On Reading:
I don't write much about what I read, in part because most of it falls in the "work specific" category. This read, though, is too much fun to keep to myself:
I picked this up while browsing Borders one night with my friend, Valerie.
A wee taste:
Living at sea tended to leave you with ratty, matted hair, but the Pirate Captain somehow kept his beard silky and in good condition, and though nobody knew his secret, they all respected him for it. They also respected him because it was said he was wedded to the sea. A lot of pirates claimed that they were wedded to the sea, but usually this was an excuse because they couldn't get a girlfriend or they were gay pirates, but in the Pirate Captain's case none of his crew doubted he was actually wedded to the sea for a minute.
Aaaarrrgghh!
On Movies
I've had some questions about V for Vendetta, so I'll sum up here. I liked it, with reservations. Cut for spoiler (and delicate political sensibilities)
I generally liked the movie--it was interesting and kept me entertained. I walked out of the theatre thinking "What did it all mean?" and am still thinking. I walked from the theatre to the nearby Borders and purchased the graphic novel so that I could ruminate at home. I'm still ruminating.
I was annoyed by the political premises that color the film and became even moreso when I started reading the novel. Is politics a big part? Of course. Any story that warns us about the potentials of harm inherent in a loss of our political voice will necessarily include politics. I just thought the film took the really easy way out by extrapolating its dystopian nightmare from current day events.
For example, the very notion that homosexuals would be rounded up and killed (and most of the spotlight on the rounding up and killing is focused on homosexuals) seems absurd to me. From what I understand about the original novel, though, the political climate in Britain at the time included serious discussion of the potential to quarantine homosexuals in the wake of the AIDS crisis. In that context, I can see the connection. In this one, I don't. As a matter of fact, the film would have worked better for me if the horrid fascist government had been solely about religion vs. religion, thereby playing out at least a scenario that speaks more directly to the current climate.
One of the overt messages is that you need to be able to speak freely. Well, I think that was one of the messages, although at times I had to remind myself of that as the focus was more and more on blowing up Parliment, an act which doesn't seem to say much to me about how to improve government. I think the film wants to fantasize about the idea that a terrorist by another name is a freedom fighter. I don't know that I can support this idea. I can imagine a government casting a group of freedom fighters in the role of terrorist, but that to me is a far sight different than a group of actual terrorists committing acts of terror. And the film doesn't give any indication that innocent lives are taken in the bombings. In fact, the first happens after a state-imposed curfew, which suggests that the building is empty. The second occurs after a year of notice that it will be blown up...again, unlikely that innocent lives are lost. The only things, really, that are destroyed, are two symbols that are essentially shells at the moment of their destruction. Not terrorism.
Still, as a film, I'm not ready to give up on it. I enjoyed it and will likely see it again soon. I need a repeat viewing, which certainly speaks volumes to quality.
seemed worth sharing:
