.
Here is a list I will continue to update of movies I am greatly looking forward to watching. Rogue Trader (1999) The true story of the investment broker who singlehandedly bankrupted one of the most prestigious trading firms in the United Kingdom. Co-written by Nick Leeson (the guy who did it), and played by Ewan McGregor from the same time period as Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Part of me wishes I had movies on this list that were here because they're great works of human achievement. The other 99% of me just wonders what McGregor is going to look like talking mortgage-backed securities with his shirtsleeves rolled up.
Also this trailer looks like it was filmed in the 70s.
The Brothers Karamazov (1958) Fans of Russian literature, Yul Brynner, and William Shatner, rejoice! A drop-dead adorable pre-Star Trek William Shatner plays Alyosha Karamazov, a would-be monk who spends most of his time putting out fires in his community - most of which are caused by his irascible father Fyodor and hotheaded brother Dmitri (Yul Brynner). Will I ever see this movie? Depends on whether or not I can finish the book first!
Update: this movie is amazing. It grasps all the important concepts and plot points of Fyodor Dostoevsky's novel, squishes it into 2 hours 20 minutes, and, astonishingly, leaves you blanketed with warm fuzzies the way Captain Kirk gets avalanched with tribbles. Yul Brynner's performance is outstanding. I had no idea what to expect but his portrayal of Dmitri can be summed up by that quote about how nothing is so strong as gentleness, and nothing is so gentle as real strength. And smoldering good looks.
Treasure Island (2012) The book of the same name is the quintessential adventure story, tied for first with The Three Musketeers. And I love Eddie Izzard on principle because he ran 43 marathons in 51 days with only five weeks of training. He is my foremost living inspiration for lacing up the trainers and hitting the streets. This movie is bound to be enjoyable even if not a top ten favorite.
Allow me to add that my second greatest living inspiration to run is a nemesis of personal acquaintance. 2. The Three Musketeers (2011) Lo and behold, it must seem like I only care about tales of adventure! I do love The Three Musketeers more than almost any other adventure story, but I want to watch this film for the actors, not the plot. If you want to see a 3M movie that sticks well to the story and perfectly conveys the camaraderie and jollity of Dumas' famous tale, watch the 1973 version with Oliver Reed, Richard Chamberlain, Frank Finlay, and Michael York as Athos, Aramis, Porthos, and the puppy-lovable D'Artagnan respectively. Go watch and fall in love!
I've heard the 2011 version is nothing like the books (lame. why do you want to add flying ships and 10,000 tons of gunpoweder? to ruin a perfectly good story). But who can resist Matthew Macfadyen playing brilliant, wry Athos? Like Darcy went rogue. And oh look, Ray Stevenson is here to play Porthos, it's like getting a second helping of our much beloved Titus Pullo from HBO's Rome FOR FREE. And Percy Jackson--well, Logan Lerman, whatever--is playing D'Artagnan! If this movie captures the esprit de corps of the novels and gives us anything remotely following the books I'll be happy, because adaptations of famous books usually get people to go read the books, and that is always a good thing.
For example, did you know you can buy copies of Romeo and Juliet and Wuthering Heights (and maybe Pride and Prejudice) in Twilight motif? It just goes to prove that saying about how bad things come with silver linings.
3. Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (1997)
I was in high school when I read this book so I don't remember it much except being enchanted with the descriptions of life in the deep, sleepy American south. I'm betting this movie can bring it to life. I've enjoyed disliking Kevin Spacey in every movie I've seen him in (except in Beyond the Sea; that was such an about-face that I feel obligated to mention it because I was flabbergasted I could actually like the man). John Cusack will forever have my heart for voicing Dmitri in Fox's Anastasia (which premiered the same year this movie did, incidentally). And I am very interested to see Jude Law playing a presumably smoking hot young rapscallion. Bring on the peach cobbler and sweet tea!
Update: it starts to drag in the middle during a long-winded trial, but not to be missed. Jude Law was compelling but it turns out the star of the show is Lady Chablis, a cross-dressing actress who stars as herself in both the book and the movie and who outshines everyone in a ten-mile radius.
My mom and I needed a series to watch over winter break that was a.) good and b.) short.
Enter Rome, HBO's 22-episode miniseries.
