In case I haven't mentioned it, I love to read. Shocking, I know. Anyways, I was just thinking about what writers I will buy based on the power of their name only. As much as I enjoy reading, there are few left alive that fit this category (I have GOT to find me some new authors). Anyways, here's my list:
1. Neil Gaiman - The only thing I've read of his that I don't like are his short stories. Any novel, whether adult or juvenile, graphic or regular, I'm there. In fact, he's one of the few authors that can cause me to see a movie as well. Screwy sense of humor, elements of the fantastical, wry social commentary, obsession with mythology (Norse, Greek, you name it) - there's nothing about his writing (except the short stories) that I don't like.
2. Sherman Alexie - He's the only writer I know of that can write truthfully about life on a Reservation and not depress the hell out of you. Most of his writing reflects what he knows, but he's funny and insightful and ... well, if you haven't read his books, at the very least, you should rent the movie Smoke Signals. Yeah, he did that one as well.
3. Dean Koontz and/or Stephen King - Ok, I should warn you that here is were my love for the writer takes a big step down. I mean, I like them and yeah, I'll buy on name alone, but I have to admit that sometimes the quality isn't there. King needs an editor, but no one will edit him anymore. Still, he spins fascinating stories, even if they don't always work. My trouble with Koontz is that he tends to write the same story over and over and over again. I still like his stuff, but it's not the love that I have for the first two writers.
And ... that's pretty much it. I know, what about JK Rowling. Well, yeah, I loved the Potter books as much as anyone. I just don't know I would buy a book just because she wrote it. I need to see something outside Potter before I judge. Same with Scott B. Smith. Yes, I loved The Ruins, but the guy's only written 2 books. I need a bigger sample size. Meg Cabot? Well, she's amusing, and I'd probably buy the Heather Mills books for a quick read, but she writes so much that's meh that I can't put her on my liste either. The other folks I read are either one-offs or dead. So who's on your must-read list?
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Unique and Universal
Warning: Religious musings ahead. Proceed with caution.
Been reading a book called "God's Plan for Getting Things Done." It's kind of interesting. It's basic premise is that we all tend to plan using one of two methods: projection planning (x% more than in the past) or wishful thinking. Neither one has much place for God in it, and because of that, we shouldn't be too surprised when our plans fall flat. I have to admit I'm guilty of both options. Anyway, it continues to comment that God has basically two plans for our lives: unique and universal. The universal plans are the ones that tend to get all the press. They're the big things that everyone is supposed to do, go ye into all the world and all that stuff. But it's the unique plans that tend to be more important to your personal happiness. If God has a plan for you, doesn't it make sense that there is a personal aspect to it? Primarily, for me right now, it seems to be what should I be doing for a living. I always assumed that since I'm not happy, I must not be doing what I should be doing, but danged if I could figure out what I should be doing. I'm beginning to think I might be looking at this all wrong. If God is in control, then he's not going to let me screw up the big things. I tend to believe in the golden hammer method, which is basically, God will allow you to muck up the small stuff, but eventually, He's going to make sure you get the big stuff basically right. Which means, to me, that He wouldn't let me make a major career decision without being involved, right? If that is the case, then maybe, just maybe, I AM doing what I'm supposed to be doing, and what needs to change is my attitude? Something to think about, eh?
Been reading a book called "God's Plan for Getting Things Done." It's kind of interesting. It's basic premise is that we all tend to plan using one of two methods: projection planning (x% more than in the past) or wishful thinking. Neither one has much place for God in it, and because of that, we shouldn't be too surprised when our plans fall flat. I have to admit I'm guilty of both options. Anyway, it continues to comment that God has basically two plans for our lives: unique and universal. The universal plans are the ones that tend to get all the press. They're the big things that everyone is supposed to do, go ye into all the world and all that stuff. But it's the unique plans that tend to be more important to your personal happiness. If God has a plan for you, doesn't it make sense that there is a personal aspect to it? Primarily, for me right now, it seems to be what should I be doing for a living. I always assumed that since I'm not happy, I must not be doing what I should be doing, but danged if I could figure out what I should be doing. I'm beginning to think I might be looking at this all wrong. If God is in control, then he's not going to let me screw up the big things. I tend to believe in the golden hammer method, which is basically, God will allow you to muck up the small stuff, but eventually, He's going to make sure you get the big stuff basically right. Which means, to me, that He wouldn't let me make a major career decision without being involved, right? If that is the case, then maybe, just maybe, I AM doing what I'm supposed to be doing, and what needs to change is my attitude? Something to think about, eh?
