My Beloved World

My Beloved World
by
Sonja Sotomayor
read by
Rita Moreno

What an interesting and engaging story. Right from the get-go, I was hooked. The forward and prologue were read by Sotomayor herself and while Moreno does a great job, I really wish that Sotomayor had read the whole book. You can tell that she is a practiced speaker and the emotion with which she read was deep. I suppose her life as a Supreme Court Justice kind of doesn't allow much time for these kinds of things.
The start of Sotomayor's tale is about coming to grips with her childhood diabetes and of the death of her father at a young age. It is evident from the very beginning that she has always been self-confident no mattter what she says, not to mention that her idea of what a normal person is, better describes the academic and legal elite.
Sotomayor was born in New York and did not visit her parent's native Puerto Rico until she was old enough to be aware of it and what it meant. This is the place where she learned to love ripe mangoes, and would become aware of social classes.
During high school, Sotomayor joined her high school's debate and forensics team and explains how she felt while winning her first tournament competing in Extemporaneous speaking. It was cool to hear that what she was doing before I was even born had not changed at all by the time I was in high school and college competing in debate and forensics. But while I had some idea of what it was like to win a tournament, I never experienced it the way that she did. I never had that moment of clarity where I knew how to make every single member of the audience pick me to win. Even when winning, I never felt that I deserved to win because I was the best speaker or debater. At best I might have known that at that moment I had eeked something out.
After high school, Sotomayor went to Princeton. She pretty much took the place by storm as one would expect. She stayed away from the activist scene until she found a way to do it constructively and was involved with getting the university to hire Hispanic faculty. She also would have us believe that she graduated summa cum laude without knowing what the term meant before she was told she was graduating with the honors, I am a bit incredulous, not at her graduating with such high honors, but that having gone to a Catholic High School that she was never exposed to any Latin or to that term before.
The college years were busy for Sotomayor. As well as being a top student at Princeton and Yale Law School, her dear grandmother died. She also went to visit Puerto Rico, for the first time seeing it as an adult and seeing that it was not the paradise she had always thought it was which leads her into learning about it's history and working on rights for Puerto Ricans. She also marries her honey, Kevin and becomes editor of the Yale Law Review.
After law school, Sotomayor becomes an assistant DA in New York and becomes married to the job. She spends so much time on her, six days a week twelve to fifteen hours a day, that she and her actual husband grow apart and eventually divorce. By all accounts is was an amicable break-up, though Sotomayor is wise enough that if it were not, she would never let on. It is after telling of the dissolution of her marriage that she talks at great length of families and how we may not always be born into a family that best suits us, we can create our own families with the people we work with and associate with in our free time and it is these families that we make that one can find as much satisfaction and love as with the ones we are born into.
Sotomayor spends so much time saying how she will not discuss the details of any case she worked on because there are those that will try and interpret her actions in such a way as to predict how she will react as a Supreme Court Justice, that is a bit of a surprise when she talks about being asked to help try the Tarzan killer and explains how he could be tried for multiple crimes and why she and the more senior member of the DA's office had to be very careful and yet go for as big of a case as they could possibly get. I'm glad she included this, as I find her explanation of the workings of the DA's office very easy to understand and I also recognize how significant it is to successfully prosecute a serial killer.
Sotomayor covers the time up until she becomes a judge. If you want to know her brilliant insights into jurisprudence, you are going to need to read her rulings, because she wasn't kidding about not sharing them here.
This is a very well told story, read by a great reader. I did get a little perturbed about the hundredth time that she said she was just a normal person from a normal family. Well, the latter may be true, though I can't speak from experience about normal families. She spends the whole book telling one great anecdote after another, usually involving her setting herself heads and shoulders above her peers and we're expected to believe it ain't no thang? Well, I bet it isn't, I bet it really is as easy as she makes it sound - for her. Normal people are not brilliant legal scholars or the top jurists in the country. Normal people do not graduate Summa Cum Laude from Princeton or edit the Yale Law Review. If it were normal, why aren't there more peole like her running this country? Or pumping gas at the filling station? Or ringing up groceries at the local store? I don't think it's false modesty on Sotomayor's fault, I think she genuinely believes anyone can do what she did if they work hard enough and perservere. Is it odd that someone so intelligent and seemingly wise can also be so naive in this area?

My Beloved World at Amazon.com
My Beloved World Audiobook at Amazon.com

Lincoln (2012)

What a fantabulous film.. I will take good acting over vampire hunting any day. All of the characters in this film were such characters. Even the small roles had enough showing to pick up character foibles and eccentricities that really brought everything alive.
Of course I had heard how great this movie was, but it was always about Daniel Day-Lewis as Lincoln. He was absolutely fantastic. When I can forget that such a well-known actor is playing the role, I think that is a sign that they're doing something very right. But, I was not prepared for very strong showing by Sally Field, David Stratairn and Tonny Lee Jones. I expect these three actors to do a good job, just as I expect Day-Lewis to do a good job, but they all really stepped it up a notch. But maybe The Amazing Spiderman, Alphas and Men In Black 3, respectively, are not the most dramatic of vehicles to show off their fine acting abilities. These four actors were essential to this movie's success and set the bar very high for the rest of the cast.
I loved seeing Hal Holbrook in period costume. He somehow looks more appropriate dressed as a gentleman from the nineteenth century than in contemporary clothes. Perhaps that is because the first thing I recall seeing him in he was dressed as Mark Twain, or perhaps he is drawn to those roles because they somehow fit him best. He is looking as old as ever, which is to say not a bit older than he did twenty years ago.
It seems hard to believe that there was ever a time when long beards were the norm de rigeur, but it warms the cockles of my heart to see so many whiskers. I am glad that no one has suggested recently that those of us with beards shave off our mustaches, as I've never liked that look and doing it would not only feel funny, but make me look funnier than I already am. It is interesting that so many of the young men were sporting mustaches, like Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the President's son, Robert Lincoln, as well as James Spader as Mr. Bilbo. I wonder if there wasn't a sort of generational rebellion going on? Probably yes and probably no. I suspect that like now, it was largely a matter of fashion more than anything else.

