Films, books, and math
Dec. 1st, 2002 02:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tarigwaemirAd Mundo Exteriore,
Well, Chamber of Secrets has much better pacing than Sorceror's Stone, and they actually did try to tell a story, although it's much flatter than...well...Lord of the Rings. But J.K. Rowling isn't in the same class as Tolkien, so that's understandable. Ron and Hermione can act, Harry can't, but I suppose people are too busy drooling to care about that. (Personally, I'm still rather disappointed at Daniel Radcliffe's lack of screen charisma, aside from his pretty face. He has no personality whatsoever.) Special effects were much better--no horrid acid-eaten centaurs this time around. The basilisk should have been white with red eyes, and it looked too much like a rubber puppet to me, but it was sufficiently scary. All in all, I would say it was a good movie, though I wish I didn't have to pay $10 for it.
I want to see the Two Towers.
I've spent an entire day on my math homework. Or, rather. eight hours, since I need to subtract the time I spent finishing Possession. That, by the way, was a rather good book, though it made me feel a bit irritable because it had all these ongoing motifs, which I was not bothering to remember. I mean, it was meant to be analyzed, and I wasn't reading for analysis, just pleasure. Also, it had so many explicit themes that I felt I was grappling with a mass of thorns. Byatt's reflections on the essentially sterile nature of self-analysis, which pervades a post-Freudian society and more specifically the academic world, as opposed to poetry, self-expression and creativity, were beautifully and rather movingly woven into the story. But I didn't like all the wrestling with feminism, and how to deal with women's sexuality, and how this sexuality and creativity poses a threat to the masculine ego, and how, and how, and how, etc., etc., etc. Yuck. I've never really seen myself as a girl. When I think of myself, I don't think, "female," I think "intelligent human being." And from an academic point of view, exploring mythological feminine images like the Sphinx or the Morrigan is all very fascinating, but just a tad tiresome after a while, and when you're reading for pleasure, you really don't want to care about things like that. Gender is a very minor part of my self-identity! I don't care that male authors have predominantly male protagonists, because I identify with those male characters! Sheesh.
But just in terms of storyline, Possession was really wonderfully done. Byatt, I believe, actually composed all the poetry she "quotes" herself (unless Randolph Henry Ash and Christabel LaMotte really do exist...though I'm pretty sure they don't.) I'm rather impressed with her command of Victorian language. I really would like to write like that, capitalizing random nouns and sticking in dashes instead of commas. ^_^
Nevertheless, there's just a hint of smugness in all of contemporary "literary" writing, something left over from the modernists, I think. "Let's see how many allusions to high-brow intellectual thought we can embed in one sentence," that kind of thing. When T.S. Eliot does it, I feel awed and humbled, but when Byatt does it, I feel rather irritated. Probably because when I tried (note the word "tried") to read The Waste Land, I was reading it for self-edification, but when I read Possession, it's simply and only for wasting time. Biased, aren't I? Nevertheless, there is this impression of seals jumping through hoops. I mean, Ursula K. LeGuin manages to be as profound, if not more, with a much simpler, much less convoluted, much less referential writing style. The point should be to communicate the theme to the reader in a subtle and carefully crafted way, not to impress the reader with your excellent education. Of course, I am impressed. But it does make me feel a bit irritated.
I also read Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents, by the peerless Terry Pratchett, and if that's supposed to be a children's book, all I can say is that I feel sorry for adults. His writing gets better than ever, and the only differences I could see are that he was a little less biting in his sarcasm and that he avoided saying "Bugger off!" Oh, and he wrote in chapters. My, what effort that much have taken, Mr. I-refuse-to-pause-in-my-narration. It was really funny, so I suggest you find yourself a copy. And copies of Douglas Hofstadter's books too. I opened Le ton beau de Marot and started laughing hysterically, because Hofstadter does this really witty thing where he embeds rhyme in his prose, and he has this tongue-in-cheek way of phrasing things...it's impossible to describe without quoting the book outright.
Oh, but back to my math homework. If anyone out there knows anything about proving theorems concerning smooth and analytic functions, please, please, tell me everything you know. I sorely need the help. Eight hours! I'm still not finished.
...Tari
Well, Chamber of Secrets has much better pacing than Sorceror's Stone, and they actually did try to tell a story, although it's much flatter than...well...Lord of the Rings. But J.K. Rowling isn't in the same class as Tolkien, so that's understandable. Ron and Hermione can act, Harry can't, but I suppose people are too busy drooling to care about that. (Personally, I'm still rather disappointed at Daniel Radcliffe's lack of screen charisma, aside from his pretty face. He has no personality whatsoever.) Special effects were much better--no horrid acid-eaten centaurs this time around. The basilisk should have been white with red eyes, and it looked too much like a rubber puppet to me, but it was sufficiently scary. All in all, I would say it was a good movie, though I wish I didn't have to pay $10 for it.
