![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Weeeeelll, it rained today, so I couldn't get out and take any pics. Instead I unpacked all my bags and I'm going to set up a still life to make up for it. In the meantime, have some reading material!
Uncle Jay explains Congressional recess. ...Someone who tends to not avoid politics, tell me: does Congress really have that many days off?! (I don't really try to avoid politics, I just try to only pay attention when I need to. There's too much drama-gloom-and-doom-desperation for me.)
I can has Tony Stark?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080513/ap_on_en_mo/crystal_skull_stolen_7
Paging Dr. Jones: Crystal skull stolen
AP, Mon May 12, 9:10 PM ET
Indiana Jones better get his alibi ready. A large crystal skull similar to those at the center of the upcoming Harrison Ford movie was recently stolen from a New Age store, puzzling employees in part because of the laid-back nature of shop regulars.
"We have zero shoplifting in here, and I have no idea why anyone would take something as lovely as that," said Persis Newland, owner of Kindred Spirits in Claremont, about 30 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.
The skull, named Solar Ray by owner Don Marr, had been on loan at Kindred Spirits for about four months and went missing about two weeks ago. It had sat on an altar in the store's classroom area and was considered one of the shop's prized objects.
"He was on an altar, and he just enjoyed being here," said employee Kristen Nestor, who supervises the store's weekly crystal-reading classes. "He participated in our classes.
Nestor said she believes the skull is as old as 500 years.
"He likes to travel and things like that," Nestor said. "He was here for about four months, just enjoying everyone who comes through here."
Marr filed a police report on the missing skull last week, but police have had no luck so far.
Legend has it that the ancient Maya possessed 13 crystal skulls which, when united, hold the power of saving the Earth. Some version of the story is the basis for "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," which opens in U.S. theaters on May 22.
Hundreds of crystal skulls are believed to be in existence, which experts dismiss as fakes made by antiquities traders in the 19th century. All the same, believers say the skulls have powers to heal and influence natural events.
Newland believes the attention the film has focused on the skulls may have prompted the theft.
"Someone must have thought about it in that term, connected with the movie or something," Newland said. "I have no idea why someone would take that and not the other things that are equally valuable on the altar."
And now, I'm going to discuss the Twilight series a little bit. I'm going to cut it because I know some of you are fans, and I don't like it, but I'm going to try to treat it civilly.
So, last fall, I tried reading the first book. One of my roommates had it and they were enjoying it so we were passing it around and if anything I'm good at finding time-wasters, so I thought I'd give it a try. I just couldn't finish it. I did find it a bit cheezy, but the real reason I couldn't finish it is that it was boring. The writing was lame, the plot was lame, the characters were lame, just everything was very thin with no spice to make it interesting. I mean even bad stories can have good writing, and vice versa.
However, the more I see about it (especially in the past few days), the more reasons people keep pointing out that it's more than cheezy and blasé. First of all, the guy playing Edward is just... boring. Well then yesterday someone posted this article from NPR, which I'm going to go into right now.
I can kind of see where she's coming from in becoming a writer. She wrote down a dream she wanted to remember, expanded it a bit, and it took off completely out of her expectation. I mean, I record as many of my dreams as I can, I don't begrudge her that.
Then there is that comment about "the erotics of abstinence". You know, the series would be pretty cool if that's all it was, but it's not. I have the sort of personality where I hype up the wait as much as possible because it's a big part of it all. (Christmas... Indy IV...) But the abstinence of it is rather shallow because behind it all there is roughly two 15-year-olds saying "YOU'RE BEAUTIFUL" "NO YOU'RE BEAUTIFUL" "TWOO WUUUUV" that disgusts me. Granted, Edward is supposed to be like 100 years old, but he doesn't act like it. He's a fucking CREEPER. He's a douchebag and a stalker, and Bella is a pathetic girl who starts out interesting and then quickly goes the way or ign'ant housewife. When I was reading this article last night, you know what struck me? Here is a story: life and death crossing, the tension of wait (erotics of abstinence, I guess depending on what we're discussing)... Know who did (does) it better? Pushing Daisies. And there you have a good, self-esteemed, strong female character and NO CREEPERS. (AND-- you still get to keep the undead angle.)
Her new book? Sounds like a cool premise. If her writing has improved (like... everything... a lot), I will give it a try. But please explain to me why an "adult novel" release party has a picture of TWO CLEARLY YOUNG GIRLS. This is the dynamic of her writing that scares the everliving fuck out of me. The fact that Twilight has weird sexual undertones (stalking, helpless female, I saw someone mention rape undertones) and that YOUNG GIRLS AND MOTHERS LOVE IT. I... just... no words.
