I am starting to feel better than I was last night—listening to the Offspring and generally chilling out. Maybe all that Slipknot was getting to me. (Also Dreams From My Father, which I have been tearing through. Incredibly well-written, incredibly depressing. The community organizing sections leave me feeling profoundly depressed about the nature of the human race.)
But what I have realized just now is, thinking about Susanna Clarke, I don't need to concentrate on writing short stories. Susanna Clarke wanted to write her novel. So she worked really hard on her novel. It's what drove her. Sometimes, she stopped and wrote a short story, and got it published, but the novel is what she was concentrating on.
It SK is what I want to do, what I need to do, then that's what I should do. if some other idea comes to me, I will do that. But I need to be writing, and that means working on what drives me. That means SK. So that's what I will work on.
I have two scenes to work on.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Update
I haven't really been writing anything lately. I feel like I am in some kind of post-Gibbon funk. The thing I want to work on is SK, but I feel like I need to do more research, but I have worked on two separate scenes, and don't feel like picking them up again. I feel like I need to figure out the overall structure, like I need to do an outline, but I feel like I need to do more research, but don't feel like reading anything more. I just finished the third volume of fucking Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire! Unless I didn't, which is even more depressing.
And I want to write something. An actual story, with a beginning, middle and end. I just tried starting on something from the M stuff, but it wasn't working. I just don't feel connected with that thing right now, or I feel like it there is something sophomoric about the whole enterprise. I just can't think of a short, simple story that I want to tell (well, maybe not simple, but something not tied up in some huge megaplot that I am working on).
Maybe I should just continue trying to work on my scenes, see where that leads me, I don't know. I just know that I am starting to go antsy out here. This state is getting to me, and I don't feel like an am getting anywhere. There's all these questions and desires and thoughts kicking around in my head about things and stuff and big questions and little errands and dreams and I can't sort and of it out and feel like if I don't make some progress on something in this whole life thing soon, within a couple of months, then it will just never fucking end and I will just keep spinning my wheels here forever and ever and ever. I need something, some valediction, some sign of accomplishment, but I have done nothing to earn any, and right now, I just feel directionless.
And I want to write something. An actual story, with a beginning, middle and end. I just tried starting on something from the M stuff, but it wasn't working. I just don't feel connected with that thing right now, or I feel like it there is something sophomoric about the whole enterprise. I just can't think of a short, simple story that I want to tell (well, maybe not simple, but something not tied up in some huge megaplot that I am working on).
Maybe I should just continue trying to work on my scenes, see where that leads me, I don't know. I just know that I am starting to go antsy out here. This state is getting to me, and I don't feel like an am getting anywhere. There's all these questions and desires and thoughts kicking around in my head about things and stuff and big questions and little errands and dreams and I can't sort and of it out and feel like if I don't make some progress on something in this whole life thing soon, within a couple of months, then it will just never fucking end and I will just keep spinning my wheels here forever and ever and ever. I need something, some valediction, some sign of accomplishment, but I have done nothing to earn any, and right now, I just feel directionless.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Biden
I found out about the Biden as VP announcement last night while up late, read more about it this morning, thought about it at work, and read some more about it when I got home (late). And I have to say, the more I think about it, the more I like it, and I think it's because I think a lot of the criticisms of it are wrong.
The main criticism seems to be that they think Biden is, as Kos put it, fills a gap: that Obama is covering a percieved criticism with the pick, either a lack of foreign policy experiance or an inability to attack his political opponents. Maybe Obama was thinking of these things, but I doubt it. I don't think the guy who won the Iraq Debate—when the leader of Iraq endorses your plan, you win—is looking for someone to bolster his foreign policy cred. I think that Obama actually went with Biden because he actually reinforces a lot of Obama's appeal.
The reasons are have supported Barack Obama are these: 1)He is the only politician who has articulated a version of America that I can belong to, the accepts and welcomes me. 2) He comes across not as a politician, as some weird amorphous creature that shifts form with every new round of polling data, but as an actual person for whom being a politician is simply his job. 3) While his political views are not as far to the left as I would like, they are far enough that I don't feel he is really on the other side, like I do with anyone in the DLC, and they represent a clear and present shift from present centrist opinion. 4) He has the mad political skills to actually get those policies enacted. Getting Obama's politicies in place is better than failing to get Kucinich's or Nader's in place. The perfect may be kept in mind, but always work for the possible.