Lincoln on IMDb

The Guild Season 6

Okay, obvious stuff out of the way first: I <3 class="goog-spellcheck-word" codex="" span="" style="background-color: yellow; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">Tink
is still cute and Zaboo is still adorable, if in a creepy kind of way. There.This 12 episode season picks up after the events of Season 5 - The Convention. Codex finds herself working at the game company that makes the game that she and her guild have devoted their lives to. She finds herself the literal "yes" girl for game creator, Floyd. Floyd is completely whacko. He's obsessive compulsive and bipolar and very likely an alcoholic. Codex gets off on the completely wrong foot because Floyd sets her up as the new wunderkind. He starts by booting the lead artist out of his cubicle after giving her the parking space of the community coordinator. It's unclear exactly she alienated the COO and the lead programmer, but she did and the foursome are out to thwart her. We soon find out it's not personal and that they just want to get their expansion out which is already way overdue.
In the meantime, the guild is making Codex's life at the new job difficult. Zaboo just literally moves in and becomes the inpaid IT guy. Tink starts dating the lead programmer. And Zork, in an effort to win back the affections of his ladylove, takes on the corporate game. Bladezz and Clara don't so much complicate Codex's life as they do each other's while using Wiggly as an unwitting pawn in their power struggle.
Add in some zaniness with the additional character of Bruiser from Seasons 4 and 5 and Zork's girlfriend Madelyne as the uber-activist. Mix this all together and it was a fun season.
But, was it the last season? All kinds of story arcs get wrapped up. Zaboo is going to stay living at the game company. Tink finally feels emotions and gets a real boyfriend. Zork and Madelyne decide to date. Clara discovers a way to make money while doing online stuff and Bladezz is finally all the channel hits that he has dreamed of. Oh, and Wiggly is in training to be and Olympic discuss thrower. Discusser? Discuteer? There we go. Olympic Discuteer. And most important of all is the way Codex wraps up the final vlog, she says that she has finally achieved all the things that she had hoped for had come true - friends, job, going outside - those kinds of things. She turns off her computer, pats it fondly and walks off. Fade to black.
It's been fun watching the way all the characters have changed. Except Vork. He hasn't changed that much over the five seasons, until maybe this one. He still gives me the creeps, and not in the funny, "this-guy-is-so-lame-he's-hilarious" kind of way. And how about that Erin Grey? Va-va-va-voom. She was 62 years old when Season 6 was filmed. Her character has a line about, "us people over 40 having a sex life" or words to that effect, and I thought that I could believe her as a woman in her 40s. I don't know if she's had plastic surgery or not, and I like not knowing so I'm not going to look into it. She does look a little older than she did on Buck Rogers or Silver Spoons, but mostly the same. I think it is more likely that she is either a) an android or b) an elf with clipped ears.
If we get a seventh season, I will watch it, without hesitation. Well, once it is finally completely out, none of this week to week wondering if I missed something or if they are taking a break. But, if it doesn't come back, I will watch whatever it is that Ms. Day does next. It'll probably be awesome, too.

The Guild at IMDb

Merlin and the War of the Dragons (2008)

Well, this is by the same folks that did Dragonquest, so I wasn't expecting much. But, there in the very first scene is none other than Jurgen Prochnow, whom I prefer to think of as the Duke, Leto Atriedes. That had to be a good sign, I thought, and it was.
Even thought this film was by the same production company as Dragonquest, with the same director, it did not have the same cast of actors as I thought it might for some reason. But, that's not a bad thing. This time out instead of some crap story, there is actually a decent tale telling of the beginnings of Merlin and how Uther Pendrag came to rule as King of Britain. They took liberties with that, of course, but I'm okay with it.
The same special effects company, Tiny Juggernaut, did the special effects for this movie as for Dragonquest, and did just as good a job, with a lot more dragons flying about at once, but not as many 'glowy' and 'showy' effects applied to them, letting them look more like traditional dragons. The rest of the special effects were okay, reminding me a lot of syndicated television shows like Xena or Hercules.
The one complaint I have about this movie, well the one major complaint, is that they tried to have a battle scene representing thousands of warriors with a cast of about 20. They did try all kinds of camera tricks and special effects tricks, including some CGI soldiers at a very far distance which actually looked pretty good. The film suffered for having so few actors in the battle. Actually much in the same way that television shows, like the ones I mentioned above often do. Army A meets Army B, and somehow we're only shown about a dozen or a dozen and a half men at any one time. Even big name shows from the 80s and 90s had this problem. I've always thought if it is important enough to the story to have a large crowd, cut back on your special effects and hire the extras. I cannot even begin to tell you how annoyed I was as a kid to see shows like the A-Team fight a large bunch of goons, yet somehow the same vehicle is getting shown blowing up in different scenes, and they fight bad guys four or five at a time. Or how in Buck Rogers, there would be supposedly epic space battles involving squadrons of space ships on each side, yet we would only see three ships at a time. Okay, I always cut this show a little slack in that department because they were just doing what Battlestar Galactica had done.
Until the credits rolled, I was really excited that this company - The Asylum - had come so far in one movie, but then the production date was shown and this was made the year before Dragonquest. I could have guessed that based on the special effects, but I was hoping it was the other way around. The quality of story and acting went way down in one year's time. I am curious to see what they're doing now, though. maybe Dragonquest was the fluke.

Merlin and the War of the Dragons at IMDb

Ong-Bak the Thai Warrior (2003)

There must be something lost in the translation of the title of this film. Ong-Bak is the name of the buddha that looks over the village of Nram Pradu. He is a stone statue, and this is not some kind of fantasy film. I'm sure the warrior bit refers to Ting (Tony Jaa), the young man whom on the eve of becoming ordained as a monk must use muay thai skills to retrieve the head of Ong-Bak which has been stolen by a thug hoping that it's worth a lot of money.
Ting soon finds himself in Bangkok, trying to look up Humlae, who now goes by the name George and is a petty con man who works with a partner, Muay. Ostensibly they are pulling cons to pay her way through university. Since Ting has sworn never to use his formidable muay thai skills, he must think that his life is in danger or that another's life is - which it turns out through the coures of the movie that he only fights when it's a girls life in danger. He actually does a fair bit of running away to avoid fighting, which shows off Jaa's amazing athleticism. He runs like a cross between a parkors champion and a young Jackie Chan in one of his serious roles (hey, he had a few when he was younger).
The fights in this movie are impressive. The chase scenes are impressive. The acting, not so much. Actually, it's pretty much on par with most action movies starring a martial arts champion, whether it be Chinese, Brazilian or American.
The ending of this movie is great, and I doubt that I'll spoil it for you by giving it away since looking into my magic eight ball tells "not a chance" when I ask it if anyone who reads this was planning on ever watching this movie. The bad guy who you know is bad from the moment you see him because he uses an electronic voice box and smokes through the hole in his neck, after stealing the Ong-Bak and putting Ting through the ringer (including kidnapping Muay to make Ting fight), is crushed by the head of a giant buddha which he is trying to steal. It was a bit pedictable really, but still kind of cool.

Ong-Bak the Thai Warrior on IMDb (IMDb gave this a really high rating - 7.2, to my surprise)

Dragonquest (2009)

Well, I've always wondered what happened to the Beastmaster when he got old, or at least a lot older. He becomes a knight of the Brotherhood of Virtue and instead of going shirtless all the time, he wears several layers of shirts and tunics and even a fake hunchback for part of the time. I guess the animals must have all died from old age or something.
We've reached the point in movie making where even crappy movies can have half-way decent special effects. But special FX can't make up for mediocre acting and a really bad story. That's what really bothers me about this movie. The acting is, um, not great, but also not sucky. The story is sucky, however, enough so to completely eclipse the acting and the special FX. I can't point to a single part or even a couple that I would do differently, because of the overwhelming suckitude of the plot and premise. It's really annoying - the actor and/or stunt people could actually handle the melee weapons used, and some of those actors might actually be good with a good script. What a waste of time and effort.
You know, now that I think about it, this was probably as good as the Beastmaster movies. Or the Conan movies. But I think they probably had better stories, which believe is not saying much. I will give the writer credit for not copying anybody else. I can say without a doubt that this movie is not a rip-off of another movie. I also feel comfortable in declaring that I don't think anyone is going to rip-off this movie, either. Though some of the dragon's scenes were pretty cool. Certainly, the story is safe.
Also, and I've never seen this in another film, of any caliber - several characters are listed double in the credits. There are 3 that are listed by just a first name and then by a first name and surname and the same actor listed for both, so I don't think it was the actor doubling up as two characters, especially one of the characters is prominent and very easily distinguishable in the scenes he is in. Was this movie so bad that the proof-reader quit before the credits were done rolling? And to prove my point, there is no writer listed but a company. The real writer wouldn't even take credit (well blame actually) for this film.

Dragonquest at IMDb

Wraith of the Dragon God (2005)

