Saturday, June 27, 2009
King of the Hill
Oh my God. I've finally figured it out--I know why people watch King of the Hill! It's because of Beavis and Butthead! The man who... does Hank's voice or is one of the writers was a big part of Beavis and Butthead. And that is why people watch King of the Hill. It's not the worst show--even I like to watch it. But sometimes the 90% annoying characters make me wonder why I--or indeed anyone else--watches the show. However, I see now. I can't say that I enjoy Beavis and Butthead, but I can understand if some of their following transferred to King of the Hill.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
One Good Reason That I Have No Siblings
A number of years ago, I bought The Crimes of Charlotte Bronte by James Tully. At the time, I was in a rush to choose one more book and leave the bookstore (always difficult). Periodically, this book comes up again in the 'To Read' list and it is always met with the same indecision that it met when it was bought. So, being the summer and all, it was about time to feel vaguely guilty and unsure of The Crimes of Charlotte Bronte again. I read a few reviews (many bad) and even an article on the BBC where they interviewed the author who apparently thinks that some of it is plausible as truth. Even I am skeptical about that. However, I moved on! Finally I was looking around Wikipedia at biographies of the sisters. Like many people, I have read a Bronte novel for school--for me it was Wuthering Heights, masterwork of Emily Bronte. Someday I may read more by Charlotte or Anne, but for now it's the contemplation of rather subpar, accusative "historical" fiction.
After first revisiting Emily's cause of death, I looked at Charlotte and then came to Anne. Scanning through the page, this section caught my attention:
"A year after Anne's death, further editions of her novels were required; however, Charlotte prevented re-publication of Anne's second novel, The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. In 1850, Charlotte wrote damningly, "Wildfell Hall it hardly appears to me desirable to preserve. The choice of subject in that work is a mistake, it was too little constant with the character, tastes and ideas of the gentle, retiring inexperienced writer." This act was the predominant cause of Anne's relegation to the back seat of the Bronte bandwagon."
How very evil. Though the suppression of works considered unbecoming of an author or family after the author's death is not unheard of, these occurence still seem remarkably cruel whenever I read about them. And although it is Wikipedia, they made it sound like Anne was more about realism and less about the romanticism that saturates the work of Charlotte and Emily. So perhaps Anne will be first in the list for a Bronte selection in the future. I will not choose to judge Charlotte personally based on this, just becase as I said that was certainly not an unheard of practice.
From looking over a few biographies of the family on Amazon, it seems that more than a few people like to consider Charlotte as the evil sister. Similarly, one sees just as many people condeming those that do, which leads to my other thought that evening as I perused the life and times of the Brontes. No one likes it when someone takes an author whose works are much-beloved and paints them as a monster. That would be like if I wrote soem "historical" fiction about Charles Dickens beating his wife and sleeping around the town with prostitutes, actresses, and the occasional chimney sweep.--it just wouldn't be well-received. Or perhaps Jane Austen as some bastard-bearing, constantly drunk harpy, who ran around Bath propositioning anything in trousers. No one takes kindly to that. I find this especially with some Victorian authors. Enough time has passed, and they have been read enough, that people consider them and their rosy coloured works to be sacred.
I am undecided about how people would take to Thomas Hardy "historical" fiction or perhaps... George Eliot or someone. This may, in fact, relate to the recent plethora of historical fiction that doesn't bother to involve their works, but rather involves the author his-or-herself.
So, the moral of the post is... watch out for reputation-obsessed relations who may not appreciate one's literary (and money-making) prowess as much as a lawyer or publisher. On the other hand, we the only-children know that there will never be assumptions made about our relationships with our siblings after we are dead.
After first revisiting Emily's cause of death, I looked at Charlotte and then came to Anne. Scanning through the page, this section caught my attention:
"A year after Anne's death, further editions of her novels were required; however, Charlotte prevented re-publication of Anne's second novel, The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. In 1850, Charlotte wrote damningly, "Wildfell Hall it hardly appears to me desirable to preserve. The choice of subject in that work is a mistake, it was too little constant with the character, tastes and ideas of the gentle, retiring inexperienced writer." This act was the predominant cause of Anne's relegation to the back seat of the Bronte bandwagon."
