I learned the power of New Year's Resolutions the January after Cory was born (10 years ago now). I was exhausted. Beyond exhausted. So far beyond exhausted I couldn't even see "exhausted" in my rear view mirror.
I became very sick a few days after Cory was born -- should have been hospitalized, but my doctor decided to have me on IV antiobiotics at home for a month. And during those first few months, our writing schedule was as packed as it's ever been, with deadline rolling after deadline. And he was a colicky baby to boot.
And top of it all, I was still saying "yes" to things. "Please come speak to our group." Yes. "Please come to a baby shower and oh btw, bring a very expensive gift." Yes. "Please read my script." Yes.
And if I tried to demur -- "New baby. So tired. Behind on my writing." -- all I got in exchange was arguments or pleading -- all the reasons why I should rebalance my priorities in favor of the person asking the favor.
Sometime in January, in between walking into walls from (you guessed it) exhaustion, I jokingly said, "Sorry, I've made a new year's resolution to say no."
The response was dramatic. The asker just said, "Oh okay." And went away! So, experimentally, I tried it again. And same thing. The asker took no for an answer -- and even said, enviously, "Wow, what a great new year's resolution."
Not surprisingly, having learned the power of a resolution, I have taken my New Years' Resolutions quite seriously ever since. Some stick (writing this blog, for instance). Some don't.
I decided that I would have all of January to make a resolution. Take some time, get into the New Year, not be swayed by whatever Christmas might have brought my way.
I also decided that New Year's Resolutions could not be wasted on daily habits. No diet resolutions, no exercise resolutions, no vitamin resolutions, no skin care resolutions. Because if I need a New Year's Resolution to get those right, then all I have is an excuse to bag them for the rest of the year ("Gotta wait till January to try again!").
Sometime during January, my resolutions come clear to me. So here are my resolutions for 2005:
1) I resolve to bathe 2005 in prayer. And not rote prayer: I have kept a prayer list and a who-I-pray-for-on-each-day list since (gulp) college. And boy has it gotten routine! Not this year. Instead, I am setting aside little pieces of each day to pray -- and not off a list either. Praying without a net, as it were. If God wants me to pray for something on the list, well, that's His job to make it known to me.
But I am keeping a new list. Following the prayer directives of Agnes Sanford (read Richard Foster's "Spiritual Classics" to track her down), I am asking God for one specific thing each day. And keeping a list of the answers. And I am asking God each day to tell me one thing He would like me to do. (So far, He's been easy on me. Bake cookies for the kids. Write a thank you note.)
2) I resolve to purge the closets and shelves of my house. Now, I do realize this may just be prep for us losing the house in a couple of months (in which case I'll be ahead of the game). So far I have purged the laundry room and almost finished the pantry. Next comes my office. I do a tiny bit each day -- 5 to 20 minutes. But it's getting done. And it actually feels sort of good to throw out stuff. (And even better to put it in the right place!)
3) I resolve to cook real meals for my family. At least a couple of times a week. Not fish sticks, not mac & cheese, not frozen pizza. Real food with real ingredients. And to sit down at the dining table to eat that real food (no matter how painful it may be for the kids).
None of these are world-changing. But they could be, just a tiny bit, life-changing for me by the end of the year.
Check with me in December and I'll tell you how it went.
Monday, January 31, 2005
OH, I JUST COULDN'T RESIST
Every year at Act One, someone asks "How do I get ahead in show biz?" (Our usual answer is to quote Steve Martin: "Be so good they can't ignore you."
But this year I'm tempted to respond with this little mathematical puzzle, forwarded to me by an old friend. My apologies for the slightly scatological language.
So what's the best way to get ahead at work? Giving more than 100?
But what makes 100% What does it mean to give MORE than 100% Ever wonder about those people who say they're giving more than 100%? We've all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%. How about achieving 103%? What makes up 100% in life?
Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions:
If A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Then:
H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K
8+1+18+3+23+15+18+11 = 98%
and
K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+6+5 = 96%
But:
A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E
1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100%
And
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T
2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103%
AND look how far this will take you:
A-S-S-K-I-S-S-I-N-G
1+19+19+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118%
So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that while Hard Work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will get you there, it's the Bullshit and Ass-Kissing that will put you over the top!
But this year I'm tempted to respond with this little mathematical puzzle, forwarded to me by an old friend. My apologies for the slightly scatological language.
So what's the best way to get ahead at work? Giving more than 100?
