The expression on my face when I find out that the college computers have Adobe Photoshop CS5. And Dreamweaver. Methinks I must visit the computer lab more often, indeedy!
Thursday, 21 April 2011
By Tom Woodward from Richmond, VA, US (old textures Uploaded by guillom) [CC-BY-SA-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons
Sometimes it's incredibly difficult coming up with good book titles. My current novel has had at least 4 or 5 working titles, but I haven't the foggiest notion what it should really be. I just can't seem to find a name that "sticks". Naming it after a character doesn't quite work in this case (especially because there are three equally important main characters). Naming it after a place in the book wouldn't work well either...the places are all fictional and wouldn't likely grab a reader's interest.
Those are the two ways I generally name a story; but apparently, this time I need something different. It's really bugging me.
Thoughts? : ) How do you come up with titles for your books?
Monday, 18 April 2011
Episode III: The Great Game
My overall rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars
Moriarty, enigmatic and invisible, sets up a series of crimes; and he dares Sherlock to solve them against the clock. If Sherlock fails, innocent people will be murdered; if he succeeds, he will find himself the next victim.
Just as it sounds, this was the darkest, grittiest episode. It's not like the majority of the original books, where Sherlock is dealing with eccentrics or one-time criminals--here, he's fighting a very sick, 21st century serial-killer. The episode is greatly one long, nerve-wracking story; there's not much (if any) violence shown, but the implied violence is very frightening. Needless to say, it's not something I'd rewatch any time soon, and I wouldn't recommend it for everyone. [As an aside, it just so happened that we could hear the wind whistling around the roof outside, as we watched this episode; and eventually the power went out. We had to finish the episode the next day or two. Talk about a cliffhanger and a 4D movie...'twas creepy!]
Another problem I have with this episode is the pacing. This is Season 1 (Season 2 is to be filmed this year), but already it seems as if the filmmakers wanted to make this third episode really big scale. The result? The multiple mysteries/subplots were rather confusing, and the appearance of Moriarty came way too soon--that should have waited until a later season. And again, for only being ep. 3, it was really dark and depressing. I just hope that there will be some "private consulting detective" mysteries in Season 2; because that's the biggest Holmesian thing missing in this series.
The portrayal of Moriarty was also disappointing. One of the brilliant things about the books was that Moriarty was an elderly, respectable-looking, genius math prof; and for 37 year-old Holmes to defeat this kind of opponent is the ultimate brainiac battle in classic fiction. However, this contemporary Moriarty is very, very different; and the final confrontation is a bit anti-climactic.
And finally, we have the cliffhanger. Yes, this last episode ends on a cliffhanger; so if you decide to skip this episode, I don't think you will miss out on anything. ;)
Despite these negatives, I did give it 3.5 stars. For one thing, Moriarty is clearly portrayed as the evil person he is, not some glamorous villain, or a "misunderstood guy with a painful past". Secondly, Cumberbatch's Holmes is a strong as ever. He's tough and unemotional; but, as he tells Watson, this is the only way he can stay concentrated. If he lets his feelings distract him, they overcome him and he can't solve the case. Notwithstanding, you can tell that he is affected by the horrible things that happen, which shows that he isn't just a machine underneath.
In summary, BBC's "Sherlock" is a pretty good miniseries for a modernization--surprisingly good. It does have several flaws--mainly, modern morals (i.e. lack thereof) and occasional bad language. However, the dedicated, crime-fighting heroism of Conan Doyle's books is strongly present, even in the 21st century; and Sherlock Holmes (though perhaps a bit too eccentric) is still the same Sherlock Holmes. For an older audience, I think it's a series worth watching. :)
The portrayal of Moriarty was also disappointing. One of the brilliant things about the books was that Moriarty was an elderly, respectable-looking, genius math prof; and for 37 year-old Holmes to defeat this kind of opponent is the ultimate brainiac battle in classic fiction. However, this contemporary Moriarty is very, very different; and the final confrontation is a bit anti-climactic.
And finally, we have the cliffhanger. Yes, this last episode ends on a cliffhanger; so if you decide to skip this episode, I don't think you will miss out on anything. ;)
Despite these negatives, I did give it 3.5 stars. For one thing, Moriarty is clearly portrayed as the evil person he is, not some glamorous villain, or a "misunderstood guy with a painful past". Secondly, Cumberbatch's Holmes is a strong as ever. He's tough and unemotional; but, as he tells Watson, this is the only way he can stay concentrated. If he lets his feelings distract him, they overcome him and he can't solve the case. Notwithstanding, you can tell that he is affected by the horrible things that happen, which shows that he isn't just a machine underneath.