With Biden, I feel he works to strengthen Obama's vision of America. Biden is a working-class kid who made it to the senate at an impossibly young age, and dealt with reams of personal tradgedy, yet worked through it all. He's actually kind of inspiring. And like Obama, he comes across as human, not a politician. Biden has been a senator so long the man is just completely comfortable in his skin. The guy you see on stage is not an act, and he doesn't try to put on airs or change his rhetoric to acomodate anyone. He is who he is, and that's good. If I am going to be putting the Button in someone's hands, or putting them heartbeat way from the Button, I would like to know them as a person a bit, becasue robots are scary. I don't have to like them, in fact it's very possible Biden is a huge asshole, I just have to know they aren't lying to me. Coming across as real, as an actual person, means coming across as someone who isn't lying, as someone who is honest. Biden seems to be honest. After Clinton and Bush, and Gore, who, god love him, couldn't keep those goddamn advisors off him enough, and only really flowered once he stopped giving a fuck and it was too late to get elected, I need that.
Concerning Biden on the issues, he seems to be pretty good. A couple of big disagreeances, but for the most part he seems to be a solid Good Democrat, and while I would of course like a Good Social Democrat, I am not feeling to greedy right now. The fourth point, eh, obviously Biden isn't the political phenom Obama is, but the guy is obviously a policy heavyweight, in a way Hilary Clinton can only wish she was, so even if he isn't a political phenom, the guy can run the show, which is really the VP's main qualification.
The main criticism seems to be that they think Biden is, as Kos put it, fills a gap: that Obama is covering a percieved criticism with the pick, either a lack of foreign policy experiance or an inability to attack his political opponents. Maybe Obama was thinking of these things, but I doubt it. I don't think the guy who won the Iraq Debate—when the leader of Iraq endorses your plan, you win—is looking for someone to bolster his foreign policy cred. I think that Obama actually went with Biden because he actually reinforces a lot of Obama's appeal.
The reasons are have supported Barack Obama are these: 1)He is the only politician who has articulated a version of America that I can belong to, the accepts and welcomes me. 2) He comes across not as a politician, as some weird amorphous creature that shifts form with every new round of polling data, but as an actual person for whom being a politician is simply his job. 3) While his political views are not as far to the left as I would like, they are far enough that I don't feel he is really on the other side, like I do with anyone in the DLC, and they represent a clear and present shift from present centrist opinion. 4) He has the mad political skills to actually get those policies enacted. Getting Obama's politicies in place is better than failing to get Kucinich's or Nader's in place. The perfect may be kept in mind, but always work for the possible.
With Biden, I feel he works to strengthen Obama's vision of America. Biden is a working-class kid who made it to the senate at an impossibly young age, and dealt with reams of personal tradgedy, yet worked through it all. He's actually kind of inspiring. And like Obama, he comes across as human, not a politician. Biden has been a senator so long the man is just completely comfortable in his skin. The guy you see on stage is not an act, and he doesn't try to put on airs or change his rhetoric to acomodate anyone. He is who he is, and that's good. If I am going to be putting the Button in someone's hands, or putting them heartbeat way from the Button, I would like to know them as a person a bit, becasue robots are scary. I don't have to like them, in fact it's very possible Biden is a huge asshole, I just have to know they aren't lying to me. Coming across as real, as an actual person, means coming across as someone who isn't lying, as someone who is honest. Biden seems to be honest. After Clinton and Bush, and Gore, who, god love him, couldn't keep those goddamn advisors off him enough, and only really flowered once he stopped giving a fuck and it was too late to get elected, I need that.