Oh, an excerpt, I missed that... and no, it doesn't sound like her next book will be any more enjoyable. Her writing is just so... simplistic. Blech.
Okay, question; she's supposedly Mormon. Are Mormons of that old-fashionedness that believes that a woman is a homemaker and nothing else? Because it at least explains why the submissive-female dynamic is there in Twilight.
And now, something to lighten the mood, the other reason I can't stand Twilight: WTFery. He literally (literally!) sparkles, people. The adjectives in this book leave something (heck, a lot more than something) to be desired. And that's not even touching the rest of the writing. No dynamics whatsoever. The book is so Mary Sue that now that people have pointed it out to me, I really can't get over it. It really is like it was written by a 14-year-old who hasn't matured much.
To be quite honest, I've never understood the "vampires are aloof and therefore romaaaantiiiic" thing, either. What happened to Dracula? Real vampires? Can't-touch-the-sun-killed-with-stakes stuff.
I'm... not being very civil, am I? Sorry. =/ I just... can't find anything about this book to like. It scares me, one because it's unimaginably unimaginative and two because of that TOTAL CREEPER VIBE.
Now, just a few more things:
Cleolinda speaks up. She's an author, she's got some very good points. If you like these novels as a guilty pleasure, you know they're bad but you just want some cheez (as she says, a literary Twinkie), then I have no problem. But you HAVE to know they're bad. It's kind of like abstract art; you don't just jump into abstract, you have to understand traditional art so that with abstract you are actually proving a contraposition. (Did I make that word up? Sorry, I hope it gets the point across.) BUT... this sort of cheez (romantic cheez) has NEVER been my thing. I detest it. (Believe it or not, it's what ruins Van Helsing [the movie] for me--simply the ending. It's great up until the point where he lifts her up off the couch, which the director said he wanted to look like the cover of a romance novel. JUST NO.) Cheap romance... is completely disgusting to me. (Which, we can say, is partly why I hate Twilight. But that's my opinion and I'll let you have yours that it's deliciously bad.) (Catholic joke time: maybe it's because I was raised to feel guilty all the time, har har.) ANYWAY. (Fact: I don't like Twinkies or Hostess Cupcakes or Swiss Rolls or anything, either. Ew.)
And one last thing: Twilight by the numbers. Hilariously WTF.
OKAY. I'm off to set up the photo. Bbl.
Uncle Jay explains Congressional recess. ...Someone who tends to not avoid politics, tell me: does Congress really have that many days off?! (I don't really try to avoid politics, I just try to only pay attention when I need to. There's too much drama-gloom-and-doom-desperation for me.)
I can has Tony Stark?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080513/ap_on_en_mo/crystal_skull_stolen_7
Paging Dr. Jones: Crystal skull stolen
AP, Mon May 12, 9:10 PM ET
Indiana Jones better get his alibi ready. A large crystal skull similar to those at the center of the upcoming Harrison Ford movie was recently stolen from a New Age store, puzzling employees in part because of the laid-back nature of shop regulars.
"We have zero shoplifting in here, and I have no idea why anyone would take something as lovely as that," said Persis Newland, owner of Kindred Spirits in Claremont, about 30 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.
The skull, named Solar Ray by owner Don Marr, had been on loan at Kindred Spirits for about four months and went missing about two weeks ago. It had sat on an altar in the store's classroom area and was considered one of the shop's prized objects.
"He was on an altar, and he just enjoyed being here," said employee Kristen Nestor, who supervises the store's weekly crystal-reading classes. "He participated in our classes.
Nestor said she believes the skull is as old as 500 years.
"He likes to travel and things like that," Nestor said. "He was here for about four months, just enjoying everyone who comes through here."
Marr filed a police report on the missing skull last week, but police have had no luck so far.
Legend has it that the ancient Maya possessed 13 crystal skulls which, when united, hold the power of saving the Earth. Some version of the story is the basis for "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," which opens in U.S. theaters on May 22.
Hundreds of crystal skulls are believed to be in existence, which experts dismiss as fakes made by antiquities traders in the 19th century. All the same, believers say the skulls have powers to heal and influence natural events.
Newland believes the attention the film has focused on the skulls may have prompted the theft.
"Someone must have thought about it in that term, connected with the movie or something," Newland said. "I have no idea why someone would take that and not the other things that are equally valuable on the altar."
And now, I'm going to discuss the Twilight series a little bit. I'm going to cut it because I know some of you are fans, and I don't like it, but I'm going to try to treat it civilly.