In summary, BBC's "Sherlock" is a pretty good miniseries for a modernization--surprisingly good. It does have several flaws--mainly, modern morals (i.e. lack thereof) and occasional bad language. However, the dedicated, crime-fighting heroism of Conan Doyle's books is strongly present, even in the 21st century; and Sherlock Holmes (though perhaps a bit too eccentric) is still the same Sherlock Holmes. For an older audience, I think it's a series worth watching. :)
Friday, 15 April 2011
Monday, 11 April 2011
There were worms on the ground. Long worms, pink worms, blotchy worms, naive worms that left the ground only to be obliterated by passersby. Worms crawling out from beneath shrubs, worms climbing down steps. More worms in one place than Eugenia had ever seen before.
* * *
The library, which stood just to the north side of the other campus buildings, had a set of double doors, at its otherwise humble entrance. The left door was a boisterous, belligerent, shrill personality, ever eager to announce an entrance or departure. The right-hand door, with all the acquiescence of being the left-door's opposite, was a quite mind, with hinges oiled modestly and an ever-sympathetic ear. One could slip easily in or out through this door, without so much as a glance towards the other one, while receiving only a gentle nod of recognition from the right door, closing mutely as it did.Eugenia much preferred the right door.She slipped into the library now and walked quickly, though soundlessly, along the library walls, so soon as they were within access. Her mind ran along in front of her and had already found her customary study-table. It was the table most other people avoided, as the window beside it had inherited a view of a neglected recess on the roof; where a good deal of last year's leaves and rain and mud and grime in general had assembled themselves, around an odd plumbing pipe or two and with no reasonable order. But it was the only window in this corner of the library, and this corner of the library was the only one neither filled with murmur nor stifled by inherent, incessant, study-room silence. And Eugenia did like the window. She could look out at the sky and forget the nearer, drearier components of the view.
Randomisities...that's basically all I write these days, apart from poems. I still have to rewrite my historical fantasy novel; but at the moment, I don't have time, or the right frame of mind, to rewrite it properly. So I scribble randomosities. Well, they do say to "write what you know". I guess I know about worms, and libraries, and so on...
Oh, and I've read some more Kafka, and experienced the side effects thereof. The other day I was at school, reading Kafka; and there was choir practice downstairs. They were singing a very cheerful song. I was on the landing/balcony thing, sitting in a saucer chair, the only type of chair in the room. Eventually the choir group comes up the stairs. They stroll past me, singing as they go. They walk down the hall. The echoing of their voices increases. The choir comes back a little ways and stop, still singing in the hall.
If one is not reading Kafka, this is all perfectly normal and unremarkable. If viewed through a more Kafkaesque lens, then all of that translates to: Why are they singing? Why are they walking and singing? Why is this normal? Why does the echoing sound ominous? Why is the building so otherwise quiet? Why am I sitting in a saucer chair? Why am I not clapping? Why am I not singing? ;)
The Kafka book I was reading is called The Castle, unfinished. I say "was reading", because I made it through the first few chapters and I'm doubt I'm going to finish it. ;)
The protagonist (referred to as "K.") is unbelievably annoying. Unlike Gregor (from The Metamorphosis), K. can think of no one but himself. He just runs around helplessly in an almost constant pity-party. He lets his life be upset by other people in a most pathetic lack of gumption.
To be more specific, K. is supposed to be a surveyor hired by "the Count" who lives at "the Castle". But due to a web of bureaucracy, K. is stuck in the local village without any real instructions of how to go about his work. So what does he do? Instead of obstinately hiking to the Castle, or leaving town altogether, or anything sensible--K. scurries around trying to make friends and run away from the peasants. And then he gets upset when he finds out his "friend" is not someone of equal or greater class, but a peasant.
Now, I like the basic plot idea, don't get me wrong. But this kind of character really gets on my nerves. :P
Sunday, 10 April 2011
If I had more time, I'd be joining this! I have a "Screenwriting for Dummies" book, and I started working on a screenplay for Kidnapped (R. L. Stevenson) last summer.