You will probably not like this show if you display any of the following characteristics:
(1.) aversion to nudity or hedonistic sex scenes,
(2.) dislike of gut-wrenching disgusting violence,
(3.) little knowledge of Roman history,
(4.) significant knowledge of Roman history, and you want it portrayed accurately.
Praemonitus praemunitus, forewarned is forearmed! Let us therefore commence.
I found this show enjoyable despite its historical inaccuracy, and stressful despite its enjoyablity! The series revolves primarily around two groups of people. The first group consists of two centurions: the severe and traditional Lucius Vorenus (played by Kevin McKidd), and carefree sell-sword Titus Pullo (Ray Stevenson). Vorenus is head honcho in his legion but he and foot soldier Pullo find themselves in so many scrapes together that they eventually become best friends. They are frequently present at great moments in Roman history, which in this show span from Julius Caesar's conquest of Gaul to Octavian's ascension as emperor of Rome.
Pullo (left), and Vorenus (right) are "Rome's enduring couple (Chicago Tribune)"
mulier est hominis confusio:
woman is man's ruin
The other main characters are Atia of the Julii (AT-ee-uh of the JOO-lee-eye, say it right!), her daughter Octavia, and her son Octavian, that guy who _SPOILERS IF YOU DON'T KNOW HISTORY_ becomes the first emperor of Rome. Octavia is sweet and easily manipulated. Octavian is level-headed and ambitious. Atia is the world class scheming lascivious spitfire provacatrix bitch siren who lies delightedly naked at the heart of the show. She is the ingenious plot device that ties all the worlds together. We know _SPOILERS IF YOU LIVE UNDER A ROCK_ the cold, hard facts like Brutus stabs Caesar and Antony marries Cleopatra, but we'll never know why exactly they did it. In HBO's retelling of the story, Atia's plots and fallout therefrom are usually at the bottom of every major turn of events.
I thought this was awesome. Here is a historical figure we know little about who traveled in all of the circles necessary to influence the events of the era, and HBO created a character so interesting--that is to say, vivacious, spiteful, passionate, ambitious for her family, and a touch mad--that you enjoy the show's pitch for how these famous events are all tied together. History tells us what happens; this story tells us why it all happened. It fills in those gaps of knowledge that will perpetually haunt all lovers of history.
Of course it's not really true. Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo both existed and fought in the same legion under Caesar in the Gallic wars. They competed to become first spear and they share a funny incident on the battlefield, but that is all that is known of them. In real life Tacitus described Atia Balba Caesonia as a woman around which "no base word could be uttered without grave offence, and no wrong deed done," unimpeachable morals and the ideal Roman matron, etc. etc. The skeptic in me considers this to be propaganda about the mother of Emperor Numero Uno, but my rule of thumb for classics, and LESSON TWO for you guys, is Never Trust HBO Or Roman Historians On Anything. What should you do when you can't trust either source? Enjoy the stories!!
So, there is a lot of cuddle time - - Even John Adams has sex scenes in it (I read the book, I can promise you they didn't get it from there), and thus you can't really blame them for going overboard in a show like Rome. (Reason # 57 that you should love The Newsroom is because there's no sex and you're still completely captivated every single episode. Expect reviews--from me for sure, and perhaps from Christina--when season 2 gets here.) What really bothered me about this show was the violence. I'm certain that everything in the show and worse was done in real life in Rome and elsewhere on a regular basis. This isn't The Hunger Games where violence is stylized and minimized and fictional. This is real life, where gladiators were forced to say "Hail Caesar, we who are about to die salute you" before every match and where the kind of torture that serial killers perpetrate now that gives me nightmares was standard operating procedure for both entertainment and criminal justice.
What sicks me out is that people watch that stuff and enjoy it. This is probably a controversial theory, but I think watching violence like that sort of prevents people from getting bored and trying it on their own. So I'm happy we've progressed from personally attending death matches to play-acting it on tv. But I'm still freaked out that people enjoy those parts. This was the goriest show I have ever seen. I felt guilty for watching it.
Wait til you meet the kid; he's a trip.
And it's stressful because you fall in love with Vorenus and Pullo by the end of the first episode and spend the all foreseeable waking hours fretting about their safety. At first you're worried they'll die in battle and you just want them to get decommissioned so they can go home. Then you find out they are ill-suited to domestic life and get in so much trouble you actually sigh with relief when they go back in uniform. Then they get caught in one of the most famous Roman shipwreck disasters in history and take up with brigands. etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum (ha hahaha ah ha, the word nausea comes from the Roman word for seasickness because they hated water battles). If you watch this show, you will be stressing for them the whole time because that's how much you love them.