Concerning Biden on the issues, he seems to be pretty good. A couple of big disagreeances, but for the most part he seems to be a solid Good Democrat, and while I would of course like a Good Social Democrat, I am not feeling to greedy right now. The fourth point, eh, obviously Biden isn't the political phenom Obama is, but the guy is obviously a policy heavyweight, in a way Hilary Clinton can only wish she was, so even if he isn't a political phenom, the guy can run the show, which is really the VP's main qualification.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Finished?
The Christmas before last, in 2006, My mom got me, at my urging, the box set of the first three volumes of Edward Gibbons Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: the Everyman edition, in hardcover. Though I started reading it that very day, it was an off and on affair, and I just finished it today. Yay! I have read the first three volumes (out of six) of Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire!
Or did I? See, after finishing reading the book, I wanted to know what happened next. So after checking out a used book store, I went to the Library and checked out the lamentably abridged version of the whole work, and I was suprised to find that this volume includes chapters 36 and 37 as part of Volume III. But my Everyman edition ends on chapter 35! So, did I miss out on two chapters? Did Everyman gyp me? If so, for shame, Everyman! On the other hand, maybe there is no clear consensus on the division between the Volumes. So now I have the abirdged version checked out, which does not excite me the way the unabirged version does. It seems to basically just be Gibbon, and it's nice that it interposes the dates of events that happen, something that Gibbon doesn't actually bother to do, so you have to keep checking the table of contents or just allowing events to floating in an etherous solution of possible years. But it baiscailly condenses by just leaving huge chunks of texts out, and I see the brackets denoting the omissions and think, I would like to read that! The Everyman edition is selling for 45 dollars or so on Amazon, which is kind of a pretty penny. But it's just hard to work myself up over an abridgement.
On the other hand, at the used bookstore I splurged and spent 17 bucks on four William Gibson novels, just because they were there and I haven't read them. Gibson is right now the only author other than Joyce (A few nights ago I read the first ten pages of Finnegans Wake out loud to myself. It's actually becoming more and more clear wat's supposed to be going on, which is both kind of cool and kind of scary) that I like to read just for the texture of the prose, and not having fresh, new Gibson around to read is kind of stifling, so I wanted to have the books here, as a kind of rainy day type of thing. This means I am now only missing two Gibson books, All Tomarrow's Parties and Spook Country. And I have listened to the audiobook of Spook Country. Need to get that one. I really like Hollis, but the narrator's voice gets in the way, I feel. He does this deep breathy voice whenever he does her dialogue, which sounds off, and the intonation is also all wrong. Really, audiobooks are annoying if it's not the author. Gibson in particular, seemed to really nail Neuromancer the one time I heard him read the opening. It sounded perfectly realized and evoked, even thoughGibson sounds nothing like the characters. He just has the emphasis in the sentences all right.
And sometimes audiobooks just seem to comepletely miss the point. I kind of wanted to hear the audiobook for Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, but I found the authorial voice of the novel so feminine, somehow, that I didn't want to listen to it read by a male voice. I mean, sure, most of the characters are men, but it seemed important that most of the men be funneled through a feminine voice; it seemed like the narrator's humourous tone towards the male character was very much the things women find funny about men, not the things men find funny about men. Whenever I read it, I always hear a woman's voice. But maybe that's just knowledge of the "author" playing with me. I know the writer is named Susanna, I hear a voice that could come from someone named Susanna.
Funny, I don't feel like a hear a specific voice whenever I read male author's. I don't feel like that is a tone of voice in books written by men at all.
Or did I? See, after finishing reading the book, I wanted to know what happened next. So after checking out a used book store, I went to the Library and checked out the lamentably abridged version of the whole work, and I was suprised to find that this volume includes chapters 36 and 37 as part of Volume III. But my Everyman edition ends on chapter 35! So, did I miss out on two chapters? Did Everyman gyp me? If so, for shame, Everyman! On the other hand, maybe there is no clear consensus on the division between the Volumes. So now I have the abirdged version checked out, which does not excite me the way the unabirged version does. It seems to basically just be Gibbon, and it's nice that it interposes the dates of events that happen, something that Gibbon doesn't actually bother to do, so you have to keep checking the table of contents or just allowing events to floating in an etherous solution of possible years. But it baiscailly condenses by just leaving huge chunks of texts out, and I see the brackets denoting the omissions and think, I would like to read that! The Everyman edition is selling for 45 dollars or so on Amazon, which is kind of a pretty penny. But it's just hard to work myself up over an abridgement.