This Dungeons & Dragons movie lacked the star power of the first one, but it also lacked the cheesiness. The great thing about D&D is that it's a big enough system to encompass both films (and the other ones I've seen too). But who cares except for a few of us fanboys? I think the fact that this one was a straight-to-video release answers that question. The thing is, this isn't that bad of a movie. But, it's also not my movie. Why? Well as long as I'm hanging my nerd flag out to fly, this is Dungeons & Dragons 3.5. They've dropped Advanced from the name and simplified a lot of things, while continuing to do what they do best - powering everything up. Now granted, in this film, the adventuring party are all supposed to be the best of the best, seasoned veterans, yadda yadda yadda, which might explain some of the things but still, they've got a magical gizmo or whiz-bang for everything - not through careful planning, but seemingly by luck (I know, the thief says he came prepared, but still). I still enjoyed the film form a gaming standpoint, though, mostly because it reminds me of the CRPG version of Dungeons & Dragons that I've played.
Why isn't there a great Dungeons & Dragons movie? I ask myself this more often than is probably wise to admit. The answer is that D&D is not a story or even a place, it's a game system. And likely even more importantly, the movies are written by some writer, who may or may not have ever played the game - hard to tell if they know firsthand or are acting on the advice of someone who does know - who is writing a story and trying to fit D&D in around it. If they did it the other way around, which is to say embraced a system and see what falls out when they shake it, they would likely end up with a better film. I don't just mean use the rules, the classes, the monsters, but the tone of it. This film was too mundane and focused on things that would not be focused on wile playing the game. The adventuring in the film is only a small part of it, and in game terms most of the opening and the ending are handled by NPCs and plot devices.
There are several times during the action sequences where you think to yourself that as an RPGer you, nor anyone you ever games with would have mad such bad decisions - especially considering how these five adventurers are supposed to be the top of the class. For example, the party's cleric taking on a large white dragon by himself, without first preparing anything, or telling his comrades what he's going to do, and then by stepping directly in front of it and announcing his presence before his spell is ready. He deserved to get eaten.
If Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro really wanted to make a great movie and all the cash that comes along with it, they should embrace an already established character or group of characters and make a trilogy of movies about them. Now, with my luck they would decide to make DragonLance movies with Michael Bey directing. What would be really cool though is if they adapted some of the R. A. Salvatore books about everyone's favorite dark elf - Driz'zt Do'urden, or possibly even tell a story featuring a certain arch-wizard by the name of Elminster, what with the popularity of the Peter Jackson movies would get some viewers just because they thought he was Gandalf. The Elminster movies could be based on the series of books by Ed Greenwood, who goes way back to the early days of AD&D and who created the Forget ten Realms setting. That and not allow Michael Bey near it.
Oh, and if you want to make a proper D&D movie, you need at least one dwarf to bicker with your elf.

Wraith of the Dragon God on IMDb

Addenda:
I ended up watching the extras on the DVD and it turns out the writer is a long-time player of AD&D and D&D. And... They had a technical advisor on the film provided by Wizards of the Coast. And... This is the sequel to the big screen D&D film with Wayans et al, and the bad guy is even in the first one. And... While the blonds are given the sexy outfits, it's really the dark-haired elf mage who's the cute one.

2nd Addenda:
Turns out there is another special feature where Gary Gygax watches the film and tells you how good it is. The funny thing is that by the time this came out (not long before Gygax's death), he hadn't been involved with D&D for over a decade and a half. He doesn't so much say that it's a good film, as he does say that the "fighter" is a good representation of a fighter, etc. Also... Yeah, definitely the elf chick.

Seraphina

Seraphina
by
Rachel Hartman
read by
Mandy Williams

Audiobooks have two factors to decide if a story is good or not, compared to the book's one. A poorly written story with a bad or boring reader is a definite miss, while an excellent story and a good reader are a definite hit. It's the other two options that make audiobooks a bit more tricky than print books. I've found that personally, a less than spectacular story with a good reader will usually get me through the whole book, even though I know that the story is not the best, partly I think it's due to the momentum of a sound disk playing through on it's own. With a print book you either have to turn the page or press the next page button, but audiobooks require less physical interaction on the part of the reader. This sometimes works against the audiobook, if the story is good but the reader not so much. There are certain readers who's voices sound bored or boring all the time, somewhat of a drone, and this is what I mean by bad reader. I have yet to hear one who cannot read aloud well. With that said, I have experienced a number of occassions where words are mispronounced or the wrong word used, but this is really the director's fault for not correcting the reader and having them do another take. For example in one particular series, a quite long one actually, that uses two readers both of whom are excellent, one book had a series of five or six chapters where one character's name kept being exchanged for one of two others. I know this was an error since I looked up the passages, not to mention that contextually it made no sense. Also in the realm of directorial errors are having the reader announce something loudly and exuberantly and then read - "she whispered", which occurred often in a certain series of young adult books. All of this is to say that this one of those books where both the story and the reader are quite good - a sure sign of which is that you stop doing whatever else it is that you are doing while listening to the audiobook so that you can devote your full attention to the story.
Seraphina is both the name of the book and of the main character who narrates the story. She's a sixteen year old musical prodigy newly made assistant to the court composer at the royal palace in the kingdom of Goredd. The story begins two weeks before the arrival of a foreign dignitary to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the peace accord between the two peoples. Well, 'peoples' if you count dragons in humn form as people. As part of her duties to the composer Veridius, Seraphina gives harpsichord lessons to the princess Glisselda and soon becomes kind of an advisor to her and friend to her betrothed, prince Lucian who goes by the name of Kiggs. Because of her unique heritage, Seraphina's father who is a noted jurist has commanded her to never draw attention to herself, which of course means that she ends up doing it right off the bat at court and continues to throughout the book.
This book is both compicated and complex, though fortunately rarely both at the same time. The politics and the religion of the Goredd are complicated - layer upon layer, but once you are pointed to the right stitch, easy enough to unravel. The characters and their relationships are complex. This makes for a nice rich tapestry of brightly colored players.
Their are aspects of this book that remind me of the Monster Blood Tattoo trilogy by D. M. Cornish. Both use a modified European historical setting (though different time periods) and use characters from the lower classes including street urchins. Both are about the main character coming to terms with the fact that they are different from those around them and only by being honest with themselves do they ultimately gain the acceptance they so desperately crave. Hartman spends a lot less time worldbuilding than Cornish does and accomplishes a full story arc in one book, where it took Cornish three books, yet I feel that Hartman's world is very alive. More is not always better.
I also must compare this with the first two books of the Havoc Chronicle's, Threads that Bind and Unbound, by Brant Williams. Not only were these the two books I read immediately before this one, but they are also narrated by a sixteen year old girl. But, where Williams' hero seemed forced, Hartman's felt genuine and natural. It would be easy (and wrong) to dismiss this as Williams being a middle-aged man unable to truly imagine what a teen-aged must feel and think, where Hartman presumably still remembers what she felt like at that age, but Williams male characters, teen-aged or adult, felt wooden in comparison to Hartman's treatment of male, female, human or dragon characters. Hartman has her characters acting age appropriate and Williams does not - it's as simple as that. Well, and while I'm not sure if she is actually a better writer than he is, she is certainly more polished, some credit of which may go to her editor.
The only complaint I have about this book, and it's only a fake complaint, is that while the main story arc is wrapped up, enough things happen at the end that may mean a sequel or two are on the way. And while I'll happily read them when they appear, I am a little miffed that I may have been tricked into violating my self-imposted moritorium on open-ended series.