Is anyone planning on participating in Script Frenzy? And has anyone written a full-length script before? I know next to nothing about it, but it's on my list of "things to learn". : )
Is anyone planning on participating in Script Frenzy? And has anyone written a full-length script before? I know next to nothing about it, but it's on my list of "things to learn". : )
Friday, 8 April 2011
See this post for review of the first episode. :)
Episode II: The Blind Banker
There were a couple of things I didn't like, such as the random swordfight at the beginning (what was that about?), and the final climax/ending. And the jade hairpin and secretary subplot seemed contrived and unbelievable. Moments like that just remind you that it's a TV show. :P
I guess I didn't mention some of the other recurring characters in my first review--Mrs Hudson, Lestrade, and Mycroft. Overall, they were ok, but I much prefer them in the Jeremy Brett series. They just weren't quite right in this one--Mrs Hudson was too modern, Lestrade too irritable, and Mycroft too snarky...they went for the "sibling rivalry" thing in this script. Again, I prefer the Brett series's version, where Mycroft and Sherlock team up on certain cases, joke around a bit, and still have a mutual respect for each other's talents.
Episode II: The Blind Banker
My overall rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Since the conclusion of A Study in Pink, John Watson's life would appear to be returning to the norm--he gets a job and meets "Sarah", a nice young lady who seems to like him, too. But he'll need his crime-fighting skills again, as Sherlock's current case--involving a murder and cryptic graffiti--leads John, Sherlock, and Sarah into a complicated plot, of which the "Blind Banker" case is only the beginning.
This episode received low ratings, but I thought it was pretty good. Music, sets, and cinematography were quite good as usual; and I liked Holmes better than I did in the first ep...he wasn't quite so weird. Also, there was a good balance between drama and humor; and I loved the reference to The Valley of Fear, when Holmes and Watson are solving the book cipher. Watson and Sarah's date--planned and attended by Holmes--was hilarious. And neither Sarah nor Soo Lin (the other female protagonist) were annoying, which was a relief.
This episode received low ratings, but I thought it was pretty good. Music, sets, and cinematography were quite good as usual; and I liked Holmes better than I did in the first ep...he wasn't quite so weird. Also, there was a good balance between drama and humor; and I loved the reference to The Valley of Fear, when Holmes and Watson are solving the book cipher. Watson and Sarah's date--planned and attended by Holmes--was hilarious. And neither Sarah nor Soo Lin (the other female protagonist) were annoying, which was a relief.
There were a couple of things I didn't like, such as the random swordfight at the beginning (what was that about?), and the final climax/ending. And the jade hairpin and secretary subplot seemed contrived and unbelievable. Moments like that just remind you that it's a TV show. :P
I guess I didn't mention some of the other recurring characters in my first review--Mrs Hudson, Lestrade, and Mycroft. Overall, they were ok, but I much prefer them in the Jeremy Brett series. They just weren't quite right in this one--Mrs Hudson was too modern, Lestrade too irritable, and Mycroft too snarky...they went for the "sibling rivalry" thing in this script. Again, I prefer the Brett series's version, where Mycroft and Sherlock team up on certain cases, joke around a bit, and still have a mutual respect for each other's talents.
Saturday, 2 April 2011
PBS is having a Masterpiece Theatre character tournament on Facebook. I don't have FB so I can't vote. But naturally, I'm hoping a certain someone will win. ;)
What I'd be interested to know is why so many people vote for Elizabeth Bennet. The comments say that it's because she is "outspoken"...but she really didn't go out on a limb to be so. Indeed, you could say that her whole family was in the habit of speaking their mind. Anyhow...inquiring minds want to know your opinion on why she is a great character. :)
And now I'm trying to picture said characters participating in the Olympic Games...tomorrow on short track speed-skating, Sherlock Holmes faces Hercule Poirot in the men's 500 meters...
What I'd be interested to know is why so many people vote for Elizabeth Bennet. The comments say that it's because she is "outspoken"...but she really didn't go out on a limb to be so. Indeed, you could say that her whole family was in the habit of speaking their mind. Anyhow...inquiring minds want to know your opinion on why she is a great character. :)
And now I'm trying to picture said characters participating in the Olympic Games...tomorrow on short track speed-skating, Sherlock Holmes faces Hercule Poirot in the men's 500 meters...
Friday, 1 April 2011
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
