I've been using the same rating system for books and movies for years and I think it's time I changed things up.
Originally my rating system went from one to five but in terms of books and movies, those numbers don't really tell the reader very much. They can understand what I liked and didn't like in the body of the review but the number scale doesn't feel descriptive enough.
Instead I'm going to change my rating system to something that makes more sense in terms of books and movies.
1 = Do not bother with this. Please believe me when I say I'm doing you a favour in telling you that this is not worth your time.
2 = Feel free to glance through at a bookstore or watch a few minutes after channel surfing. It won't waste your time and you may come in at a good part.
3 = This is worth checking out of the library but don't worry about buying a copy to keep.
4 = You should own this and not let it get too dusty from lack of attention.
5 = You should own this, reread/rewatch and recommend to friends, it's that good.
"If you had a chance to change your fate, would you?"
Princess Merida is the first born daughter of Fergus and Elinor, King and Queen of Dunbroch. She’s independent, loves the outdoors and practices archery whenever she can. Most of her time is taken up with learning skills that she will need as a queen one day, such as playing music and giving speeches. Merida feels that it’s all rather unnecessary but doesn’t mind until she learns she’s being prepared for marriage. Three neighbouring clans with chiefs that have sworn fealty to her father arrive with sons in tow. Each intend their son to win her hand through feats of strength. Merida is fed up and after sabotaging the competition she argues with her mother and runs away. In the woods she encounters a witch and buys a spell to change her fate. Instead the spell nearly ends up destroying her family and it’s up to her to put everything right.
I saw this film in 3D and felt that the additional cost and digital manipulation was unnecessary. Close to the beginning of the film I actually forgot about the 3D and didn’t find it that noticeable. I did find that the glasses were extremely irritating though. As for the visuals, they were stunning. Digital animation has come a long way since the days of "Toy Story". They allow for the creation of vistas one can only imagine or as in this movie, faithfully reproduce specific settings from a country. As well, the textures and fabrics of the film were exquisite. I loved Merida’s hair, how I was able to see the individual strands of hair, that it bounced when she moved and how her hair acted when wet and it's a complete evolution from how hair was rendered in "The Incredibles". As well, everyone’s clothing felt as if I could reach out and touch it. The satin looked silky smooth and the tartans, as if they would be rough to the touch. I also liked the scraggly wilderness, the gnarled trees and various mossy vegetation peppered throughout.
I did have some issues with the movie though and this mainly stems from my high expectations of Pixar. I always expect more from them in terms of visuals, story and character and "Brave" just didn’t do it for me. This is a solid movie that I think many people would enjoy but there are some glaring issues that keep this from being a top tier Pixar movie for me. The biggest problem was the story. We start off with this great introduction to Scotland, Merida and her family. We get a good idea of who Merida is and we’re set up for the main conflict of the movie. The problem is that after the set up the story feels hollow. There's only one storyline and this would have been fine if there had been more to the story. After watching the trailer, I expected a grand adventure in the woods with Merida having to defend her family from Mordu the bear. But instead of making Mordu the villain, he was part of the conflict with Merida’s mother. So already we’re lacking real villain as he has barely any screen time. And for that matter, since when are there bears in Scotland? Seriously, I spent the whole movie distracted by this.
Another issue I had was with Merida and her mother. I think it’s fine to have a movie filled with family conflict. In fact, many movies are only about family conflict but there wasn't enough tension here. I wish there had been a bigger divide between mother and daughter to create a more dramatic emotional response when they try to work out their differences. Why not make Merida more resentful of her ‘queen-in-training’ lessons? Have her hide from her mother when she’s supposed to be practicing the harp. Have her outright argue with her mother in front of others. Make the tiffs at dinner about weapons on the table more hostile. Have Queen Elinor hate that Merida practices archery and rides off into the wilderness instead of just discouraging the practice. Make Merida a petulant daughter with no regard for anyone but herself. Make her a grumpy selfish brat rather than a good sister.
My last problem is with Merida herself. Throughout the movie and in the trailer there’s a big emphasis on her wanting to change her fate. She meets up with a witch and obtains a spell to grant her wish. I loved this part of the movie but it was too short. The witch was hilarious! But Merida isn’t the one affected by the spell and in the end she doesn’t really go through a sea change. Instead she stays pretty much the person she is. She just understands her mother better.
