Tuesday, February 6, 2018
Thursday, December 21, 2017
If you want the TL; DR, I think I agree with everyone else: it's neither as bad as I feared it would be, nor as good as I hoped it would be.
I'm a big fan of the first movie, Director's Cut (the one without the voiceover and with the lovely ambiguous ending). I hesitated to even see this one because if Deckard was still alive, that meant he wasn't a replicant, spoiling that lovely ambiguity. But in the end, I wanted to see what they did with it.
The second movie is definitely proof that more isn't necessarily better.
Both movies are gorgeous to look at, but the new one is just too slow. I never saw cinematography so in love with itself outside of an art house. Every second was lovingly filmed . . . which meant that it felt static. I can't stay interested in watching someone walk up stairs for more than a second or two, no matter how artsy and weird the lighting is. And why would anyone (even Jared Leto with creepy cyber-eyes) choose to light their space like that?
In the original film, there are images that have stayed with me, like the blood floating in Deckard's whisky glass lit from behind. That image is one of my favorite in all of film, and it stays with me because it said so much about the character and the moment and the world all at once, yet was so brief. It also wasn't one of seven "wow" images in a row, each lessening the impact of the others.
The ending image in 2049, by contrast was so overdone! We saw K looking down at snow on his hand (an image we'd already used repeatedly earlier in the film) in an obvious echo of Roy's death at the end of film one. Then we watch him lay down in the snow, at peace. Then, we switch to an above view to watch him lie in the snow. Then, we switch to the side. So, I get that Ryan Gosling is pretty from many angles, but for goodness sake, choose an angle, decide what you want to try to make us feel and stay there.
Nearly every moment in the movie could have been cut by 30 seconds without anything important getting lost, and the pace of the whole thing would have picked up considerably.
I give the writers cred for the main twist in the story. It surprised me and had good emotional impact. I won't spoil it for you here, in case you want to see it, too. But that was some good storytelling with a long build that really paid off.
Our villainess, Luv, fell into two tropes that I am completely bored by: androids go mad when confronted with emotions AND the woman scorned gets violent. Bleah. Joi, K's cyber-girlfriend was an interesting idea, but felt tacked on and didn't impact the story as much as she might have.
The big bad boss, Wallace, is a weak substitute for Tyrell (the man behind the curtain in the first film). While Tyrell felt complex and interesting, a man with many motivations for his work, Wallace was just a one-note creepy dude out to grab power through slavery.
Most disappointing were the attempts to bring back things from the first movie. Edward James Olmos's cameo didn't add a thing to the film. Revisiting dialogue in playback felt tacked on. Worse yet, the new version of Rachel to manipulate Deckard with. Not worth the screen time. Come to think of it, neither was Deckard really. The whole movie could have left him out of it and we'd have lost little.
I think I'll stick with the first film. Thanks.
Saturday, November 4, 2017
The terms come from S.E. Hinton's novel The Outsiders. It's a classic of young adult fiction and if you haven't read it, shame on you! There's a movie, too, which I have fondness for in spite of the fact that Tom Cruise is in it.
It's a story of two gangs: The Greasers and the Socs.
Socs take their name from "socials." They are children of privilege with letterman jackets, nice cars, and an overinflated sense of self importance. They are definitely the bad guys. Hinton's sympathies (and the readers') are solidly with the Greasers.
Greasers have it rough. They don't have "good" parents or even any parents at all. Their lives are impacted by need, violence, neglect, and substance abuse. They meet with societal censure for their clothing and homes. They are from the wrong side of the tracks.
It might be a very simple world view, but I think all of us are either Greasers or Socs. Once we are adults, it's more about your life attitude than your socio-economic-status, but the designations hold. Let's talk for just a few minutes and I'll tell if you are one of us or one of them.
Socs have money. They have always had money. They don't know what it's like not to have money, and they don't have sympathy for money problems. If you grew up poor, it's less likely that you will ever be a soc. Because they don't know what it's like not to have something you need, Socs don't appreciate what they have. The worst of them don't even know what it's like not to have something you merely want. Having all the things they want doesn't make them generous. In fact, it makes them hoard what they have, trying to collect more and more and not caring that they have more than they need while others struggle to meet their basic needs. As adults, they drive BMWs too fast and cut off other drivers. They shove in line. They think the rules don't apply to them. They worry about me and mine first at all times.
I'm a Greaser. Compared to some of my childhood friends, I grew up privileged. But I still know what it's like to have to wait for things I need and not be able to get things I want. I've seen ebb and flow in income and know that sometimes you have to look at the long game. You have to sacrifice in one area to do what is needed in another. Because I couldn't and can't have whatever I want when I want it, I have learned to prioritize needs and wants and to appreciate the things I have. I try to help others. Us Greasers are in this together. We support one another.
“That's why people don't ever think to blame the Socs and are always ready to jump on us. We look hoody and they look decent. It could be just the other way around - half of the hoods I know are pretty decent guys underneath all that grease, and from what I've heard, a lot of Socs are just cold-blooded mean - but people usually go by looks.”
― S.E. Hinton, The Outsiders
For this reason, parents, I argue against raising Socs. Even if you have the income to do it, you don't do your children any favors by raising them with a sense of entitlement and self-importance. It's a dangerous road, slick with oils and without enough guardrails. It's easy to veer off the path into questionable morality and then into outright illegal and immoral acts. Socs can go a long time without getting caught, the cost to the soul notwithstanding, but when the consequences catch up to them, it's spectacular. There are washed out mug shots and corpses littering the ground.
We all want our children to do well, but there's a difference between handing your children everything and giving them the life skills they need. Greaser children have empathy. They know that it's important to work hard and do well for themselves, but they also know that their needs might not be the most important needs in the room at any given moment. They understand that resources are limited and that they should go to those in deepest need first. They try to solve problems themselves, and are patient about waiting for help when it is needed.
I'd rather teach a room full of Greasers than a room full of Socs. Soc children will constantly call for my attention over things it is entirely possible to solve for oneself. They want the validation of my attention, even when they are snatching it from another child who needs it more. Greaser children will try to help each other first. Only after they've exhausted their options will they ask for help. When they get help, they remember to say thank you for it.
In fact, I prefer Greasers to the point that I have to watch my bias in my interactions with others, keep myself from assuming you're a Soc on the inside based on the appearance of your outside. I have a basic mistrust of people who are too pretty, especially pretty in a polished, practiced way. It makes me wonder about your priorities. If your surface is too smooth, I doubt you have depth.
“It seemed funny that the sunset she saw from her patio and the one I saw from the back steps was the same one. Maybe the two worlds we lived in weren’t so different. We saw the same sunset.”
― S.E. Hinton, The Outsiders
One of the themes in the novel was the idea that we all watch the same sunset. It's another version of the old saw about all living under the same sky. It's a nice idea. But I wonder about its truth. Maybe I'm just getting cynical as I get old, but I truly wonder if the Socs of this world really do see the same sunset I do. If we view it and interpret it so differently, is it really still the same sunset?
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
|Me with Angela Pritchett at the Southern Voices Book Launch Party. Picture by Leona Wisoker of The Scribbling Lion.|
It costs money and I'm a schoolteacher in North Carolina, so I don't really have any of that. (As a guest author, usually my con fees are waived, but I will still need to get myself there, pay for a place to sleep and buy food and drinks).
If I'm to attend, then I have to rely on others (my husband and sister, usually) to take over the things I would normally have been doing--giving my kids rides, walking the dog, feeding people, etc. When you're a "giver" sort of person, it can be hard to be the one receiving help. I have to fight the guilt over being a little selfish and taking this time for me and my writing career.
But, still, even with all the cons of cons (ha! I amuse me) I *love* going to cons.
I was sitting in a session given by AJ Hartley, a Special Writer Guest of the con, called "What Can Genre Authors Learn from Shakespeare?" when I realized what it is. It's the level of discourse.
In my ordinary day to day life, I teach middle school. Some of my colleagues and students are brilliant shining minds that dazzle and challenge me, but a lot of them aren't. Not all of them are there because they want to be or because they love what we've come together to do. In fact, how few of them want to be there is a little depressing when you consider that I got into teaching, in part, to share my passion for learning and books.
But, as I sat in that session, I realized with a kind of rush that I was in a room of 30 some odd people (and some of us are really odd people) who love both speculative fiction AND Shakespeare. People with passionate opinions about things like whether the ghosts are really there in Macbeth and Hamlet or are just in the minds of the haunted.
Over the course of my weekend, I was part of conversations about moral boundaries in superhero stories, what white straight people writing more diverse characters need to consider, what constitutes cultural appropriation, why representation matters, what tropes serve stories well and which ones are offensive, advantages and disadvantages of different paths to publishing, why gender and race are more than check-box categories, and the difference between true (nonfiction) and heart-true.
My TBR list which is already longer than the time I will probably be on this earth grew by leaps and bounds, as did my list of shows to watch, music to explore, clothing to buy, places to go, and stories to write. It reminds me of the best moments of college.
It's worth the introvert coma that follows just to talk this deeply for a few days. It really is. Do any of you have any favorite fan conventions in your necks of the woods? If not, how do you get your geek on?
Friday, September 1, 2017
I was not a fan of school, but you better believe that if I got my Hogwarts letter I'd march right back to the education system for seven years of magical learning.
To celebrate the 1st of September, the official day that Hogwarts students take the Hogwarts Express back to school, I'll be doing the Hogwarts Tag. I'm not sure who the original creator is, but I saw it done by Dawlyn and Krista at Little Blind Book Finds. Be sure to check out their post and see the different answers they each have.
Am I Pure-blood, Half-blood, or Muggle Born?
I saw it explained somewhere once that a Pure-blood is a person who has read all of the books and seen all of the movies. Going by this statement, I'd surely be a Pure-blood Wizard (though not like the Malfoys! Much nicer.). ;)
Which wand chose me?
My wand, according to Pottermore, would be made of Elm with a Unicorn hair core, 10 3/4" with hard flexibility.
Did I take an owl, cat, rat, or toad with me?
An owl I can borrow from school if I need to, but I couldn't get through months of work like this without a cat by my side.
Where did the Sorting Hat put me?
I would have been surprised to go anywhere else! Ravenclaw is home for me.
What house did I want to be in?
I don't suppose Hufflepuff would've been too bad and I do get it as a secondary house sometimes on quizzes. To be fair, though, my hybrid house is Slytherin, so I may well have found myself in green at Hogwarts.
What lessons are my favorite and least favorite?
Least Favorite: History of Magic. I wouldn't mind reading Hogwarts, A History on my own time, but Professor Binns sounds downright dreadful.
The form my Patronus takes.
How perfect that my Patronus is a cat. I wonder if I'd ever learn how to make three at once like McGonagall?
What does a Boggart look like to me?
Since I don't think a Boggart could accurately portray my fear of heights, I'll say Umbridge. This emotionally abusive, manipulative witch is something I couldn't deal with.
Do I partake in any magical sports or school activities?
According to the Harry Potter Wikia page, there was a knitting club at Hogwarts. It sounds like something I would've joined as, while I love Quidditch, I don't think I'd actually be a good flyer. In this club, I bet we'd learn how to make the images on our more involved projects move like wizarding photographs. Neat!
Where would I find myself hanging in my spare time?
While the library would probably get a lot of attention, I think I'd also sit under a tree next to the Black Lake as well. I do want to see this enormous squid!
What would I most likely get detention for?
Staying too late in the library, whether due to schoolwork or personal interest.
What career do I want after leaving Hogwarts?
I took a quiz and got Professor. The librarian at Hogwarts could be considered a professor, right? *lol* I'm not sold on the idea of teaching, but as Hagrid and a few others have shown us, it can be fun. I'd probably be the person in the gif, dancing around with the books after all the students have gone. :D
I tag anyone that would like to do this tag! A new year at Hogwarts has begun and we have until May, when inevitably some sort of trouble will occur. Maybe we can get through our exams this year. ^^;
All pictures, quotes, and videos belong to their respective owners. I use them here solely for the purpose of review and commentary.