On the other hand, at the used bookstore I splurged and spent 17 bucks on four William Gibson novels, just because they were there and I haven't read them. Gibson is right now the only author other than Joyce (A few nights ago I read the first ten pages of Finnegans Wake out loud to myself. It's actually becoming more and more clear wat's supposed to be going on, which is both kind of cool and kind of scary) that I like to read just for the texture of the prose, and not having fresh, new Gibson around to read is kind of stifling, so I wanted to have the books here, as a kind of rainy day type of thing. This means I am now only missing two Gibson books, All Tomarrow's Parties and Spook Country. And I have listened to the audiobook of Spook Country. Need to get that one. I really like Hollis, but the narrator's voice gets in the way, I feel. He does this deep breathy voice whenever he does her dialogue, which sounds off, and the intonation is also all wrong. Really, audiobooks are annoying if it's not the author. Gibson in particular, seemed to really nail Neuromancer the one time I heard him read the opening. It sounded perfectly realized and evoked, even thoughGibson sounds nothing like the characters. He just has the emphasis in the sentences all right.
And sometimes audiobooks just seem to comepletely miss the point. I kind of wanted to hear the audiobook for Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, but I found the authorial voice of the novel so feminine, somehow, that I didn't want to listen to it read by a male voice. I mean, sure, most of the characters are men, but it seemed important that most of the men be funneled through a feminine voice; it seemed like the narrator's humourous tone towards the male character was very much the things women find funny about men, not the things men find funny about men. Whenever I read it, I always hear a woman's voice. But maybe that's just knowledge of the "author" playing with me. I know the writer is named Susanna, I hear a voice that could come from someone named Susanna.
Funny, I don't feel like a hear a specific voice whenever I read male author's. I don't feel like that is a tone of voice in books written by men at all.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Casting Couch: Neuromancer
So, they are making a Neuromancer movie. I don't know how I feel about it. Apparently the director is the guy behind the "Toxic" video and the movie Torque, which is bad, but he also did the video for "Knights of Cydonia", which was pretty awesome. My general opinion of most music video directors is that they are hungrey young things taking work to get work who dream of getting their personal dream project. Hey, maybe this will be Joseph Kahn's personal dream project.
Hayden as Case? Eh, I don't know. Christiensen seems more just incredibly uneven to me than necessarily bad, but I don't like his track record. Case is either an incredibly easy character to play—blank, empty brooder—or an incredibly difficult role to play—just what is going on under that blank exterior? Can it be conveyed while still being blank? (Oddly, despite much belly-aching from the io9 commenters, I actually think that (a younger) Keanu would have been just right for Case. I have always thought Keanu is less blank than stoic; there's things going on in his head, but it's hard for it to get across—exactly like with Case. And Case seems kind of gruff and short with people, and Keanu's gruff voice would seem to fit really well for that.) I am just not sure Christiensen can pull off the more complicated version of Case, and his tendency to come off as petulanet would work against Case's gruffness. But then, Case isn't exactly tough either. That's Molly. He's at least naturally pretty enough to buy that Molly would take an interest in him even though he's a half-dead drug addict. (Although I think one of the reasons that Molly became "interested" in him was as much a part strengthening their ties to each other compared to their ties to their controller. Molly was creating an insurance policy against a possible double-cross from Armitage).
Speaking of Molly, that's the casting decision that I see as crucial to the movie's success. cast the wrong pop starlet and the character will just not work. Change the character to fit the actress and the story on't work. Personally I my tentative pick would be Nora Zehetner, who was on Heroes for a while. Her character wasn't for the most part any like Molly, except in the flashbacks, where despite being petite she was able to convey coldness. I think she could do Molly's casual cruelty well, and the voice fits, all casual and low-pitched. Basically, she seems capable of conveying both Molly's maks as well as what is going on underneath (mostly occasional regret, not remorse). Also she has the correct, dancer's frame. Molly just doesn't work unless you cast someone who looks a bit like an acrobat. Someone like Hayden Peniatierre would just look wrong. Too tiny and stumpy.