How very evil. Though the suppression of works considered unbecoming of an author or family after the author's death is not unheard of, these occurence still seem remarkably cruel whenever I read about them. And although it is Wikipedia, they made it sound like Anne was more about realism and less about the romanticism that saturates the work of Charlotte and Emily. So perhaps Anne will be first in the list for a Bronte selection in the future. I will not choose to judge Charlotte personally based on this, just becase as I said that was certainly not an unheard of practice.
From looking over a few biographies of the family on Amazon, it seems that more than a few people like to consider Charlotte as the evil sister. Similarly, one sees just as many people condeming those that do, which leads to my other thought that evening as I perused the life and times of the Brontes. No one likes it when someone takes an author whose works are much-beloved and paints them as a monster. That would be like if I wrote soem "historical" fiction about Charles Dickens beating his wife and sleeping around the town with prostitutes, actresses, and the occasional chimney sweep.--it just wouldn't be well-received. Or perhaps Jane Austen as some bastard-bearing, constantly drunk harpy, who ran around Bath propositioning anything in trousers. No one takes kindly to that. I find this especially with some Victorian authors. Enough time has passed, and they have been read enough, that people consider them and their rosy coloured works to be sacred.
I am undecided about how people would take to Thomas Hardy "historical" fiction or perhaps... George Eliot or someone. This may, in fact, relate to the recent plethora of historical fiction that doesn't bother to involve their works, but rather involves the author his-or-herself.
So, the moral of the post is... watch out for reputation-obsessed relations who may not appreciate one's literary (and money-making) prowess as much as a lawyer or publisher. On the other hand, we the only-children know that there will never be assumptions made about our relationships with our siblings after we are dead.
I leave readers with the Brontes, from Emily to Anne (and Charlotte between).
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Retreading Sacred Paths
Today's Topic...I was perusing the publishers' remainders table at my local bookstore today (still looking for that damn book, damnit!) and guess what I found?! No, not Jane Austen! I found myself reminded of why the girly flowery/chick lit/blah genre bothers me. Admittedly, I was on the lookout for a particular volume of vapid trash--or at least not expecting much from the pile. Occasionally there is a gem in the front of store sales area, but not too frequently. In this case, I found a number of published versions of Jane Austen fan fiction. Oh, how little I think of these books. Jane Austen is dead, and yet she is not allowed to sleep in peace because people are constantly writing poor parodies of her work! Madness inducing, that is. What is so hard about writing your own characters and putting them in the regency setting? Many people have--why shouldn't a few more? So, after being slightly miffed about that, I moved along and saw a few more things. I bought something by Alexander McCall Smith, and almost bought a biography of Flaubert but I've only read Madame Bovary thus far so I don't know if a biography is necessary. However! I went into another aisle and found something interesting--interesting in theory and also interesting to some informal research my oldest friend and I are doing for a project.
The book is...
Vapid trash? Presumably! And isn't she taking someone else's set up and making it her own? Hell, yes. But she puts her own twist on Boccaccio's idea and only uses the format! So, I bought the book at a reduced rate (Would I pay regular price for such a thing? Definitely not), and it is available for perusal if desired.
Isn't it such a decisive day for me? Definitely don't like published Jane Austen fan fiction, definitely want realtors to stop touring the house, and am definitely taking the dog out before it rains.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
We Dare Not Go A-Hunting...
I give you an overtly serious Chief Inspector Barnaby. Does this picture not say, "Stay out of my kingdom"?It is the funniest thing ever (to me only, as funniest things go) that despite the fact that I was rather unhappy with him for a long while at the news that some day (two years) John Nettles will be leaving as Tom Barnaby, I started watching a few episodes the other day and already am coming around. The man only has to pleasantly arrest some bastard and I feel very warm--about him, about me, about all things. I will keep reminding myself that it is nothing to do with Tom Barnaby, but more John Nettles. He has been Inspector Barnaby for quite a while. I don't really look at him and think, "Ah ha! You've aged!" However, I am aware at times that he isn't exactly as he was at the beginning of the series... Never mind when exactly I started watching, needless to say I can cram 11 years into a short span of time as well as or better than anyone. Never mind also that I have found a specific time frame where I would like to freeze him, even though I don't really think of him in terms of having or not having a hot bod. He's a very nice, fuzzy, safety-inspiring man, who wears a wonderful big coat. And has won me over--again.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The Curious Case of CSI: Las Vegas
And now we come to a topic very close to my heart... CSI
I have been off and on watching CSI reruns since the winter (I think), and unavoidably I have developed a few likes and dislikes about the various series. For example, I like CSI: Miami and CSI: Las Vegas the most, and CSI: New York the least. Of course, Rufus has made CSI: Miami my absolute favorite. It's funnier, and more yellow which warms my seasonally affected heart. Even further, this new favortism is due to something about CSI: Las Vegas that is starting to bother me. Almost every time I watch this show, I see at least one of the characters have a mini-breakdown over the case that they are working on. For a police show, they do this way too much. The characters on Miami and New York have their moments, but no one throws as many fits as CSI: Las Vegas. Now I am not for a moment suggesting that police officers and CSIs and everyone else is not allowed to have feelings, or be deeply affected by violent crime. However, the characters on Las Vegas seem to be consistently on the verge of a breakdown over their career. And it's not just all crime shows--the other CSIs balance their characters' feelings very well.