And what about the title? Originally this film was called "The Bear and the Bow" which I feel would have been a better fit. I already felt that Merida was brave. She went out charging into the woods alone, she wasn’t afraid to stand up to her parents, to the witch or to men seeking her hand in marriage. Therefore, when she encounters Mordu and feels fear, I didn’t really believe it. And Mordu has so few scenes anyway that it felt wasted. I wanted to see her afraid of something, possibly bears, at the beginning of the movie and then overcoming that fear and growing as a person. Her reconciliation with her mother was such a small thing because they already loved and cared about one another.
Also, the film also has quite a lot of nudity for a purported children’s movie. There are several bare bums and emphasis on a servant’s bosom. I wasn’t sure what to make of this. Was it part of the slapstick comedy that peppered the movie? I didn’t see the need for this and it was jarring coming from Pixar. They’ve had humans in other films before so I wasn’t sure what they were going for with this. Also, this film was scary. No one under the age of ten should watch this. The bear scenes in particular are what I think would frighten little children.
Almost the best thing I can say about the movie is that it’s pretty, never a good compliment for Pixar, as they excel at story and characters. My issues with the story probably stem from the director changing halfway through the production process. Originally this movie was supposed to be the first Pixar movie with a female hero and there was a female director at the helm. The director, Brenda Chapman, was replaced by Mark Andrews due to creative differences over the film’s direction. This may be why the story isn't as fleshed out as you would expect.
I know it seems like I’m harping a lot on this film for what it does wrong but as I said above, I hold Pixar to a higher standard than other studios. They have an amazing track record for making great movies and telling great stories. And not only that, I was really looking forward to this film because of the female protagonist. Instead I was left with all these questions that kept piling up. I enjoyed the film but I was left wanting more and saddened by the fact that this could have been an absolutely amazing film. It is visually stunning but I believe the story is the most important part of a movie and serves as a foundation. Without a strong foundation, the movie is weakened, especially if it’s intended for people of all ages, including discerning adults.
"The boundary line between a blue and white planet, and one that is gray and tan, is fragile. Is the riverbank a delight or an obscenity, a place for diving ducks or greasy truck tires? I cry that the technology that produced this marvelous machine we call Columbia leaves in its wake the detritus of a century of industrial abuse. It need not be that way. We can use technology to cleanse, to repair, to maintain – even as we build, as we spiral out into the universe."
Written by Michael Collins, the often forgotten third astronaut on the Apollo 11 mission who didn’t get to land on the moon, this book spans the years of the beginnings of NASA, to the start of the space shuttle program. It encompasses the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions as well as the various men involved in the program from the astronauts to the engineers and includes drawings and diagrams of various vehicles, spacecraft and characters. It was fascinating to learn about the inner workings of the agency, from the original module designs to the disagreements over policy to all of the complexities of such an ambitious undertaking as going to the moon.
The idealism and passion behind the program was palpable in the writing. It didn’t hurt that the book was peppered with quotes from various people of the period, including employees which created atmosphere and a sense of urgency. They make the story of the space program come alive and show that the agency was the optimistic hope of a younger nation with hopes that stretched out beyond the boundaries of the Earth. As time wore on you could see and feel how NASA changed, adapting to a changing world and ever evolving technology. I liked how we got to see how NASA matured as an agency and how the original aspirations and plans changed over time due to budget constraints and political opinion. I also found the section concerning Apollo 1 very educational. I was aware of the troubles that Apollo 13 had faced thanks to the movie but was unaware of the tragic ending of the first Apollo mission. It was interesting to see how NASA handled the situation and how the world reacted.
Collins is very good at detail. The problem is he’s too good. While I was trying to work my way through the book I was constantly bogged down by all of the numbers and figures Collins peppers throughout the book. At one point I was so frustrated I didn’t want to finish the book. I understand the book was written by an analytical mind about a real time in history but the main point to take into consideration is that it’s a book first. If it’s not readable, people won’t read it and then instead of being a book it’s just tree pulp sitting on a shelf somewhere. My other complaint is that there isn’t an addendum to this book with an update of NASA over the past twenty years. So much has changed in that span of time that the space shuttle program isn’t even running anymore.
