HAPPY BIRTHDAY TALISSA!! Hope it was an amazing day for you!!
:)
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Happy Birthday Talissa!
I need to make this short and sweet cause i have a midterm and another paper due tomorrow but that movie that we watched was aweful. I was hoping it would give me some insight to the book since i thought that the book was confusing but the movie was probably more confusing than the book. Its a pity that harrison ford had to do something so shitty, i wonder if he knew what was going on during the course of the movie. I think that the movie managed to confuse me even more and now im definetly not writing on Bladerunner.
I need to make this short and sweet cause i have a midterm and another paper due tomorrow but that movie that we watched was aweful. I was hoping it would give me some insight to the book since i thought that the book was confusing but the movie was probably more confusing than the book. Its a pity that harrison ford had to do something so shitty, i wonder if he knew what was going on during the course of the movie. I think that the movie managed to confuse me even more and now im definetly not writing on Bladerunner.
So... our first draft of our second paper is due tomorrow. And I have nothing. I like this blogging thing we have going on, though. It's informal, so I don't get freaked out if what I type is completely idiotic or boring or simple-minded. I mostly concerned about simple-minded thoughts. And brief, insignificant comments. I know many escape me.
I like Demetri Martin. He has short, random stories. I write short, random sentences. But I don't have a law degree.
What the hell? Just to check up on Demetri Martin trivia, I went to imdb.com, and since I was there, I looked at today's birthdays. In any case, I come across this Dave Callaham and click on his name since his profile picture is of a really cute baby. Who can resist, right? But the thing is is this guy's thirty years old. And one of the two bits of info on him is "College roommate of Magoo." "Magoo" is, of course, a link to another guy's page. And it's a dog--the masturbating dog in Garden State. Again, I think, what the hell? And this, mostly due to my own frustration/procrastination/undying wish to find inspiration concerning my paper, is the state I am in presently.
On a lighter note, happy birthday, Talissa! I hope you're having a fantastic birthday extravaganza! In celebration of this special occasion, a little comedy with pictures: an excerpt from "Person" because "Material Enhancers" is unavailable : ( (JUST KIDDING! P.S. People should speak in full words and not acronyms, unless you're talking about radar, laser or scuba.)
I like Demetri Martin. He has short, random stories. I write short, random sentences. But I don't have a law degree.
What the hell? Just to check up on Demetri Martin trivia, I went to imdb.com, and since I was there, I looked at today's birthdays. In any case, I come across this Dave Callaham and click on his name since his profile picture is of a really cute baby. Who can resist, right? But the thing is is this guy's thirty years old. And one of the two bits of info on him is "College roommate of Magoo." "Magoo" is, of course, a link to another guy's page. And it's a dog--the masturbating dog in Garden State. Again, I think, what the hell? And this, mostly due to my own frustration/procrastination/undying wish to find inspiration concerning my paper, is the state I am in presently.
On a lighter note, happy birthday, Talissa! I hope you're having a fantastic birthday extravaganza! In celebration of this special occasion, a little comedy with pictures: an excerpt from "Person" because "Material Enhancers" is unavailable : ( (JUST KIDDING! P.S. People should speak in full words and not acronyms, unless you're talking about radar, laser or scuba.)
"Blade Runner"
Although I'm sure there are far more interesting things that I could be writing about right now, I can't get past that movie. Half the time, I was completely lost and the other half, I was hiding behind a piece of paper (I really don't like blood and violence). All I can say is: WHAT HAPPENED?! There seems to be a disconnect between the book and the movie because the main messages that I was interpreting from each seemed to be extremely different. While the book seriously seemed to have a legitimate question to pose (what IS humanity?), the movie apparently cut that out when they cut out Mercerism. I keep thinking that I missed out on part of the movie and that's when they went into Mercerism with depth and vigor. But no. Instead, I was exposed to a lot of screaming and shooting and strange, animalistic fight scenes in the dark and rain. It seems as the though the movie completely went off on a tangent from the book and literally MADE it into an action film. The book seemed to focus more on the internal struggle of Deckard while the movie managed to strip it down to... what else? sex and violence. Maybe I'm being a little critical, but the movie seemed to get the whole "mind-boggling" part of Dick's novel down, but not for the same reasons. It was more of a general confusion as to why things were happening rather than specific debatable points (ie THE GOAT!). Honestly, I think the movie might have just been a little too commercialized and trying to appeal too much to a broad audience, as done so by... sex and action/violence. It was one of those movies that made me appreciate the book that much more!