But what makes 100% What does it mean to give MORE than 100% Ever wonder about those people who say they're giving more than 100%? We've all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%. How about achieving 103%? What makes up 100% in life?
Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions:
If A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Then:
H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K
8+1+18+3+23+15+18+11 = 98%
and
K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+6+5 = 96%
But:
A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E
1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100%
And
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T
2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103%
AND look how far this will take you:
A-S-S-K-I-S-S-I-N-G
1+19+19+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118%
So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that while Hard Work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will get you there, it's the Bullshit and Ass-Kissing that will put you over the top!
Thursday, January 27, 2005
AN ARMY THAT WILL NOT RUN AWAY
I've been reading a military biography this week (not my standard reading, but background for a writing gig we're trying to get), and I was struck by the following sentence:
"The first essential in war is an army that will not run away, which can only be assured by training."
Perhaps it's because I spent a whole day earlier this week in a goal-setting, long-range strategic planning session for Act One, but the sentence leapt off the page and struck me right between the eyes.
Now let me start by saying that most of we Christians working here in Hollywood do *not* consider our "enemy" to be the non-believers in Hollywood. Not in the least. Our enemy is not flesh and blood... Any war we are involved in is purely a spiritual battle. And I'm not crazy about using "war" metaphors to describe the situation of Christians in Hollywood, because they are so easily misunderstood. But a battle it is indeed.
So, given that, if "the first essential... is an army that will not run away," how are we doing?
Perhaps not as well as we might. I've seen way too many people run away.
I've seen people run away because they didn't realize how hard the task before them was, and didn't train for what they were going to face (proving the rightness of the sentence). They gave up.
I've seen people run away because they refused to admit that the non-believers they were working for had any authority over them (in a sense, refused to submit to their commanding officers). Some of those only ran away after what could only be charitably called a "dishonorable discharge."
I've seen people run away because their own personal glory was more important to them than whether or not their army won the battle. (Not the kind of folks you'd really want to be next on a battlefield, anyway!)
Saddest of all, I've seen people run away from their faith. Some stick in the battle, but without any understanding why. Some run away from Hollywood, at loose ends as to who they are and what their purpose is.
And I have to say, it all really does come down to training. If we're *trained* to face the task before us, if we're *trained* to be servants, if we're *trained* to stick together as a community, if we're *trained* in what it takes to maintain a vital faith in the midst of darkness and disappointment and rejection.... Then and only then can we persevere to do the job God wants us to do.
All of which points out, once again, the incredibly important role of Act One in Hollywood. (I started to write "the important role ministries like Act One" -- but there *are* no other ministries like Act One.)
If we at Act One do our jobs right -- "Training the next generation of Christian screenwriters," as the logline goes -- then we will have an army that will not run away.
And only then will we begin to see the transformation of Hollywood.
"The first essential in war is an army that will not run away, which can only be assured by training."
Perhaps it's because I spent a whole day earlier this week in a goal-setting, long-range strategic planning session for Act One, but the sentence leapt off the page and struck me right between the eyes.
Now let me start by saying that most of we Christians working here in Hollywood do *not* consider our "enemy" to be the non-believers in Hollywood. Not in the least. Our enemy is not flesh and blood... Any war we are involved in is purely a spiritual battle. And I'm not crazy about using "war" metaphors to describe the situation of Christians in Hollywood, because they are so easily misunderstood. But a battle it is indeed.
So, given that, if "the first essential... is an army that will not run away," how are we doing?
Perhaps not as well as we might. I've seen way too many people run away.
I've seen people run away because they didn't realize how hard the task before them was, and didn't train for what they were going to face (proving the rightness of the sentence). They gave up.
I've seen people run away because they refused to admit that the non-believers they were working for had any authority over them (in a sense, refused to submit to their commanding officers). Some of those only ran away after what could only be charitably called a "dishonorable discharge."
I've seen people run away because their own personal glory was more important to them than whether or not their army won the battle. (Not the kind of folks you'd really want to be next on a battlefield, anyway!)
Saddest of all, I've seen people run away from their faith. Some stick in the battle, but without any understanding why. Some run away from Hollywood, at loose ends as to who they are and what their purpose is.
And I have to say, it all really does come down to training. If we're *trained* to face the task before us, if we're *trained* to be servants, if we're *trained* to stick together as a community, if we're *trained* in what it takes to maintain a vital faith in the midst of darkness and disappointment and rejection.... Then and only then can we persevere to do the job God wants us to do.