I will say that there were some dramatic moments that made for some good reading. I wasn’t even aware that SkyLab existed until reading this book. Overall it was a fascinating read.
Whether prescient or not, Collins does have a section where he says that Mars is the next frontier, which appears to be where some think we should be heading next. Others want to head back to the moon, whether to mine it for materials such as helium or water or whether to set up a permanent base. Whatever we decide to do, we’re still fascinated by space and I hope we continue to look up and wonder about what might be out there, just waiting to be discovered.
If you are interested in the history of NASA’s space program and don’t mind extra detail included with the narrative, pick up this book.
I saw the trailer for a new adapatation of "Anna Karenina" the other day and am very intrigued. I tried to read the book once before and failed miserably. I'd like to watch the movie but as a rule, I read the book before I watch the adaptation. The same will go for "The Great Gatsby" which comes out later this year.
The Karenina translation recommended to me was the Pevear-Volokhonsky version. The translators are a husband and wife team who've translated Russian classics like Tolstoy, Chekov, Pasternak, Gogol and Dostoyevsky.
The movie looks interesting but I'm worried it's going to be more artsy than adaptationy. The look reminds me of "Russian Ark" a very good, one take film about the history of Russia. I'm not that excited by the casting so we'll see what happens. I'll probably also end up checking out the 1935 Garbo version and the 1948 Vivien Leigh version as well.
What do you think of adaptations in movies? I have mixed feelings about them.
There are going to be at least three giant adaptations this year alone with "Anna Karenina", "Les Miserables" and "The Great Gatsby". I do like that Hollywood appears to be moving away from sequels, remakes and reboots and looking to adaptations for movies. But again, adaptations of these films have been made before and may possibly retread familiar territory without bringing anything new to the screen, which questions the validity of making such movies.
I worry that adaptations are being made simply because it's been awhile since the last version was made and film makers assume the public is ready for the film to be remade. There have been 12 previous attempts to adapt "Anna Karenina" to the screen, the last one only seven years ago. So you may ask, why remake it again? I don't have the answer though it will be interesting to see what kind of adaptation it is. It appears to be faithful to the time period but without viewing the movie it's impossible to say if any other changes have been made.
I'm also not wild about the casting of Kiera Knightly. People are already starting to talk about this as her 'Oscar' role. Gods people! The movie hasn't even come out yet and already you're speculating. I've only ever really like her in her first role "Bend it like Beckham". I just don't think much of her acting. It's not that her acting is bad but I've never been wowed by a performance. This is perhaps an unfair judgement as I haven't seen all of her movies but then again, I don't know that I'm interested enough in Knightly as an actor to objectively look at her career and then pass judgement on her acting. There are other actors whose filmographies I'm far more excited by to spend time on Knightly. I can say that I saw "Pride and Prejudice" and wasn't impressed. I loved the set but I just didn't buy the two leads. Macfadyen seemed mumbly and wasn't snobbish enough for my tastes and Knightly wasn't nearly subtle or snarky enough. Again this is the problem with adaptations. Each director has their own vision which may not jive completely with the book. Who knows though, she may suprise me, as I'm sure Ledger did everybody in "The Dark Knight"
I do think that the ostentatious atmosphere of the 1920s may lend itself to the way Baz Luhrman films movies. "The Great Gatsby" may even benefit from his style though I demand substance as well. 'Pretty' movies are a dime a dozen and make for boring watching which the viewer soon forgets about afterwards. Again, this is another book I'm going to have to pick up before the film comes out but honestly, I can't wait. I love adaptations because they usually draw from great source material and hopefully it gives the book some much deserved attention. As well, it's the opportunity to see a story realised in the flesh. We get a visual representation of the words on the page. And haven't there been times when you wish there was a visual to accompany a situation or character?
"Les Miserables" is going to follow in the tradition of the Broadway musical and have singing. *Big sigh* Movies with singing aren't always strong on story as they spend so much time on the music. This film has Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean who it's been proven, can sing. Russell Crowe also stars and while I'm not sure he can sing, I believe he'll more than be able to carry his acting role. My concern is Anne Hathaway. She plays Fantine and while I've heard her sing previously in "Enchanted" I wonder if her singing ability is up to the numbers in the movie. There are some very powerful pieces in the film that I would hate to not be fully realized. Hathaway sings in the trailer but it's not as I would expect for the role. I want a full bodied, powerful and passionate voice for all of Fantine's songs. I supposed I've been spoiled by Lea Salonga's Fantine on Broadway but just listen to the power behind her voice.