P.S. What was up with all the Asian people as street vendors? It felt like Harrison Ford was chilling out in a major Chinese metropolitan or something. I couldn't help but wonder if there was some type of racism hidden in there or at the very least the perpetuation of a stereotype that is somewhat unappreciated...
P.S. What was up with all the Asian people as street vendors? It felt like Harrison Ford was chilling out in a major Chinese metropolitan or something. I couldn't help but wonder if there was some type of racism hidden in there or at the very least the perpetuation of a stereotype that is somewhat unappreciated...
ny times review
Enough with the diversity criticism. Has anyone taken the time to wikipedia
What interested me was
To be honest, some of the critiques reflect a lot of my feelings when reading the book. I totally sympathized with Dr. Impossible, wading through the Champions drama only to get to the next chapter. And it’s hard to believe that
Since we're on the topic of author/ity and representation and inclusion of various peoples in literature...
Why is it necessary for authors to make characters homosexual or ethnic?
Do they really have a social responsibility to make it representative of actual society?
I found it a bit disturbing that Austin Grossman was considering rewriting the characters to please a few opinionated readers. Granted that I assume authors do revise and revise based off of feedback from peers, I don't think an author should have to rewrite his novel because someone said it doesn't represent society well enough. I feel as if the author has complete rights (ignoring publishers and editors rights) to do what s/he wants with his work.
In the case of Invincible and the online blogger. I feel like you can't really say that the novel isnt representative because after all it is a fiction world. A world where there are aliens, human animals mixes, robots, etc. Since it is a world outside of the world we live in, can you really try to mix in our idea of reality into a different world?
Would the blogger be pleased if Austin made Dr. Impossible African American? That is what she asked for isnt it? more ethnic diversity. Yet I don't think the blogger would be happy about that because if the villain was African American, then Austin would just be contributing to the stigma that african americans are more likely to commit a crime. The only way for the blogger to be pleased is if Austin diversified the characters in such a way that agreed with the blogger's views on breaking stigmas.
So in the end....authors should retain full authority in making characters how they choose based on their own beliefs.
Why is it necessary for authors to make characters homosexual or ethnic?
Do they really have a social responsibility to make it representative of actual society?
I found it a bit disturbing that Austin Grossman was considering rewriting the characters to please a few opinionated readers. Granted that I assume authors do revise and revise based off of feedback from peers, I don't think an author should have to rewrite his novel because someone said it doesn't represent society well enough. I feel as if the author has complete rights (ignoring publishers and editors rights) to do what s/he wants with his work.
In the case of Invincible and the online blogger. I feel like you can't really say that the novel isnt representative because after all it is a fiction world. A world where there are aliens, human animals mixes, robots, etc. Since it is a world outside of the world we live in, can you really try to mix in our idea of reality into a different world?
Would the blogger be pleased if Austin made Dr. Impossible African American? That is what she asked for isnt it? more ethnic diversity. Yet I don't think the blogger would be happy about that because if the villain was African American, then Austin would just be contributing to the stigma that african americans are more likely to commit a crime. The only way for the blogger to be pleased is if Austin diversified the characters in such a way that agreed with the blogger's views on breaking stigmas.
So in the end....authors should retain full authority in making characters how they choose based on their own beliefs.
In Response
I apologize in advance for the Harry Potter final book spoilers. I just couldn't resist after seeing Tran's post.