All of which points out, once again, the incredibly important role of Act One in Hollywood. (I started to write "the important role ministries like Act One" -- but there *are* no other ministries like Act One.)
If we at Act One do our jobs right -- "Training the next generation of Christian screenwriters," as the logline goes -- then we will have an army that will not run away.
And only then will we begin to see the transformation of Hollywood.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
THE ONLY NOMINATIONS THAT REALLY MATTER
The Oscar nominations are out. You can get the whole list here. Not a lot of surprises, in this year where there just aren't a lot of movies to be passionate about. But a few nice nominations:
•I am very happy to see FINDING NEVERLAND get seven nominations. It could be completely shut out come Oscar night -- If it weren't for Jamie Foxx's universally-acclaimed performance in RAY, Johnny Depp would stand a real chance. But the screenplay will probably be beaten by SIDEWAYS, the technical nominations are up against tough competition, and because its director wasn't nominated, it won't win for Best Picture. Still, seven nominations to a most deserving movie is nothing to sneeze at! And if you haven't seen the movie, race out now for some pure enjoyment. (And take a hankie.)
•I am thrilled to see THE INCREDIBLES get a nomination for Best Original Screenplay (an award it wasn't eliglble for from the Writers Guild of America, because the WGA contract doesn't cover animation). Truly original, beautifully realized, perfectly written. I doubt it will win, because actors (the bulk of the voting Academy) traditionally have a bias against animation (what good is a movie if the actors aren't seen, after all?!). But it should. And the nomination was an unexpected treat.
•Finally -- a lot of Christians have been muttering that THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST's failure to get any Golden Globe nominations shows (again) Hollywood's bias against Christians. Um, just two problems with that. (1) The Golden Globes aren't nominated or voted on by "Hollywood," but by less than 100 journalists, mostly from Europe and Asia, based in the U.S. And (2) when "Hollywood" did sit down to nominate, sure enough, they nominated exactly the categories I predicted they would back in March (Go see my earlier blog if you don't believe me): Cinematography, Make-Up, and Score.
Will it win in any of these categories? Hard to say. The nominations are given by one's peers (i.e., cinematographers nominate cinematographers). The awards are voted on by the whole Academy -- and that huge block of actors sways everything. (Hence the tendency for actors nominated for anything other than acting -- writing, directing -- to win. There's a huge sentimental sway toward Martin Scorsese for Best Director this year, but don't count out Clint Eastwood: Actors vote for actors. Mark my words.)
Anyway, in a weak year, with not much to get excited about, here were a few things to be glad for. Let's wait for Feb. 27th and see who wins.
•I am very happy to see FINDING NEVERLAND get seven nominations. It could be completely shut out come Oscar night -- If it weren't for Jamie Foxx's universally-acclaimed performance in RAY, Johnny Depp would stand a real chance. But the screenplay will probably be beaten by SIDEWAYS, the technical nominations are up against tough competition, and because its director wasn't nominated, it won't win for Best Picture. Still, seven nominations to a most deserving movie is nothing to sneeze at! And if you haven't seen the movie, race out now for some pure enjoyment. (And take a hankie.)
•I am thrilled to see THE INCREDIBLES get a nomination for Best Original Screenplay (an award it wasn't eliglble for from the Writers Guild of America, because the WGA contract doesn't cover animation). Truly original, beautifully realized, perfectly written. I doubt it will win, because actors (the bulk of the voting Academy) traditionally have a bias against animation (what good is a movie if the actors aren't seen, after all?!). But it should. And the nomination was an unexpected treat.
•Finally -- a lot of Christians have been muttering that THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST's failure to get any Golden Globe nominations shows (again) Hollywood's bias against Christians. Um, just two problems with that. (1) The Golden Globes aren't nominated or voted on by "Hollywood," but by less than 100 journalists, mostly from Europe and Asia, based in the U.S. And (2) when "Hollywood" did sit down to nominate, sure enough, they nominated exactly the categories I predicted they would back in March (Go see my earlier blog if you don't believe me): Cinematography, Make-Up, and Score.
Will it win in any of these categories? Hard to say. The nominations are given by one's peers (i.e., cinematographers nominate cinematographers). The awards are voted on by the whole Academy -- and that huge block of actors sways everything. (Hence the tendency for actors nominated for anything other than acting -- writing, directing -- to win. There's a huge sentimental sway toward Martin Scorsese for Best Director this year, but don't count out Clint Eastwood: Actors vote for actors. Mark my words.)