In other news, they have a very temporary cast. I don't watch any of these in order, but I was talking to an actual fan of the show who knew all of the characters who had left or died and I was surprised. I know it's run for a quite a while and I'm just now half-watching, but I've never seen so many characters leave and the show is carried on.
I have been off and on watching CSI reruns since the winter (I think), and unavoidably I have developed a few likes and dislikes about the various series. For example, I like CSI: Miami and CSI: Las Vegas the most, and CSI: New York the least. Of course, Rufus has made CSI: Miami my absolute favorite. It's funnier, and more yellow which warms my seasonally affected heart. Even further, this new favortism is due to something about CSI: Las Vegas that is starting to bother me. Almost every time I watch this show, I see at least one of the characters have a mini-breakdown over the case that they are working on. For a police show, they do this way too much. The characters on Miami and New York have their moments, but no one throws as many fits as CSI: Las Vegas. Now I am not for a moment suggesting that police officers and CSIs and everyone else is not allowed to have feelings, or be deeply affected by violent crime. However, the characters on Las Vegas seem to be consistently on the verge of a breakdown over their career. And it's not just all crime shows--the other CSIs balance their characters' feelings very well.
In other news, they have a very temporary cast. I don't watch any of these in order, but I was talking to an actual fan of the show who knew all of the characters who had left or died and I was surprised. I know it's run for a quite a while and I'm just now half-watching, but I've never seen so many characters leave and the show is carried on.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
A Bit of Excitement
Today/Tomorrow (8 or 9 of June depending on the country one hails from):
Okay, It's Been Awhile...
Couple of weeks only in fact--and what a crushing couple of weeks they were! But in other news, are Americans overtly fearful of crossing the street in London? Having been an American crossing the street in London on a number of occasions, I would disagree. Most of us--as the author of our sister blog says--learn to look both ways and not just in the direction the cars would be coming from nearest to us. Aren't blanket generalizations fun? They are so easy to shred. People the world over look both ways--even people crossing streets where the majority of traffic they meet is animals. In all the time I've spent in the UK, I have never been uneasy about driving (apparently in the opposite direction! Oh my God!), or crossing the street. Maybe never being uneasy about the driving is a little strange. It occurred to me in a cab once that we were on the other side of the road than I am used to, but... I felt no sort of fear and never really noticed again other than that I was looking at the other side of the road from my seat.
Perhaps it's ethnocentric people who don't look both ways, and simply assume that traffic will stop or be the way they expect because their way is superior. Rather like the amusing questions I was reading over the weekend in a guide about manners. It was a section about how to act in other countries, specifically the questions not to ask and how you would feel if they were asked about your country. Things like, "Why don't they speak my language here?" "Why is the food different from at home?" "Why is it so dirty here?" Admittedly, the last one got a few laughs due to a day spent hustling and bustling around in the Metro. However! The point was... Look both ways when crossing the road in any country, no matter what the traffic!
Perhaps it's ethnocentric people who don't look both ways, and simply assume that traffic will stop or be the way they expect because their way is superior. Rather like the amusing questions I was reading over the weekend in a guide about manners. It was a section about how to act in other countries, specifically the questions not to ask and how you would feel if they were asked about your country. Things like, "Why don't they speak my language here?" "Why is the food different from at home?" "Why is it so dirty here?" Admittedly, the last one got a few laughs due to a day spent hustling and bustling around in the Metro. However! The point was... Look both ways when crossing the road in any country, no matter what the traffic!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)