Since I've already somewhat gone over my thoughts of the film, yet have a strong desire to respond to Tran's post below mine, and we don't have a particular topic to blog about, I hope this isn't too out of line? I actually came across the same information regarding Dumbledore a few days ago and also thought it coincidentally enough, paralleled Grossman's lecture regarding Feral and Elphin completely. Though I think there is a slight difference. When J.K. Rowling revealed that Dumbledore's one true love was Grindelwald, everything regarding Dumbledore's past in the final book just clicked for me. Prior to that revelation, though though their relationship was somewhat implied in the novel, since it wasn't directly stated, Dumbledore's actions seemed unclear. Friendship just doesn't sufficiently justify a complete reversal in ideology that we see in Dumbledore's character and neither does foolish youthfulness. The alteration of philosophy is just too extreme for it to be believable. Yet by having Dumbledore be in love with Grindelwald, not only does Dumbledore's past become significantly more complex and tragic, his "evil" ideology of youth as he went along with Grindelwald is seemingly more justified in that love does blind us. Thus, it becomes a necessary component to his character and an overall comprehension of the novel that I believe should have been blatantly stated within the text.
However, with Invincible, I don't see the same necessity. Inclusion of Feral or Elphin's sexual orientation, though socially more representative, just doesn't seem plot relevant, nor does it significantly add any further complexity to either characters. It just doesn't build upon the interpretation of the novel and therefore though I see a social necessity to be inclusive of all individuals, information that doesn't add to a deeper understanding of the work just seems superfluous and would be taken more as a side note rather than as a major plot point like is the case in the final book of the Harry Potter series.
-Kathy
Since I've already somewhat gone over my thoughts of the film, yet have a strong desire to respond to Tran's post below mine, and we don't have a particular topic to blog about, I hope this isn't too out of line? I actually came across the same information regarding Dumbledore a few days ago and also thought it coincidentally enough, paralleled Grossman's lecture regarding Feral and Elphin completely. Though I think there is a slight difference. When J.K. Rowling revealed that Dumbledore's one true love was Grindelwald, everything regarding Dumbledore's past in the final book just clicked for me. Prior to that revelation, though though their relationship was somewhat implied in the novel, since it wasn't directly stated, Dumbledore's actions seemed unclear. Friendship just doesn't sufficiently justify a complete reversal in ideology that we see in Dumbledore's character and neither does foolish youthfulness. The alteration of philosophy is just too extreme for it to be believable. Yet by having Dumbledore be in love with Grindelwald, not only does Dumbledore's past become significantly more complex and tragic, his "evil" ideology of youth as he went along with Grindelwald is seemingly more justified in that love does blind us. Thus, it becomes a necessary component to his character and an overall comprehension of the novel that I believe should have been blatantly stated within the text.
However, with Invincible, I don't see the same necessity. Inclusion of Feral or Elphin's sexual orientation, though socially more representative, just doesn't seem plot relevant, nor does it significantly add any further complexity to either characters. It just doesn't build upon the interpretation of the novel and therefore though I see a social necessity to be inclusive of all individuals, information that doesn't add to a deeper understanding of the work just seems superfluous and would be taken more as a side note rather than as a major plot point like is the case in the final book of the Harry Potter series.
-Kathy
Sunday, October 21, 2007
When J. K. Rowling revealed that Dumbledore is a homosexual, it reminded me of when Mr. Grossman mentioned that Feral and Elphin are also gay. When I found out, I felt even more admiration for Dumbledore and excited at the same time. Admiration because culturally, I know the troubles and hatred that homosexuals have gone through to be comfortable with who they are. I know most of you don't agree with the idea that race and sexual orientation doesn't matter, but the way I see things, it does. I come from a very diverse city, but when I came to Berkeley, I encountered people who are very conservative who argues that homosexuals are sinners (i.e. that loud crazy guy in Upper Sproul). As much as we hate to admit it, we have been weened to judge others.My point is...So it's kind of like everyone's fallen in love with Dumbledore, and now that his secret is revealed, what are those people who aren't as open-minded going to think? Do they suddenly ignore all of Dumbledore's great traits and hate him because he's gay? Or are they going to accept it? If Rowling never made that comment, then readers would keep on going around believing that their great hero is heterosexual and never had kids because he never found love, and blah blah blah. So by revealing it, she challenges your beliefs. She retains her authority. Now I'm rambling and I don't even know if I make sense anymore, but mooo.