Monday, August 13, 2007
Stardust the review
Saw this movie over the weekend with the family. What a delightful little movie! It's captivating in a bunch of small ways. While I've been a Gaiman fan for years, for some reason, I never read this one (something I plan to remedy this week). Since I haven't read the book, I cannot tell you how faithful it was to his original vision. What I can say is it is sweet, whimsical and magical all without being sappy. The acting, while spotty at times (I'm looking at you, Claire Danes), is good enough to not be distracting. The scenery is gorgeous, very English, as is the sensibilities of the storyline, which means it has just the right touch of droll humor. I was a bit afraid of taking the kids because it was rated PG-13. And while I can understand the rating, I have to admit, I've seen more objectionable material in some PG movies I've seen. There was no swearing at all that I recall. While there was one scene of sexual intimacy, they merely showed the couple kissing and then cut away. The biggest objection (besides some implied sexuality), would probably have been the violence. But even that was done mostly off screen. If you love fairy tales and well told stories, I highly recommend Stardust. And if you like Stardust, check out Mirrormask on DVD (another Gaiman movie). You won't regret it.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Buffy the Vampire Slayer - Season 8
Up until now, I have to say that I've been fairly underwhelmed by the highly touted "Season 8" Buffy comic book. I mean, yeah, the characters were all there, and yeah, they had really talented writers, but the stories all felt underdeveloped and superficial. It was like they were doing cameos, but the stories lacked the depth or darkness of the original. It was like they spent four issues parading our old favorites around so we could clap for them and didn't want to distract from that with an actual story. The fact that they decided to bring back Amy and Warren as the big bads didn't help much. Been there, done that, and Amy, please call your lawyer and sue for defamation of character. The giant Dawn was just a silly sight gag gone on too long. Something was missing. I just didn't feel for these characters anymore.
Finally, I read issue 5 - a stand alone that did not even have Buffy in it. Loved it. In one short comic, they created a character I could feel for. The central figure is one of the Buffy impersonators. The story of how she got there, what she was doing .... well, if you haven't read it, it felt very much like an early Buffy. I wonder if we've learned too much about the core Scoobies for them to hold our interest. I mean, they have all theoretically grown and are much too wise and powerful to experience the emotions I want to see. I like doubt - but after seven years as the Slayer, is it realistic for Buffy to still doubt herself? What can they confront these characters with that they haven't already seen several times? I just hope we see more stand alone stories without the key characters, particularly if Issue 5 is an indication of what we can expect.
Finally, I read issue 5 - a stand alone that did not even have Buffy in it. Loved it. In one short comic, they created a character I could feel for. The central figure is one of the Buffy impersonators. The story of how she got there, what she was doing .... well, if you haven't read it, it felt very much like an early Buffy. I wonder if we've learned too much about the core Scoobies for them to hold our interest. I mean, they have all theoretically grown and are much too wise and powerful to experience the emotions I want to see. I like doubt - but after seven years as the Slayer, is it realistic for Buffy to still doubt herself? What can they confront these characters with that they haven't already seen several times? I just hope we see more stand alone stories without the key characters, particularly if Issue 5 is an indication of what we can expect.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Dream a Little Dream
Had a really weird dream last night - I dreamed that some old, grey haired guy kept trying to steal my cell phone. By the third time he tried to take it (while I was talking on it, no less), I had had enough and chased him down and started pummelling him. I was more upset that my hitting him seemed to have no effect on him than I was that he had taken the phone in the first place. Oh, one final detail - the phone was pink.
Weird, right? Especially since I don't tend to remember my dreams. But wait, it gets weirder. A friend looked up what it could mean. Here's what she found (verbatim):
The old man denotes the masculine side of yourself. The phone represents your communication and relationship to self and others. Pink is your feminine side and also health and good feelings.
So... the masculine side of yourself is trying to over take your feminine side. You may be trying to be more in touch with your femininity, to be healthy and happy? ... and the old fat guy keeps butting in?
The funny thing is that I've been struggling at work, mainly because I don't really like going into work. I mean, I love my life outside of work, it's just that to get what I want outside of work, I have to go there. And I hate going there. And it takes too much time away from what I want to be doing. Think my subconscious is trying to tell me something?
Weird, right? Especially since I don't tend to remember my dreams. But wait, it gets weirder. A friend looked up what it could mean. Here's what she found (verbatim):
The old man denotes the masculine side of yourself. The phone represents your communication and relationship to self and others. Pink is your feminine side and also health and good feelings.
So... the masculine side of yourself is trying to over take your feminine side. You may be trying to be more in touch with your femininity, to be healthy and happy? ... and the old fat guy keeps butting in?
The funny thing is that I've been struggling at work, mainly because I don't really like going into work. I mean, I love my life outside of work, it's just that to get what I want outside of work, I have to go there. And I hate going there. And it takes too much time away from what I want to be doing. Think my subconscious is trying to tell me something?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