I've posted a video of one of her performances with the same song from the movie trailer so that you compare the two and make your own judgement. I know Hathaway's primarily an actor but she's sung at Carnegie Hall so she has experience singing. She definitely infuses the song from the trailer with emotion and Salonga's version is more of a performance but with a musical there has to be some suspension of belief. I thought it would be more interesting to see this film as a straight drama but as it's a musical, the film maker's know that they better have some damn good singers as their leads. A good musical can fizzle without them. For example, 2004's "Phantom of the Opera" was a musical, like the Andrew Lloyd Webber Broadway version. The leads were actors first and singers second and I felt the movie suffered for this. If you're making a musical, you can't take yourself seriously and should go full boar on the songs which is where I feel Phantom fell down. It was too busy trying to be pretty and dramatic without the gravitas of some amazing voices to anchor the performances.
In any case, I'm looking forward to all of these movies. Primarily because I love both books and movies and when you can combine the two, it can create something amazing.
So tell me, are you planning on seeing any of these films? How do you feel about adaptations?
All in all, it was a never-to-be-forgotten summer — one of those summers which come seldom into any life, but leave a rich heritage of beautiful memories in their going — one of those summers which, in a fortunate combination of delightful weather, delightful friends and delightful doing, come as near to perfection as anything can come in this world.
― L.M. Montgomery
The first week of August hangs at the very top of summer, the top of the live-long year, like the highest seat of a Ferris wheel when it pauses in its turning. The weeks that come before are only a climb from balmy spring, and those that follow a drop to the chill of autumn, but the first week of August is motionless, and hot. It is curiously silent, too, with blank white dawns and glaring noons, and sunsets smeared with too much color.
― Natalie Babbitt, Tuck Everlasting
Spring flew swiftly by, and summer came; and if the village had been beautiful at first, it was now in the full glow and luxuriance of its richness. The great trees, which had looked shrunken and bare in the earlier months, had now burst into strong life and health; and stretching forth their green arms over the thirsty ground, converted open and naked spots into choice nooks, where was a deep and pleasant shade from which to look upon the wide prospect, steeped in sunshine, which lay stretched out beyond. The earth had donned her mantle of brightest green; and shed her richest perfumes abroad. It was the prime and vigour of the year; all things were glad and flourishing.
― Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist
Deep summer is when laziness finds respectability
– Sam Keen
No price is set on the lavish summer;
June may be had by the poorest comer.
– James Russell Lowell
This was one of those perfect New England days in late summer where the spirit of autumn takes a first stealing flight, like a spy, through the ripening country-side, and, with feigned sympathy for those who droop with August heat, puts her cool cloak of bracing air about leaf and flower and human shoulders.
– Sarah Orne Jewett
Green was the silence, wet was the light,
the month of June trembled like a butterfly.
― Pablo Neruda
Sun is shining. Weather is sweet. Make you wanna move your dancing feet
– Bob Marley
A perfect summer day is when the sun is shining, the breeze is blowing, the birds are singing, and the lawn mower is broken.
– James Dent
Summer set lip to earth’s bosom bare, and left the flushed print in a poppy there.
"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
Macbeth, Thane of Glamis, is promised a great future by three witches. Their hollow promises drive him to a desperate act, spurred on by his wife, Lady Macbeth. Together the two spiral into madness, one giving in and one forced out. Together they create an amazing story, all circling around the kingship of Scotland, a prize for any man. The central concern isn't taking the crown though but keeping it as murderous ambition and destiny touch the lives of every character.