Seraphina on Powells.com
Seraphina Audiobook on Amazon.com

Hitchcock (2012)

Sure, I've seen Hitchcock movies, but I don't very much about Alfred Hitchcock. Well, I did listen to a radio interview with Janet Leigh where she did discuss filming the shower scene in Psycho, which is a propos. She did imply that the scene was very traumatic to film.
Sir Anthony Hopkins as Alfred Hitchcock is phenomenal. But that isn't a surprise, as he always hands in a fine performance. I'm not sure how much time Hopkins put into studying Alfred Hitchcock, but for my money he has the mannerisms and voice down. Sure, I'm too young to have seen "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" when it aired, but I've seen re-runs and they seem a very good match with this movie's portrayal of Hitchcock. Hopkins made this movie interesting to watch, but the person that really makes it worth watching is Helen Mirren. As with her co-star, Mirren always turns in a top-notch performance. As Hitchcock's wife, Alma Reville, Mirren is strong, inspired and inspirational and is portrayed as a big part, if not the biggest part of Hitchcock's success.
This movie takes place around the making of Psycho, so Janet Leigh, played by Scarlett Johansson, is a big part of it. yet at the same time, Johansson is playing Lee as so demure that she's not a big part of the drama, or at least not a big part of the melodrama which she is shown working hard not to be part of. For me, well, I'm not the biggest fan of Johansson, though I think she's a fine actress - it's the hoarse quality her voice takes on in dramatic or stressful scenes which I find really detracts from her characters. Not once does that become a factor in this film, so for the first time that I can think of, her performance really was a pleasure to watch. Also in Psycho was Vera Miles, played by Jessica Biel. What a far cry from her last role as the lieutenant of the worker's resistance in Total Recall this role is for her. She was completely unremarkable in this film. Unlike the character Johansson was playing, this is a bad thing. Miles was in her last picture with Hitchcock and glad to be done with him, or so they say in the movie, but Biel's character in Total Recall was much more dramatic and passionate, and that was a silly action film.
This film isn't really about Psycho, or even about making a movie thought that is the backdrop for the whole story. It's really about a man sobering up enough, psychologically speaking, to realize that his partner who has told him for decades that she loves him, really does, and not only that but she is the one thing that he absolutely needs to succeed. The big break-through is not that Psycho turned out to be a unmitigated success, but that the man can tell the woman what he is feeling and share in the glory of their success together. It warms the cockles of my heart.