So, last fall, I tried reading the first book. One of my roommates had it and they were enjoying it so we were passing it around and if anything I'm good at finding time-wasters, so I thought I'd give it a try. I just couldn't finish it. I did find it a bit cheezy, but the real reason I couldn't finish it is that it was boring. The writing was lame, the plot was lame, the characters were lame, just everything was very thin with no spice to make it interesting. I mean even bad stories can have good writing, and vice versa.
However, the more I see about it (especially in the past few days), the more reasons people keep pointing out that it's more than cheezy and blasé. First of all, the guy playing Edward is just... boring. Well then yesterday someone posted this article from NPR, which I'm going to go into right now.
I can kind of see where she's coming from in becoming a writer. She wrote down a dream she wanted to remember, expanded it a bit, and it took off completely out of her expectation. I mean, I record as many of my dreams as I can, I don't begrudge her that.
Then there is that comment about "the erotics of abstinence". You know, the series would be pretty cool if that's all it was, but it's not. I have the sort of personality where I hype up the wait as much as possible because it's a big part of it all. (Christmas... Indy IV...) But the abstinence of it is rather shallow because behind it all there is roughly two 15-year-olds saying "YOU'RE BEAUTIFUL" "NO YOU'RE BEAUTIFUL" "TWOO WUUUUV" that disgusts me. Granted, Edward is supposed to be like 100 years old, but he doesn't act like it. He's a fucking CREEPER. He's a douchebag and a stalker, and Bella is a pathetic girl who starts out interesting and then quickly goes the way or ign'ant housewife. When I was reading this article last night, you know what struck me? Here is a story: life and death crossing, the tension of wait (erotics of abstinence, I guess depending on what we're discussing)... Know who did (does) it better? Pushing Daisies. And there you have a good, self-esteemed, strong female character and NO CREEPERS. (AND-- you still get to keep the undead angle.)
Her new book? Sounds like a cool premise. If her writing has improved (like... everything... a lot), I will give it a try. But please explain to me why an "adult novel" release party has a picture of TWO CLEARLY YOUNG GIRLS. This is the dynamic of her writing that scares the everliving fuck out of me. The fact that Twilight has weird sexual undertones (stalking, helpless female, I saw someone mention rape undertones) and that YOUNG GIRLS AND MOTHERS LOVE IT. I... just... no words.
Oh, an excerpt, I missed that... and no, it doesn't sound like her next book will be any more enjoyable. Her writing is just so... simplistic. Blech.
Okay, question; she's supposedly Mormon. Are Mormons of that old-fashionedness that believes that a woman is a homemaker and nothing else? Because it at least explains why the submissive-female dynamic is there in Twilight.
And now, something to lighten the mood, the other reason I can't stand Twilight: WTFery. He literally (literally!) sparkles, people. The adjectives in this book leave something (heck, a lot more than something) to be desired. And that's not even touching the rest of the writing. No dynamics whatsoever. The book is so Mary Sue that now that people have pointed it out to me, I really can't get over it. It really is like it was written by a 14-year-old who hasn't matured much.
To be quite honest, I've never understood the "vampires are aloof and therefore romaaaantiiiic" thing, either. What happened to Dracula? Real vampires? Can't-touch-the-sun-killed-with-stakes stuff.
I'm... not being very civil, am I? Sorry. =/ I just... can't find anything about this book to like. It scares me, one because it's unimaginably unimaginative and two because of that TOTAL CREEPER VIBE.
Now, just a few more things:
Cleolinda speaks up. She's an author, she's got some very good points. If you like these novels as a guilty pleasure, you know they're bad but you just want some cheez (as she says, a literary Twinkie), then I have no problem. But you HAVE to know they're bad. It's kind of like abstract art; you don't just jump into abstract, you have to understand traditional art so that with abstract you are actually proving a contraposition. (Did I make that word up? Sorry, I hope it gets the point across.) BUT... this sort of cheez (romantic cheez) has NEVER been my thing. I detest it. (Believe it or not, it's what ruins Van Helsing [the movie] for me--simply the ending. It's great up until the point where he lifts her up off the couch, which the director said he wanted to look like the cover of a romance novel. JUST NO.) Cheap romance... is completely disgusting to me. (Which, we can say, is partly why I hate Twilight. But that's my opinion and I'll let you have yours that it's deliciously bad.) (Catholic joke time: maybe it's because I was raised to feel guilty all the time, har har.) ANYWAY. (Fact: I don't like Twinkies or Hostess Cupcakes or Swiss Rolls or anything, either. Ew.)
And one last thing: Twilight by the numbers. Hilariously WTF.
OKAY. I'm off to set up the photo. Bbl.