I watched this in comparison to Orson Welles' "Macbeth" (1948). It's an interesting contrast as the two on opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to style and interpretation. Welles' set looks strange and as usual he's chewing the scenery. His version feels far more populist, cutting so much out of the play and rearranging dialogue. The end result though is coherent and fast paced. The acting leaves something to be desired but it's the kind of interpretation that an audience unfamiliar with Shakespeare could understand and enjoy. The 1979 version is far more faithful to the play, an unabridged translation to the silver screen. It also stars some big names such as Ian McKellen as Macbeth and Judi Dench as Lady Macbeth. McKellen gives an amazing performance with far more subtlety than Welles. We do get closer to McKellen and are able to gauge his emotional reactions better than Welles but McKellen demonstrates more range and does a good job of communicating his growing madness to the audience. Welles' performance has a more shouty, bombastic quality that lacks the quiet contemplation needed in moments when Macbeth is questioning his motives and actions. I did like that the McKellen version has all of his soliloquies almost acting as an internal monologue. He turns to the camera and speaks, other characters seemingly unable to hear his dialogue. Judi Dench, on the other hand, may not have been the best selection for Lady Macbeth. In the play, Macbeth's wife is cold and calculating, with a vicious streak that questions Macbeth's masculinity and goads him into going after Duncan. Her ambitions seem to outweigh her husband's and she appears to be the driving force behind her husband after he loses his nerve. Dench never seems to embody the cruelty inherent in the character and maybe that's because in real life, I've always pictured her as a nice person. The sleepwalking scene was interesting, a far more hypnotic and manic scene than the 1948 version.
One of my big problems with the 1978 film was the set. Every scene involved close up shots of the actors faces which was nice, to see the emotion in their faces. But it also hid the fact that there was no set to speak of. There was just a giant black background and the beginning started with all of the actors sitting in a giant circle, which breaks up the illusion that this is supposed to take place in Scotland. The film suffers from the same problem that Olivier's "Hamlet" (1948) does. It doesn't use the camera to its full advantage and as a result, the film feel static and heavy. While this is less apparent in "Macbeth", what is the point of the movie if there's no set? They might as well have staged an actual theatre performance and filmed it. This is such a lost opportunity as the director could really have played with the concept of setting. Many Shakespeare film adaptations today set the plays in different time periods. "Romeo + Juliet" is a Baz Luhrman adaptation with the film set in modern day Florida and it gave the film a twist, making it more accessible to younger generations. Also, Shakespeare's words are difficult enough to comprehend on their own. A set can help inform the audience about when the play is taking place and help decipher the mood and the dialogue when it pertains to place. It's difficult to picture Birnam Wood moving to Dunsinane Hill on your own but it's easier to comprehend if it's shown visually.
This also leads into my complaint about the costumes. As there's no set to aid the audience about when and where this is taking place, the next obvious option is to look to the costumes. In this film though, the costumes are a haphazard mess. In the first scene with King Duncan, everyone look as if they're in Edwardian dress until Malcolm shows up, wearing a beige turtleneck which looks very 1970s. Lady Macbeth's costume is so bland as to be from any time period and Duncan looks like he belongs in a Greek temple.
Comparing the two versions, overall I much prefer Orson Welles version. It doesn't take itself too seriously and is immensely more enjoyable than the McKellen version because he only includes the essential dialogue. I didn't even mind that the dialogue was rearranged and assigned to different characters. It was slightly jarring at first but didn't detract from the story. I do like McKellen's Macbeth more than Welles though. In a perfect world I would combine the two films but if you ever have the choice between the two I would go with the more entertaining version from 1948.
Rating: 3/5
If you'd like to read my review of "Macbeth" (1948) click here
“Such was the end of our friend, Socrates, a man who, we would say, was the best of all those we've experienced and, generally speaking, the wisest and the most just."
This book is a collection of four dialogues about the last days of the philosopher, Socrates. Through them readers get to know Socrates, his friends and the people who condemned him. The philosophical arguments presented are both straightforward and complex. They address issues of death, the immortality of the soul and the purpose of being a philosopher. This was one of my first major forays into Ancient Greek literature and I was very excited to delve into Plato.
The first dialogue is called “Euthyphro” and I found it a challenge. Socrates debates the nature of holiness with Euthyphro and some of the abstractions used in his argument were difficult to picture. I had to turn them into examples just to try and visualize what Socrates was talking about. For example, one question asked whether something was holy because it was loved or was it loved because it was holy? I pictured Zeus and the oak tree. Is it holy because Zeus loves it or does he love it because it’s holy? This boggled my mind and gave me a lot to think about. It's here we learn that Socrates is accused of impiety and corrupting the young. He continually praises Euthyphro's wisdom and flatters his knowledge of religion, seemingly to the detriment of his own argument. I re-read sections several times to grasp their meaning and of all four dialogues it took the longest to finish.