Hitchcock on IMDb

The Passion of Poetry

Last night I was feeling pretty passionate about an issue. Last week and in the last couple of weeks prior, I have felt passionate about a couple of different things. Being who I am now, the passion faded quickly leaving behind either resolve or remorse, I won't know fully until I do or don't do those things which I felt passionate about. These times reminded me of how I used to feel when I was younger, when I was quite often passionate about various things, and much longer than just for an evening. There are many things I don't like about my younger self, but the passion I felt is not one of them.
One of the things I used to be passionate about was poetry. Writing it. Reading it. Talking about it. Going to poetry readings. The great thing about this particular passion is that it was, and is, self-feeding. I think that good poetry is passionate. Now as you may guess, I am using a broader definition of passion than romantic love, I am using it in the sense of a strong emotion or idea that fills one with caring about said emotion or idea. If you are passionate about poetry and then read a passionate poem, your own passion grows, sometimes exponentially.
When I think about the things that have changed my life, that have made me the person that I am, a few categories become evident: events that have happened to me, things I've read, things I've heard and things I've done. Poetry fits into all four of these categories. I remember being given a book of poetry and how that created such an incredible bond between the giver and myself. I recall reading a Shakespearean sonnet in high school and for the first time really getting what it meant. I'm not talking about the "A Student" kind of thing where I was regurgitating rote-learned symbol imagery, but really having that emotional Epiphany, enough so that through the whole poetry unit of the advanced English class, I ate lunch in the teacher's classroom to talk with him about the poetry we had read in class that day and the other poetry he had given me to read on my own. I remember the first time I went to a poetry slam and how utterly impressed I was by these literary rock stars on a stool in front of me swaying to the sing-song verse delivered by their own voices. I recall quite vividly both the first time I read Howl and heard it read by Allen Ginsberg and understood more about Beat poetry than any professor or documentary or reminiscing parent could ever impart to me. I remember a class assignment in college presenting a classic English poem and reading Kubla Khan by Samuel Taylor Coleridge with a swaying body and as sexually suggestive voice as I could manage and knowing that was the way that Coleridge meant it and defending my interpretation to the professor with Coleridge's own words explaining the woman and the opium. I have been the poet, the listener, the reader the poem. Simply, because of poetry, I have been. And that which has been might still be.
I'm sure that I must have seen it written somewhere, but have always carried the idea within myself that the best expository or prose writing can tell you all about emotion and maybe even illicit emotion, but the best poetry is emotion. A great novelist can give you secret insights into the love between two persons, but a great poet can give you that love.
Not every poet is a great poet or every poem a great poem, but even the mediocre can be genuine and give you something that you didn't have before. Not that I'm espousing that anyone read bad poetry or mediocre poetry when there is so much good and even great poetry about, but unlike some other things that you might read, a mediocre poem can provide enough insight to keep you going until you can find the great poem. And to be frank, once you love poetry, bad poems are there own if different motivation to find great poetry so that you can re-assure yourself if nothing else.
To be honest, I can't understand how anyone could not be passionate about poetry. Whether it's the young singer calling on the words of a legend, or a cowboy explaining the beauty of the night's sky, or an athlete relating one of her great motivators, or a rowdy drunk yelling out his favorite bawdy limerick, or a teacher sharing a book with an eager student, there is a poem that speaks to every person.

Les Miserables (2012)

This is such a cheery movie, it being all about unicorns and rainbows and the whatnot. Happy singing elves in the country of Happyland singing about life's continuous parties. La la la.
I think this film has caused me to suffer a bit of a cognitive break. Sorry about that.
Everyone is familiar with the story right? Some good people get put in bad situations and their lives get totally fucked and then it gets worse and then the hand of justice comes to fuck things up some more. I know. Right?
I didn't watch this to be cheered up or because I didn't know the story and got tricked into watching it. I watched this to see Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway. As a bonus I also got to see Helena Bonham Carter. Now, I was previously familiar with Jackman's and Hathaway's singing ability and was not let down. I was pleased to see that Carter did not embarrass herself which is kind of ironic considering that her character is somewhat shameless, made even more so playing opposite Sacha Baron Cohen as the Thenardiers. The real surprise for me was Russell Crowe, whom I had heard was tolerable as Javert - singing-wise as he is obviously a more than capable actor - yet found his singing to be surprisingly good. That's right. I like Crowe in this role. Broadway has a style that is somewhere in the middle of opera and pop music with pros and cons of each. I often do not like the singing style, even though I have mad respect for the performer's ability. I think it pretty much boils down to the extensive use of vibratto which I feel when used that much lends a melodramatic feel whatever the song or scene is supposed to convey.
I know from interviews I've seen and articles that I've read that Jackman, Crowe and Hathaway are very serious about their craft and if the role calls for them to do something extreme with their bodies, they will. At the beginning of the movie before Valjean has been released from prisong/slavery, Jackman is looking very thin and has the buzzed hair. I read that he had dropped some pounds for those scenes. Then we have Hathaway who gets her hair chopped off and also lost a bit of wait for the 'stylish' starving-prostitute look. Just take a look at her body weight in the other film she had come out last year, The Dark Knight Rises. Perhaps the biggest difference in weight was Crowe, however. He looks much like we have seen him in films the last few years, since he buffed up to play Robin of Loxley in the Robin Hood remake. But his film out earlier in the year, Fists of Steel, had him about 30 or 40 pounds heavier. (Just look at my blog for that movie to see what I thought about how he looked.) This is true commitment to your art. I am mentally sending sandwiches to Jackman and Hathaway, and one to Christian Bale because I'm remembering him in the Thin Man where he lost so much weight for the role that he looked like he might snap in two if someone sneezed on him.
My only complaint about this movie is that it's so long. Sure it's downright short when compared with The Hobbit, but it comes in at over two and a half hours. That's a long time to be subjected to the particular emotions the film illicits. Which I guess is how I ended up in that happy place full of unicorns and rainbows.