So my point is, I kind of like the idea of the author telling us what certain things are supposed to mean. Call me whatever you want, but I'm just straight out of high school, and I still need people telling me what to do. By discussing the book Invincible, we came up with a lot of ideas and interpretations. But what is correct? We'd have a never-ending debate. I talked to Talissa about that Mister Mystic scene, and she suggested that magic is an area that Dr. I hates and stuff, but I felt like there was something more about that scene and the importance of Mister Mystic. Then Mr. Grossman said that Mister Mystic was so lame in that scene because he already knew Dr. I was going to lose. That made so much more sense to me.
Rambling with no sense of direction and not being judged on is great =]
--tran
So my point is, I kind of like the idea of the author telling us what certain things are supposed to mean. Call me whatever you want, but I'm just straight out of high school, and I still need people telling me what to do. By discussing the book Invincible, we came up with a lot of ideas and interpretations. But what is correct? We'd have a never-ending debate. I talked to Talissa about that Mister Mystic scene, and she suggested that magic is an area that Dr. I hates and stuff, but I felt like there was something more about that scene and the importance of Mister Mystic. Then Mr. Grossman said that Mister Mystic was so lame in that scene because he already knew Dr. I was going to lose. That made so much more sense to me.
Rambling with no sense of direction and not being judged on is great =]
--tran
"He kept using the word literature, I can't stop using the word hilarious..."
I don't know any other way of putting this but having the opportunity
to meet and see the author - put his work in a completely different
context for me. I started this book thinking it was going to be a
story of some naive kid as he matured through life and watched his
goal of becoming "invincible" transcend the boundary between what he
thought he could expect out of life and what he actually got. Yeah,
that was what I thought this book was going to be about...To a point,
that "kid" ends up being Dr. Impossible, but the hoops Grossman puts
him through were, for lack of a better word, hilarious.
Seeing Grossman in person you can definitely see why this book is as
funny as it is. It's sort of akin to hearing the funniest joke in the
world and waiting for the punchline, but the telling of "it" is so
funny that the whole process makes the punchline irrelevant. It's
almost impossible to put it in terms of a compliment even though
that's what I'm trying to do because I can't even come close to
defining it. Some people are just f'ing hilarious standing around,
and they get even funnier if their sense of humor matches up with
yours, or vice versa. Mr. Grossman is a perfect example of that case.
He's a diabolical genius. He is a genius, and probably left to his
own devices (like any of us), very diabolical. I can't imagine anyone
having a hard time thinking that if he decided to take over the world
that it would be a bad idea. At the very least it would be a funnier
place to live. Sure, he'd ask for ransom money but we wouldn't pay
him because we'd all be waiting to see what would happen next...
But back to the academic critique...I think we can only hope that his
"personality" doesn't get lost between the book and the movie. I
watched Blade Runner and Minority Report, again, after reading Sheep
and Philip K. Dick's short about Building a Universe, and both films
take on a whole new meaning once you realize how many oars short of a
crew Dick really is. I think they all jumped ship and went over to
the S.S. Grossman, but that's a personal opinion.
Anyway, thank you Mr. Grossman! The content of what we were talking
about was interesting and I especially appreciated the reference to
Scott McCloud because that's all I could think about while reading
through Invincible. But the awkward pauses, the ticks, pretty much
everything, brought the book to life, the situations into focus, and
my appreciation for authors that can fill a "gutter" to a whole new
level.
PS - use the 10% to add in a politically correct metahuman named
Ambiguous. Non gender specified, non affiliated, and to a point,
completely ineffectual but always involved somehow. That way readers
can imprint/project whatever they want that character to be without it
being defined for them, and yes, I understand that not having things
spelled out was part of the problem but it's funny how seriously a
play on the genre is being critiqued which makes the process itself an
exercise in transcending/blurring the line between what defines
literature. Besides, my impression of who these characters were is
going to be different from someone else's impression of who these
characters were. For instance, aside from reading the general
descriptions of the characters I saw Dr. Impossible as a cross between
mini me and magneto, fatale was janine garofalo as the terminator,
blackwolf was a modern day beowulf, and Feral being gay, well, tigers
are dramatic but wolves are scary. Installment two can introduce a
Dog/Human that ends up being a total mysoginistic and chauvanist
dinosaur. Then installment three can include a meeting of the two
where allegiances to one or the other spell out the metaphor that
everyone seems to need to have stamped into the pages.