In “The Apology”, Socrates defends himself against his accusers. This is essentially the dialogue that takes place inside the ‘court room’. Here we witness Socrates' arrogance. Time and again he says he is a better man than everyone else yet, in the previous dialogue he spent so much time downplaying his intelligence and supposed superiority. This multi-dimensionality of character makes him real in my eyes. His memory only lives on in books and he isn't always likeable but that's what makes me like him so much. Real people are complex, layered individuals and Plato makes Socrates come alive on the page.
It "Crito", Socrates is in prison with his friend Crito trying to convince him to escape. There are many people willing to help Socrates who could then live out the rest of his life in another city. Socrates resists, saying that fighting the will of the Athenian people would be wrong. He would rather accept death than exile. His argument seems backwards and contrary until you read the next dialogue.
“Phaedo” is the longest and most convoluted of the dialogues. In it Plato summarily deconstructs his friends' arguments against his surrender to death and logically convinces them of the immortality of the soul and life after death despite the lack of hard proof. He asks mind-blowing questions such as "when does the soul attain truth?" This is also where we get the quote "the life which is unexamined is not worth living." It’s actually very impressive to read how Socrates sets up his argument and then manipulates the conversation for his own ends. He was clearly a master with words.
The difficulty in reading these works is that they are conveying dialogue from a second-hand source. We aren’t hearing these words from Socrates himself. Instead they’re filtered through Plato to us. As such, there’s no real way to tell how much of the writing is truth, how much is embellishment or if it’s a full out lie. This is compounded by the fact that Socrates left no written record of his work. This may speak to his innocence of 'corrupting the youth of Athens' as he didn't seem interested in getting his works out into the public. '
I had a great time reading this book and despite its shortness, was challenged by the arguments within. I found it interesting that while the book was by Plato, it concerned itself with Socrates and his words. We learn more about him than we ever do about Plato and Socrates didn't seem like the nicest guy. He was arrogant and lorded it over people when it suited his argument and hid feelings of superiority when it didn't. Part of me felt that Socrates just seemed to give up and succumb to his sentence. In fact, by the time he was put on trial he was an old man and had lived a full life with a family. He even argues that no one, least of all he, should be upset at his passing. He convincingly argued and believed in life after death. Free from its earthly body, his soul would dwell amongst other true philosophers. I disagreed with his belief that a philosopher's main goal was the study of death though. I've always felt that philosophy was a study of learning how to live and why things are they way they are.
The writer Xenophon also has an account of Socrates' trial. It would be interesting to see how the two contrast. It would serve to illustrate what I said about second-hand information. Truth gets obscured the further you are from the source. I would recommend this book but not for anyone looking for a quick read. This is not a work to skim. I would say it requires contemplation and introspection. If you're in for a challenge and want to understand the roots of philosophy, pick this up.
Here is another great batch of minimalist posters. Aren't they gorgeous! This time it's Dr Who themed from Karma Orange, an amazing graphic designer. Please take a look at their portfolio.
My knowledge of Dr Who before 2005 is zilch. I wasn't even aware of its existence until the new series rebooted with Christopher Eccleston. I didn't watch it religiously but was intrigued by some of the episodes. I didn't entirely understand the world or what a Time Lord or TARDIS was. Then David Tennant took on the role and everything changed. He was my Doctor, the one that defined the role for me. And again, the Brits proved that they put on fantastic tv. Always a fan of sci fi, I loved the different characters and species, the long story arcs and all the wibbly wobbly timey wimeyness of the show. My favourite episode has been and still is "Blink" because it's the only episode that has actually scared me.
Then I heard that Tennant was leaving Dr Who, a role that he dreamed of playing as a child, to play Hamlet. Argh! An actor called Matt Smith was taking over the role. I had seen him in approximately one role from "Ruby in the Smoke" where he wasn't very memorable. He was going be the next Doctor? No way! He was only 26, the youngest to play the role and he was replacing my Tennant? Utter tosh! I feared for the series and thought it would go downhill, suffer irreparable damage and disappear into the ether of syndication.