Sunday, August 13, 2017
Review by E.J. Hammon
Based on the actual kidnapping and torture of Marc Schiller in Miami, Florida, Blood Moon is a fictionalized retelling of his story. The action begins shortly after several body parts are found in a fountain by a dog walker. We are then propelled directly into the brutal abduction and attempted murder of Miami resident, Recidio Suarez. Having built his wholesale food company into a multi-million dollar enterprise, he attracts the notice of local thugs. Their leader, Blaine Nesbit, turns Suarez’s business partner against him and a plan is set in motion to kidnap him. Blaine and Dario intend to steal all of his money in the guise of what will seem like legitimate business transactions. Despite attempts to hide their identities, Recidio immediately recognizes Blaine from past interactions and his business partner, Dario Pedrajo. Suarez is held in a warehouse and forced to sleep in a cardboard box over a thirty day period. During that time, his kidnappers make him sign legal documents and write out checks to them, so that he is left with nothing. They regularly beat him and chop off three fingers from his left hand in an attempt to keep him under control. Their plan goes awry when, after pushing him off a ledge, Recidio survives. His attorney makes it well known that Recidio will get his money back and put them in prison. Eventually, Recidio’s demure and soft-spoken wife, Carolina, reaches out to a local cartel to put her husband’s kidnappers in their place. The ending of the book is bloody and much more fiction that reality.
I found the book itself well-written and definitely not for the faint of heart. Bethel writes with intelligence and can paint a picture with words. I felt like I could see the interior of the warehouse and experience the crushing blows raining down on our protagonist during his kidnapping. The writing was so visual that it became very hard to read, not for how it was written, but for the subject matter. Though I frequently read a great many true crime books, imagining the torture of this man was highly uncomfortable. The drama after Recidio is sent to his death was fast-paced and enjoyable. Some of the decisions the characters made were questionable. I had a problem with Recidio’s wife, Carolina, becoming a mercenary to avenge her husband. I realize this book was a fictional account of an actual crime, but bringing a one-dimensional character to the forefront out of nowhere was hard to follow. If Carolina had been described earlier in the book a bit more, I would have found her later introduction more palatable. Also, when Recidio’s attorney confronted his tormenters, it felt forced. What victim wants to make their attackers aware of their intentions before being given the chance to strike out against them? Overall, the book was a fast read and kept me on my seat. Though the ending was satisfying, it could have been made more realistic and followed the actual story closer. That being said, I would read more of Bethel’s work, if only for the intense and colorful language he pens with ease.
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Rating: 3 of 5 stars
Poldark has made quite a splash in the latest televised version. It's a big hit with many of my friends, with old fashioned eye candy in the Colin Firth and "the shirt" sort of way, coupled with sweeping vistas and fast moving dramatic relationship driven plot lines. I'm a big believer in "read the book first" when it comes to adaptations of literature, so when one of my book clubs chose Ross Poldark, I was excited to find out what all the fuss was about.
I did enjoy the book, in a light, escapist popcorn sort of way. For me to be able to love it more deeply, it would have to be a deeper book.
In some ways, this read like an outline for a book. Obviously, I'm supposed to feel for Ross Poldark and be cheering for him. And I do, at a certain level. If I list for you the circumstances of his life, there's a lot to elicit interest and sympathy. War veteran returns home to find his father dead and his family home basically in ruins and has to rebuild his fortune while dealing with a broken heart.
Yet, even though the book centers around this man, he's strangely passive in his own life. Things happen around him, and he seems to make choices that earn him praise among the common folk (rare for someone of his more aristocratic birth), but I never feel as though he did anything particularly on purpose, or thought further ahead than the moment in front of him. He doesn't have an interior life or strong opinions. So, instead of the main character, he feels like a guy I hear vague rumors about.
I was put off by the romance with Demelza, even though I did like where it went once they were together. The fact that she comes into his life as a child and basically grows up in his care, then awkwardly seduces him because she doesn't want to go back to her father…well, so MUCH of that gave me the wiggins. I like Demelza a great deal as a character, but the yuck factor in how this romance came about takes the enjoyment out of it for me.
As a writer myself, I was confused by some of Graham's choices as to what to show and what to leave "off screen" to tell us about later. Several times, there was a big, dramatic moment with no conclusion, and the next chapter picked up with something mundane and threw in how that drama ended up as a sort of throwaway: "by the way, folks, she didn't die after all" or "oh yeah--he married her." Huh?
So, it was a nice, light read. And I will probably watch the TV adaptation now. I hear the Demelza is closer to Ross's age on screen and more his equal in a lot of ways. That modernization might help a great deal.
Review by Samantha Bryant, another bookish fangirl. You can learn more about her and her work at http://samanthabryant.com