Also, she has big eyes, would give the make-up department plenty of room to work with in coming up with permanent mirrorshades that don't restrict facial movement. More important than you would think.
For the rest of the cast? I would go with William Fichtner, (last seen getting perforated by the Joker) who does brooding military man intensity on the edge of snapping better than anyone. Thomas Haden Church would be an acceptable substitute. The Finn seems like a no-brainer Steve Buscemi role. Old Julie would be a fun Peter O'Toole cameo. Or maybe Michael Gambon? Maelcum? Um, Malcolm Jamal-Warner? He has dreadlocks. I think that Owen Wilson would be great as Riviera. Beautiful with a broken nose? Also, he once played a serial killer in something, (The Minus Man?) and I heard he was good. James Franco would also be good, (I still remeber that smile as he's eating pie in the mostly crappy Spiderman 3) as would Heath Ledger, if he wasn't dead. Actually, Franco would be fun as Lupus Yonderboy. They better have Lupus Yonderboy!
God, I hope they don't fuck this one up.
Hayden as Case? Eh, I don't know. Christiensen seems more just incredibly uneven to me than necessarily bad, but I don't like his track record. Case is either an incredibly easy character to play—blank, empty brooder—or an incredibly difficult role to play—just what is going on under that blank exterior? Can it be conveyed while still being blank? (Oddly, despite much belly-aching from the io9 commenters, I actually think that (a younger) Keanu would have been just right for Case. I have always thought Keanu is less blank than stoic; there's things going on in his head, but it's hard for it to get across—exactly like with Case. And Case seems kind of gruff and short with people, and Keanu's gruff voice would seem to fit really well for that.) I am just not sure Christiensen can pull off the more complicated version of Case, and his tendency to come off as petulanet would work against Case's gruffness. But then, Case isn't exactly tough either. That's Molly. He's at least naturally pretty enough to buy that Molly would take an interest in him even though he's a half-dead drug addict. (Although I think one of the reasons that Molly became "interested" in him was as much a part strengthening their ties to each other compared to their ties to their controller. Molly was creating an insurance policy against a possible double-cross from Armitage).
Speaking of Molly, that's the casting decision that I see as crucial to the movie's success. cast the wrong pop starlet and the character will just not work. Change the character to fit the actress and the story on't work. Personally I my tentative pick would be Nora Zehetner, who was on Heroes for a while. Her character wasn't for the most part any like Molly, except in the flashbacks, where despite being petite she was able to convey coldness. I think she could do Molly's casual cruelty well, and the voice fits, all casual and low-pitched. Basically, she seems capable of conveying both Molly's maks as well as what is going on underneath (mostly occasional regret, not remorse). Also she has the correct, dancer's frame. Molly just doesn't work unless you cast someone who looks a bit like an acrobat. Someone like Hayden Peniatierre would just look wrong. Too tiny and stumpy.
Also, she has big eyes, would give the make-up department plenty of room to work with in coming up with permanent mirrorshades that don't restrict facial movement. More important than you would think.
For the rest of the cast? I would go with William Fichtner, (last seen getting perforated by the Joker) who does brooding military man intensity on the edge of snapping better than anyone. Thomas Haden Church would be an acceptable substitute. The Finn seems like a no-brainer Steve Buscemi role. Old Julie would be a fun Peter O'Toole cameo. Or maybe Michael Gambon? Maelcum? Um, Malcolm Jamal-Warner? He has dreadlocks. I think that Owen Wilson would be great as Riviera. Beautiful with a broken nose? Also, he once played a serial killer in something, (The Minus Man?) and I heard he was good. James Franco would also be good, (I still remeber that smile as he's eating pie in the mostly crappy Spiderman 3) as would Heath Ledger, if he wasn't dead. Actually, Franco would be fun as Lupus Yonderboy. They better have Lupus Yonderboy!
God, I hope they don't fuck this one up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)