I had some small sliver of hope that Smith would prove me wrong, as I'd been wrong about Daniel Craig as James Bond and Heath Ledger as The Joker. Lo and behold, he was more than good in the role. Of course, I don't think he's nearly as fun as Tennant in the role and isn't as scary when he gets angry but he's playing a different aspect of the Time Lord. He's the youngest to play the role but he acts older than any other iteration. He wears suspenders (+10 for that!) and a bow tie (because he thinks bow ties are cool along with fez's). His wardrobe choices are more akin to an older gentleman which is contrary to his appearance but it fits with his actual age. I'm excited to see where they take this series and always enjoy the Christmas specials.
Series 7 is set to air later this year and I can't wait! Stephen Moffat helms the series though he has his hands full with "Sherlock" as well. I must confess I do like it better than "Dr Who" but you can't really beat Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch can you? I worry that Dr Who will suffer though with Moffat stretched thin over two shows. We'll see when Series 7 airs. Are you a fan of the show and who is your favourite Dr?
Once upon a time, many years ago, I was invited to join a book club. I was ecstatic and couldn’t wait to eat good food and chat about literature. I laboured under this delusion for two months until it all came crashing down around my ears rather abruptly. From then until now, I’ve labeled my experience, ‘The Bad News Book Club’ and this is the story of what happened.
I’m always up for chatting about books with anyone who will listen. Obviously it’s more interesting to chat to someone who has an interest in books or who has read the same book you have and then you can compare notes. This is why book clubs have always appealed to me. It’s been something of a secret obsession but I’ve never found anything that fits me. Our library has a book club every summer but it’s for teens and there’s very little chance I’d be able to sneak in there and pretend to be one. And as much as I’m fascinated by YA fiction, I don’t want to be stuck reading it all summer.
So imagine my joy and surprise when I’m asked to join a book club. It’s small and I don’t know anyone very well but at least it’s a book club. The first two months were glorious as each person chose a book and then hosted a meeting with food and drink. Not everyone was as interested in discussing plot and characters as I was but it didn’t matter. We were talking about books!
Finally it was my turn. I picked a book I’d previously read but one that I enjoyed and would lend itself to conversation. I cleaned the house and spent a lunch break at work shopping for a variety of goodies. I’d posted the book title and the time for our meeting. Satisfied that I’d done my due diligence, I got my tray of goodies ready and waited. And waited and waited. 7:30 came and went. I told myself everyone’s always late to these things, busy with their own lives, that sort of thing. Then it was 8:00pm and I was getting antsy. By 8:15pm I’d lost all sense of composure and called the one number I had for one of the members. They picked up, didn’t seem to know who I was and then said they were out with friends. I was sorely tempted to lose it over the phone but resisted. In the end I politely acknowledged their inability to attend.
No one else showed up.
I choked down the anger that had been slowly growing all night by eating the tasty snacks I’d purchased (read: time I’d wasted) on my lunch break at work. Feeling rather satisfied with myself and full, I settled down with the book no one else had obviously bother to read. In the end I had a really good night enjoying a book I loved even more the second time around.
I never did find out what happened that night, why no one showed up. In fact, I never heard from anyone else in the group again. No one phoned to explain or assign another book. It was all rather strange and I have a feeling that they never met again.
It took a long time to work out my feelings over the whole night and the club in general. I think what I wanted out of the club was different from what everyone else wanted. The problem was, I imagined that we all were on the same page. I wanted to discuss the deeper aspects of books while I think they were more interested in getting together and talking about books as well as other aspects of their lives. To take a page from author John Green, I wasn’t imagining other people complexly. No is ever entirely as you imagine them to be. Instead, most likely it's an idealized version of who they are that you imagine.
I never did join another book club. I had a sour taste left in my mouth from last time. That's why I like blogging so much. I can post my thoughts about books and there's a whole community out there, doing the same thing. We might disagree about a story but still, we converse and there's no need to arrange meetings or buy tasty snacks. In the end it's all been for the good because I couldn't be happier with the book bloggers. :)
I've been using the same rating system for books and movies for years and I think it's time I changed things up. 