I want to see the Two Towers.
I've spent an entire day on my math homework. Or, rather. eight hours, since I need to subtract the time I spent finishing Possession. That, by the way, was a rather good book, though it made me feel a bit irritable because it had all these ongoing motifs, which I was not bothering to remember. I mean, it was meant to be analyzed, and I wasn't reading for analysis, just pleasure. Also, it had so many explicit themes that I felt I was grappling with a mass of thorns. Byatt's reflections on the essentially sterile nature of self-analysis, which pervades a post-Freudian society and more specifically the academic world, as opposed to poetry, self-expression and creativity, were beautifully and rather movingly woven into the story. But I didn't like all the wrestling with feminism, and how to deal with women's sexuality, and how this sexuality and creativity poses a threat to the masculine ego, and how, and how, and how, etc., etc., etc. Yuck. I've never really seen myself as a girl. When I think of myself, I don't think, "female," I think "intelligent human being." And from an academic point of view, exploring mythological feminine images like the Sphinx or the Morrigan is all very fascinating, but just a tad tiresome after a while, and when you're reading for pleasure, you really don't want to care about things like that. Gender is a very minor part of my self-identity! I don't care that male authors have predominantly male protagonists, because I identify with those male characters! Sheesh.
But just in terms of storyline, Possession was really wonderfully done. Byatt, I believe, actually composed all the poetry she "quotes" herself (unless Randolph Henry Ash and Christabel LaMotte really do exist...though I'm pretty sure they don't.) I'm rather impressed with her command of Victorian language. I really would like to write like that, capitalizing random nouns and sticking in dashes instead of commas. ^_^
Nevertheless, there's just a hint of smugness in all of contemporary "literary" writing, something left over from the modernists, I think. "Let's see how many allusions to high-brow intellectual thought we can embed in one sentence," that kind of thing. When T.S. Eliot does it, I feel awed and humbled, but when Byatt does it, I feel rather irritated. Probably because when I tried (note the word "tried") to read The Waste Land, I was reading it for self-edification, but when I read Possession, it's simply and only for wasting time. Biased, aren't I? Nevertheless, there is this impression of seals jumping through hoops. I mean, Ursula K. LeGuin manages to be as profound, if not more, with a much simpler, much less convoluted, much less referential writing style. The point should be to communicate the theme to the reader in a subtle and carefully crafted way, not to impress the reader with your excellent education. Of course, I am impressed. But it does make me feel a bit irritated.
I also read Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents, by the peerless Terry Pratchett, and if that's supposed to be a children's book, all I can say is that I feel sorry for adults. His writing gets better than ever, and the only differences I could see are that he was a little less biting in his sarcasm and that he avoided saying "Bugger off!" Oh, and he wrote in chapters. My, what effort that much have taken, Mr. I-refuse-to-pause-in-my-narration. It was really funny, so I suggest you find yourself a copy. And copies of Douglas Hofstadter's books too. I opened Le ton beau de Marot and started laughing hysterically, because Hofstadter does this really witty thing where he embeds rhyme in his prose, and he has this tongue-in-cheek way of phrasing things...it's impossible to describe without quoting the book outright.
Oh, but back to my math homework. If anyone out there knows anything about proving theorems concerning smooth and analytic functions, please, please, tell me everything you know. I sorely need the help. Eight hours! I'm still not finished.
...Tari
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
About Daniel's Acting...
Date: 2002-12-03 09:25 am (UTC)Emma Watson (Hermione) is an excellent actress and I see her going far in her career if she so chooses to do something with it. Rupert (Ron) improved IMMENSELY since the last movie. I couldn't stand Ron in the last movie, but this time round he had some of the better lines.
My problem was with Draco. It wasn't apparent in the first movie, as he didn't have long speeches, but in COS it was very apparent that he has a speech problem, or something. During his long speech in the Slytherin common room you can hardly make out what he was saying o_O That's also the director's fault, though-- for putting that take in. They could have re-shot the speech until you could understand what he was saying, but eh. Ah well.
And now that I have rambled about a kids' movie FAR too long, I shall stop. Two Towers is going to be awesome, though *bounces up and down in anticipation*
Re: About Daniel's Acting...
Date: 2002-12-03 02:26 pm (UTC)Oh well. I personally think Ron's rather adorable, and he's probably my favorite from the movies. (Though I like Harry best from the books.) ^_^
...Tari