Rome was filmed on what is currently the largest outdoor set in the world.
If you don't know much Roman history, you'll have a hard time realizing the significance of some of the plot twists, and you won't know what's true and what's false. If you know a lot about Roman history, you may gnash your teeth and tear your hair in proper ancient soothsayer style if you're a stickler for accuracy. But you'll be enchanted if you don't worry about what's true and false and just get lost in the story. The characters are compelling. You get a feel for the grit and toil of plebe life as well as the luxury of the patrician life, enviable by today's standards. And there is much humor and poignancy in every episode. I shall leave you with a perfect little spoiler-free video from early in the series that nicely introduces Vorenus, Pullo, Atia, and Octavian. I hope you have enjoyed this essay on Rome!
So, for the readers who don’t know, I can be a bit of a
hermit. However, tonight, I changed up my routine – which is basically that I
come home, do whatever work needs to happen, and watch tv until I fall asleep.
But tonight, a friend of mine and I decided to try to get rush tickets to see
The Lion King Live! We got there at 5 for an 8 o’clock show, and stood in a
line of students. At 6, we started getting tickets—but here’s the catch- the
tickets were half off! What a deal! So we got fantastic seats in the second
balcony—but on a wing!
See? I was behind the camera. Right on the edge! BRILLIANT.
Y’all.
This
show.
I
can’t even.
OH
MY GOSH IT WAS SO GOOD ALL I WANT TO DO FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE IS WATCH IT
OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN! I LAUGHED, I CRIED (not that big of a shock). I.
Loved. It.
So
first of all, it starts out with these people in giant freaking animal
costumes. GIANT ANIMAL PEOPLE ( like so- Giant. Animal. People.). … Who sing! And dance! And then there were kids
playing simba and nala as cubs. But guys. The art. The dances. The SET! I can’t
even begin to rave on the set, but I’ll try. It was beautiful and so
brilliantly done. There was literally an elephant skeleton on stage. (or so it
looked like).
My
heart is so full from this performance. It pulled me out of a funk I’ve been in
for a few days now. During the song, “He Lives In You” (both the first, and the
reprise) I got goosebumps and just let the tears flow. It was beautiful. If you
ever get the chance to see The Lion King Live! Take it. I will say, as much as
I love the songs, I wouldn’t put the
music as my favorite for all the musical’s I’ve seen. It was interesting
and fun and lovely, but not my favorite. But the art, the set, the costumes,
the way they make these animals come to life on a stage--- it’s fabulous.
Here's a little exposition on how we chose our blog title. We belong to the few on this earth who have the luxury of time to read, and the even fewer who love to do it and get a thrill from giving oneself up to the instructions and explanations of the author. We're the kind of girls who devote whole days of vacation time to reading. We love books that challenge us, characters that inspire us, and plot twists that confound us. We don't have time to whine about life because we're too busy adventuring in our minds and if your party is boring, don't be offended if we're making the most of our time by diving into Pillars of the Earth or The Silmarillion.
We have wanderlust. Bad. No day's too short for a drive, no night is too long to enjoy every minute of open road, putting the car through her paces and checking in on America. How else to get acquainted with this great nation? The stars are our companions--we follow their path across the night sky as they watch us progress across the land. We live off sunsets and sunrises, highway songs and friendships that strengthen with every hour passed in companionable silence. You know you are trusted by a person who sleeps at your side while you motor forward at 75 miles an hour. When we need sustenance we strive to locate all-night diners because we have a stake in what becomes of American traveling culture and we'll be damned if chain restaurants replace local dives.
Books and road running - this is how we spend our free time. We occupy all worlds--imaginary and real--to the fullest extent of our ability. Bis vivit qui bene vivit -- she lives twice who lives well. See you on the interstate.
Gosh, I haven't gotten a high like that from a fantasy book in a long freaking time. Two thumbs up and my mom wants to read it so Sav, you're not getting it back for a while. Sorry?
I've also picked up the January and February issues of Scientific American and am working through those now. I have a very strong urge to pick up the only other Dresden Files book I have lying around and race through it. But science first, right?
... right.
Ugh. Why torture myself? Maybe I can reward myself with stories from Side Jobs as I get through the articles.
(Who am I kidding? I'm really just stalling before I dive back into GEB. Pathetic.)
Anyhow, since this is a place for movies and TV as well as books, "COMMUNITY" IS WONDERFUL. It's like they took a very PBS theme (that cooperation and being together with friends is preferable to doing everything alone) and put it into a college show with quite a bit of adult humor. And somehow it works??? Also the bloopers are really really really really funny. I think this year's season (fourth) is the last and I'm not happy about it.
This week I finished 1812: A Novel. I doubt there will be a better set of years in my lifetime than 2012 - 2015 to read War-of-1812 books, because it's the 200th anniversary of all the battles of the war. Reading historical fiction about the events makes going to the reenactments twice as fun.
I am sure by now I have lost everyone due to the perceived dullness of the subject, so I am at liberty to say as much as I want! Ye courageous and interested souls who stand by will no doubt delight in my exposition.
The novel follows two important couples through the course of the war. First there comes hot-headed Andrew Jackson and his loving wife Rachel. Then comes wise James Madison and his beautiful, vivacious wife Dolley. Do you know what these people did throughout the war? Did you know, for example, that Jackson turned his own cannons on his mutinous troops and stared them down in front of lit fuses until the threat of desertion faded? Did you know Madison had to defeat a New England secessionist movement while trying to raise support for the war? I had no idea the war of 1812 was so interesting or important, and I was pleased to learn all this information and more in delightful fashion.
Nevin modernizes the dialogue to speed it up and make these historical legends come to life. Characters seem as real as Harry, Ron, and Hermione, and their innermost thoughts can be so private you sometimes feel as if you are intruding on great minds whose doubts you are not supposed to know about. I liked reading Madison's parts more because I loved his insight into the workings of American democracy. But Andrew Jackson's behavior and calculating warmaking strategery were always interesting.
Pictured: my choice to play A.J.
I suspect Jackson, like Errol Flynn, had a more interesting life than what is portrayed in fiction. For example, the man accidentally marries Rachel before she secures a divorce from her first husband, then cantankorously spends the rest of his life battling and occasionally killing people who remind him of that fact too loudly. You've heard of Shakespearean insults? I want a copy of Jacksonian insults; I hear they were dazzling. Jackson sounds like the kind of guy you just can't capture on paper.
Any road, Jackson gets his moment of glory at the Battle of New Orleans and the calculations that went into that battle are fascinating. By far the most boring part of the book was the part where Nevin joyfully decides to describe every move of every battle in every detail. But if you take the time to read it you will be amazed at the preparation that went into each encounter. You will understand why the British army was the best in the world. You will understand what courage under fire really means. And you will be impressed with what men went through to keep America a free country.
So now it's time to go to some reenactments! The battle of the River Raisin ended 200 years ago yesterday and was commemorated with some awesome demonstrations in Monroe, Michigan. It was a catastrophic loss for the Americans made worse when Native Americans fighting for the British slaughtered wounded soldiers after the fighting. "Remember the Raisin!" became a rallying cry for the rest of the war and I daresay inspired the Texans to remember another entity with a strange name a mere twenty-three years later. This brings us to LESSON ONE, which is Name Your Landmarks Well. If people are going to use your river as a battle cry, give it a proper name like To Defeat The British, or We Are The Champions.
That should tide you history buffs over until I review Rome. If you want more, why don't you think about going to some awesome reenactments of the upcoming battles, which range from events on Lake Champlain to Niagara Falls to Baltimore to Washington, DC to New Orleans? History buffs only really get excited about centennials, and who knows where you'll be when the 300th rolls around! You can also check out Nevin's other books because they look fantastic if you like American history. I'm specifically thinking of Meriweather (I'm sure you know who that's about), Treason (a book about that bottom-feeder Aaron Burr), and Eagle's Cry, a book about the Louisiana purchase.
Seriously, you cannot want any more history than that. Read 1812 and get back to me!