-- jason
I don't know any other way of putting this but having the opportunity
to meet and see the author - put his work in a completely different
context for me. I started this book thinking it was going to be a
story of some naive kid as he matured through life and watched his
goal of becoming "invincible" transcend the boundary between what he
thought he could expect out of life and what he actually got. Yeah,
that was what I thought this book was going to be about...To a point,
that "kid" ends up being Dr. Impossible, but the hoops Grossman puts
him through were, for lack of a better word, hilarious.
Seeing Grossman in person you can definitely see why this book is as
funny as it is. It's sort of akin to hearing the funniest joke in the
world and waiting for the punchline, but the telling of "it" is so
funny that the whole process makes the punchline irrelevant. It's
almost impossible to put it in terms of a compliment even though
that's what I'm trying to do because I can't even come close to
defining it. Some people are just f'ing hilarious standing around,
and they get even funnier if their sense of humor matches up with
yours, or vice versa. Mr. Grossman is a perfect example of that case.
He's a diabolical genius. He is a genius, and probably left to his
own devices (like any of us), very diabolical. I can't imagine anyone
having a hard time thinking that if he decided to take over the world
that it would be a bad idea. At the very least it would be a funnier
place to live. Sure, he'd ask for ransom money but we wouldn't pay
him because we'd all be waiting to see what would happen next...
But back to the academic critique...I think we can only hope that his
"personality" doesn't get lost between the book and the movie. I
watched Blade Runner and Minority Report, again, after reading Sheep
and Philip K. Dick's short about Building a Universe, and both films
take on a whole new meaning once you realize how many oars short of a
crew Dick really is. I think they all jumped ship and went over to
the S.S. Grossman, but that's a personal opinion.
Anyway, thank you Mr. Grossman! The content of what we were talking
about was interesting and I especially appreciated the reference to
Scott McCloud because that's all I could think about while reading
through Invincible. But the awkward pauses, the ticks, pretty much
everything, brought the book to life, the situations into focus, and
my appreciation for authors that can fill a "gutter" to a whole new
level.
PS - use the 10% to add in a politically correct metahuman named
Ambiguous. Non gender specified, non affiliated, and to a point,
completely ineffectual but always involved somehow. That way readers
can imprint/project whatever they want that character to be without it
being defined for them, and yes, I understand that not having things
spelled out was part of the problem but it's funny how seriously a
play on the genre is being critiqued which makes the process itself an
exercise in transcending/blurring the line between what defines
literature. Besides, my impression of who these characters were is
going to be different from someone else's impression of who these
characters were. For instance, aside from reading the general
descriptions of the characters I saw Dr. Impossible as a cross between
mini me and magneto, fatale was janine garofalo as the terminator,
blackwolf was a modern day beowulf, and Feral being gay, well, tigers
are dramatic but wolves are scary. Installment two can introduce a
Dog/Human that ends up being a total mysoginistic and chauvanist
dinosaur. Then installment three can include a meeting of the two
where allegiances to one or the other spell out the metaphor that
everyone seems to need to have stamped into the pages.
-- jason
The roles have reversed. Humans, with their flaws, are the ones who dream up of diabolical plans to conquer the earth, their home planet. The non-humans are the ones who end up saving the rest of the humans from their own species. But since we’re going along with the idea that Dr. Impossible is the hero and the Champions are the villains, then Dr. Impossible is, in a sense, trying to save the world from the non-humans who have gained a vast amount of power, brainwashing people’s perception of what is good and what is evil. So the point is… the so-called “villains” are the underdogs... so... I'm just repeating Tony's original point. haha
Going off of Heather's argument, We never hear of villains who’re minorities. Is it because they don’t have the resources, but if they’re smart, then they should be able to come up with the things they need, like Dr. Impossible did. Or does stereotypes come into play about genders and races, and that society place so much belief into those stereotypes that it's unbelievable for an Asian guy with glasses to be a cool hero? Or does the stereotype of the Asian guy being nerdy make it unbelievable so that stories won't sell, so it's all just an economic thing? gah? o_O
--tran
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)