Les Miserables on IMDb

The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Now, it's been a might long time since I read The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkein, somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 to 30 years, but I don't remember it being quite so, um, yeah, what's the word I'm looking for? Prequelly. You read The Hobbit and it's all cool because it's this small adventure where spiders and trolls are the nastiest things you meet before coming to Smaug. And they were plenty nasty. In my mind's eye, I can see the dwarves and poor Bilbo spending the first half of the book being held prisoner by one baddie or another. They were just a bunch of blokes with more misplaced bravery than common sense. The movie has a bunch of freakin' action heroes banded together against insurmountable odds which they somehow manage to, er, surmount.
Look, I decided to love Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies from the moment I first laid eyes on them. I drank the kool aid and I ain't afraid to admit it. There are the books, which are great, really the standard still by which all fantasy novels are measured. But the movies aren't the books. They leave things out, they add things in. Was I unhappy that some things were left out? You bet I was. But, I also understand that to put in everything from the books would have made the already incredibly long movies incrediblier longer. And they still would have missed some things and changed others. Look at the Game of Thrones adaptation - 10 hours long and still missed what I think are some important things from the book. As an aside, when I started reading Game of Thrones, George R. R. Martin kept making references to the "small folk". I thought since he was using 'maester' instead of 'master' and 'ser' instead of 'sir' that he must just be calling his hobbits, 'small folk'. I was terribly disappointed when I found out that it was a term the gentry used for commoners and peasants. Where was I? Oh that's right, the movies are not the same as the books, yet they are brilliant in their own way. I love them as equals to the books, just the story told by a different master storyteller. And in case you're wondering, dear reader, I feel the same about the Harry Potter books and movies. There is no way that any movie could do complete justice to Jo Rowling's books, which in my opinion are some of the best books I have ever read, so they spun the tale their own way. A way which made sense to be told as a movie.
The Hobbit part 1, is almost the opposite of most adaptations. Jackson et al have all of these dropped or neglected things from the Lord of the Rings movies that they want to stick in somewhere. With the addition of the extra stuff, I think they might have forgotten how humble The Hobbit actually was. On the other hand, there are these cool (to me) back stories and foreshadowing that they're filling in for me, some of which may be based on the other books by Tolkien, but some which Jackson has added to make a movie more on par with the Lord of the Rings films, which is my nice way of saying that Jackson is trying to get a big scope movie from a small scope book.
Oh and where are the spiders? I know that they trolls come before the spiders in the book, but I don't know exactly where we are in the book so I can't tell if the spiders are yet to come or if Jackson left them out, deciding to only mention them instead of showing them. I guess I'll have to wait and see. Oh internets...I have a job for you...
The actors are just spectacular. I will watch Sir Ian, anywhere, anytime in any roll. Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett, reprising their roles as Elrond and Galladriel, respectively, are two of my favorite actors in two of my favorite roles for them. And Martin Freeman! I've been a fan of his since the Office, and loved him in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Sherlock. Everyone is just fantastic. The only comment I have is that Christopher Lee is giving off the same vibe as Saruman in this film as he did as Count Dooku in Attack of the Clones, that being that he is a frail old man. This doesn't mean that I don't like him or his job here, quite the opposite. It makes me a little melancholy to think about him getting older is all.
Do I need to even mention the special effects and the scenery? I would watch a three hour film of just the scenery for this movie or the Lord of the Rings movies. It's that good.
Bottom line on this film is that I get to have it both ways as a fanboy. I get my Peter Jackson directed Hobbit movie (part 1), but I also get the only good Dungeons and Dragons movie ever made with the Lord of the Rings movies not far behind on representing AD&D. During the battle scenes, I wondered a couple of times if Gary Gygax was going to get mentioned in the credits. I also thought about AD&D when the elves keep referring to Bilbo as a halfling, which is the AD&D term (as opposed ot hobbits which is the Tolkien term.

The Hobbit on IMDb

Wreck-It Ralph (2012)

Another animated kid's film presents itself to me. While I'm waiting for heavyweights like The Hobbit and Lincoln, I guess this will have to do. Pop in the DVD and am underwhelmed by Disney's announcement that for my convenience, I will have to sit through their ads or go to main menu - no control over skipping a particular trailer or fast-forwarding through a boring part. I really hate it when companies do this with their DVDs. Hate it. This isn't starting well at all.
But. Then the film starts with  Ralph, voiced by John C. Reilly doing a voice over and we're treated to some classic gaming graphics to represent what the humans see, and then suddenly we're in game and seeing everyone in their glorious three-deeness. Then things really get going. In spite of my early misgivings at what I saw in front of me, I'm liking this film.
Now, in all due fairness, I was expecting to like this film. The buzz around it has been that it has something for kids, whom it is aimed at, but also a little something-something for the adults who "have to" sit through it with them. There are lots of classic arcade references, not to mention appearances by some of the classics - Pac Man and the ghosts, the various denizens of the multitude of Mario games, and Q-Bert. For all I know all of the characters are from real games - zombies, fighting games, driving games, dancing games, first-person shooters. Pretty much all the genres that I'm aware of are there except maybe flight simulation games and the old-school side-scroller space shoot-em-ups.
Is this still a kid's movie? Yes. Is the plot predictable? Yes. But is it executed well? With excellent animation and fun characters? Yes and yes. Even thought I didn't get to see the blu-ray3D version - whatever the hell that is - I liked it. Hmm, I'm picturing some kind of crazy disk that doesn't require a mchine to play. You put it on a tabletop or other flat surface and you spin, like you would a coin or a top and a holographic image appears - it's like magic! It's blu-ray3D! Well, I've got news for you people, I have it under good authority from Charleton Heston that this technology is a sure sign that we're on the path to the apes ruling the world.
John C. Reilly doing the voice of Ralph was perfect. I really can't think of anyone better for it. The other voices were good, too, but not necessarily irreplacable. Jane Lynch might have been. Her tough-as-nails space marine reminded me a bit at times of her coach character on Glee (in a good way) and I'm not sure that anyone else could have pulled that off, but I kind of think that Peri Gilpen might have come close. Sarah Silverman was the voice of Vanillope and while she was good, I think any enthusiastic actress could have pulled that off. The same goes for Jack McBayur as the voice of Felix, he's certainly got that "I'm slightly dumb and plenty gullibe, but a helluva nice guy" voice down, but a lot of actors can do that, though maybe not as recognizably so. The one voice that I guess is completely replacable is that of Alan Tudyk as King Candy, but not because he was so-so (he was rather quite good), instead it is due to him doing a voice. I didn't know that was Tudyk until I saw his name in the credits. In some ways, that makes him my favorite voice for a character in the film. I was thinking as I watched the production credits that it's too bad that all of these big time animated films only use big stars in the main roles speaking as themselves. It would be so much more entertaining to not be thinking of all the other roles I have seen them in, and if the animated version onscreen looks anything like them. There are tons of unknown actors that would do a wonderful job and all I would picture would be the character in front of my face. Or even have the big stars try on another voice as if they were actually cast in a film instead of just reading a script in a recording studio somewhere. This is not a complaint about this film really. This is a comment on the nature of the beast.
And in case you were wondering if there were any easter eggs in the credits (which would be appropriate given the time of year) there is, but so minor and not germaine to the story per se. What is totally worth watching for those of you that skip the extras is the short film Paperman. Very sweet.