Last week was the start of my second semester at the School of Social Work, and I got my syllabi for my classes. Let me just say, it looks like the pages I'll be "eating up" are mostly going to be assigned to me! I will be reading a lot of really cool stuff though, and I'll definitely keep y'all posted. The "book" I read today, for example, is the DSM-IV-TR. Since Stina has already stated, "what the heck" at that, I'll give y'all some more information about the DSM.
The DSM is the mental health professional's bible. DSM stands for "Diagnostics and Statistical Manual"- basically, this 900 page book covers all the possible mental disorders with which a person could be diagnosed. It's awesome. The IV stands for the 4th edition, and the TR means Text Revision. What bums me out is that DSM-V (!!!!!) is due out in May. Luckily, I was able to get a pdf version of the book to read on my Nook!
Since I could totally nerd out and write for pages and pages about the DSM, I'll leave it at this. It reads like a cookbook, but I find it FASCINATING!
Outside of school fun (no worries- there will be lots about school) I can also tell you about the show I'm currently working my way through.... "The West Wing." My parents were obsessed with the West Wing when it originally came out in the 90s. However, as a young kid, the show and plot went completely over my head! So I will be keeping everyone up-to-date with how emotionally unstable this show makes me!
Finally.... For the past three years, my roommate from college and I have seen all of the Oscar noms. I'll keep y'all up to date with my thoughts on those! (Andromeda-- one of those is Zero Dark Thirty, so you'll hear my thoughts on that one soon!)
I've heard great things about the movie Zero Dark Thirty but nothing I saw seemed great to me. It's basically about how the CIA managed to track down Osama bin Laden and the last twenty-five minutes of the movie are dedicated to portraying the raid where he was killed (the real operation took only a few minutes longer so it's supposedly pretty accurate). The story is told through the experiences of one female CIA agent who is presented as being largely responsible for the persistence needed to capture bin Laden.
Look at her being all America
My takeaways from this movie were that
The resources of the CIA were generally misdirected for about ten years and it was only the smarts of one woman going against the entire wealthy, powerful CIA that got bin Laden captured. If that's the case, what other inefficient and ineffective CIA operations are underway?
Torture may be useful in getting secrets out of detainees? I don't want to put words in the film's mouth here. But if the CIA thought torture was useful, why was bin Laden discovered years after torture was prohibited and why didn't torture lead us directly to him when it was condoned?
Killing our No. 1 Enemy solved all the problems. I know of no one who felt that 9/11 was avenged by bin Laden's death, so am I supposed to feel like America triumphed at the end of this movie? Is that how you felt when you watched it, any of you who watched it and liked it?
If that's not how you felt, why did you like it?
I suspect that economic development - by bringing people out of poverty - has done and will continue to do more to prevent terrorism than killing any terrorist leader has ever done, or will ever do.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
That "No Posts." claim was depressing me. Excuse me, Blogger, there may not be posts yet, but trust me on this one: we've got plenty of ideas.
Christina here! Savannah lent me Storm Front (okay, ladies, are we italicizing or underlining book titles? decide now, and may I say I like saving italics for emphasis) and GEB is, like, really difficult to read, man. So it's less like I'm reading two books at once and more like I'm taking a vacation from discrete mathematics into a Chi-town fantasy-noir. It's a very attractive piece. The hero is gentlemanly and an avid reader. What's not to like?
... His Gary-Stu dark past, for one thing. His hackneyed wisecracking for another. The author's inability to introduce a character without a detailed physical description, oh my... well, they can't all be Neil Gaiman, I suppose.
To switch back to the other hand, I'll allow that dark pasts can be excellent and exciting clichés, most of the wisecracking is clever, and the character descriptions are fresh and well-written, at least. I'd recommend the book to any fan of Jasper Fforde, Terry Pratchett, or "Supernatural" (yeah I have no idea what to do with a tv series title; ladies, please advise). And I'm not even halfway through it yet.
Speaking of books I'm not even halfway through yet, GEB is a beast of a puzzle book. If you've never picked it up, do not attempt to do so without some serious soul-searching. Do you really want to spend the rest of your life dogged by a tome on the interconnectedness of human ideas in logic, computer science, music and visual art? (NO should have been my response. I know that now. I felt guilty for years because this book was sitting on my shelf untouched. Here's hoping I get through the freaking (can we curse on here???) thing this time around.)
(seven hundred and seventy-seven pages oh god oh god WHY)
And okay, Sav, you gotta let us know. What the heck are you reading?