Wreck-it Ralph on IMDb

Five Minutes of Heaven (2009)

I was handed this video and told it looked like the kind of film that I would watch. It's a BBC production starring Liam Neeson and James Nesbitt. This is exactly the kind of thing I watch. All I knew about this film going in was the cover of the DVD case. Pictures, close-ups of Neeson and Nesbitt not looking too happy, someone in a ski mask, a sepia-toned picture of a 70s car, a hand holding a gun. There was also the line in block capital letters, "TO FACE THE FUTURE, THEY MUST FACE THE PAST". My way of thinking is that whether or not the movie is any good, Neeson and Nesbitt are two men that are always worth watching.
I was not wrong.
There is far less action than the cover implies, so anyone who wants to see an American style action film with Neeson should forget about this and go watch Taken. This is instead a well-told story about two men who are tied together by an event that happened in 1975 that forever changed both of their lives in horrible ways. The film is the story of how they each independently have tried to deal with what happened them and how they let it shape the men they have become. The main focus of the film is an arranged meeting of the men so that they can come to some sort of resolution.
This movie really is all Neeson and Nesbitt. I don't mean that the rest of the actors suck, because they don't, they all seem quite believable in fact. But all the other parts, maybe with the exception of a minor character played wonderfully by Anamaria Marinco, are bit parts. Other than Marinco, everyone else has just a few lines at most. But, when you have two of the finest living actors together in the same film, why would you clutter it up with other people? The way the story unfolds, it makes sense that these two are the focus. Okay, so maybe I'm being a little hyperbolic by adding Nesbitt into the rarified air of "greatest living actors", but I don't think I am with Neeson, and certainly Nesbitt is one of my favorite actors so please excuse my bias.
I can not tell you how great it is to watch a film and not know how it's going to end until it does. Okay, it's this great. You can't see me right now, but I actually stopped typing and held my hands as far apart as they would go. Really. And if you can see me now, well creepy, 'cause it's night time and I'm sitting in my bedroom typing this, but you would know that I'm telling the truth about holding my hands up at arm's length.

Five Minutes of Heaven on IMDb

Oh, and the four stars and exclamation point rating on the front cover must be a four star and not a five star system, right? Or a typo. If it were me, I would just give this film five out of five stars, no punctuation.

First Day of National Poetry Month

It's April, which means that it is National Poetry Month. Long before I became a novelist, I was a poet, and that has never left me. I don't wait for April to roll along to read or write poetry, but this does seem like a good time to write about it.
The best way to start is with my favorite poet. Since I first read the opening lines of Howl, I've been a fan of Allen Ginsberg. It was not my first exposure to the Beat movement, but it was my first exposure to Beat poetry. It was nothing like what I thought poetry was - missing were couplets and iambic pentameter, missing were short simple statements, missing were obvious references to love and/or nature. In their place was this massive, run-on, jumbled up, be-bop rhapsody. Ginsberg had his finger on the pulse of something big and real and most importantly something that other poets never talked about. Long before I ever smoked myself high with marijuana or even drank as a red wine jug-holding bikkhu, Ginsberg blew my mind.
That opening line - "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked," sets quite a bar. My first thought was and still is, 'what is it like to be part of a group that includes the best minds of a generation?'. Now that this has been a part of my life for more than 25 years, I have more thoughts on it, about it, of it. Have I seen any of the best minds of my generation? I certainly have seen good minds destroyed by madness, some which reformed in new and beautiful ways, and some that never came back. Did Ginsberg really think at the time that he was seeing the best minds of a generation, or was he speaking in a more hyperbolic way as I do. If he did mean it as applied to his friends how did he feel about the fact that some of them likely were the best minds of his generation? What does he mean by madness? I've always taken it to be both literal and a metaphor for drug usage gone too far.
A great experience is hearing Allen Ginsberg read Howl. Once he gets worked up to it, his delivery becomes absolutely captivating.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2p_kKhRmRkM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
If you haven't read Howl, or would like to read along while listening to the above presentation, you can find the full text of Howl here.