Anyway, in a weak year, with not much to get excited about, here were a few things to be glad for. Let's wait for Feb. 27th and see who wins.
Sunday, January 23, 2005
ACT ONE 2005 IS COMING!
A vital press release!:
01/11/05 -- Hollywood, CA: Act One, a training center for Christian artists and professionals, is now accepting applications for its four-week summer writing program. The ACT ONE: WRITING FOR HOLLYWOOD curriculum provides an overview of screenwriting, with a specialized TV track for those considering a career in television. This year's program will be held in Hollywood July 8 through August 6.
ACT ONE Executive Director Barbara Nicolosi notes that the goal of ACT ONE's writing program is not to produce "religious" scripts, but rather scripts that reflect a Christian worldview. "A great movie is a harmony -- images, performance, music and sounds, all coming together in a miraculous unity," says Nicolosi. "A beautiful movie not only harmonizes all these elements, but does so around a story that is true, a theme that is universal. ACT ONE: WRITING FOR HOLLYWOOD equips writers to bring together mastery of craft and depth of content for movies and television. In embracing their vocation to beauty, these artists will also be Christian apostles of love and prayer in the heart of the entertainment industry."
A comprehensive training program for scriptwriters with a concern for content, ACT ONE: WRITING FOR HOLLYWOOD covers everything a writer needs to know to competitively enter the film and television industry. Emphasizing artistry, professionalism, substance, and prayer, our impressive faculty is made up of over 50 working writers and producers who serve as instructors and mentors, including Nancy Miller (CSI: Miami; Law and Order), Ralph Winter (X2: X-Men United; Fantastic Four), Barbara Hall (Joan of Arcadia), David McFadzean (Home Improvement; What Women Want), and Lee & Janet Batchler (Batman Forever).
ACT ONE students are finding success at many levels of the entertainment industry's creative community, landing writing and producing jobs at DreamWorks, Imagine, CBS, HBO, PAX, MSNBC, and FOX, among others. Alumni David Hansenclaims "the amount of scholarship, the degree of professionalism, and the keen wisdom of the WRITING FOR HOLLYWOOD program is simply an unparalleled gift to burgeoning script writers. I can hardly believe it exists." Featured by CNN, CBS, Entertainment Weekly, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago Tribune, ACT ONE has been hailed by industry veteran Ron Austin (Mission: Impossible) as playng "an indispensable role in bringing young Christians into the mainstream of Hollywood."
ACT ONE can only accept 30 students into its summer program. The application process is very competitive, so interested writers are encouraged to begin the process as early as possible. "ACT ONE: WRITING FOR HOLLYWOOD is by far the most thorough, most inspiring intensive screenwriting program I've seen anywhere," notes screenwriter and faculty member Janet Batchler. "You can waste years of time tiptoeing around the edges of the entertainment industry, or you can come to ACT ONE and learn what you need to know in four weeks." Applications are due by April 1.
For more information about ACT ONE, visit our website at www.actoneprogram.com, or contact Anthony Platipodis, Program Coordinator, at 323-462-1348. Also, this summer ACT ONE launches the ACT ONE: EXECUTIVE PROGRAM, a training program for entertainment executives. For details, see our website or contact Director Todd Coleman at 323-462-1348.
01/11/05 -- Hollywood, CA: Act One, a training center for Christian artists and professionals, is now accepting applications for its four-week summer writing program. The ACT ONE: WRITING FOR HOLLYWOOD curriculum provides an overview of screenwriting, with a specialized TV track for those considering a career in television. This year's program will be held in Hollywood July 8 through August 6.
ACT ONE Executive Director Barbara Nicolosi notes that the goal of ACT ONE's writing program is not to produce "religious" scripts, but rather scripts that reflect a Christian worldview. "A great movie is a harmony -- images, performance, music and sounds, all coming together in a miraculous unity," says Nicolosi. "A beautiful movie not only harmonizes all these elements, but does so around a story that is true, a theme that is universal. ACT ONE: WRITING FOR HOLLYWOOD equips writers to bring together mastery of craft and depth of content for movies and television. In embracing their vocation to beauty, these artists will also be Christian apostles of love and prayer in the heart of the entertainment industry."
A comprehensive training program for scriptwriters with a concern for content, ACT ONE: WRITING FOR HOLLYWOOD covers everything a writer needs to know to competitively enter the film and television industry. Emphasizing artistry, professionalism, substance, and prayer, our impressive faculty is made up of over 50 working writers and producers who serve as instructors and mentors, including Nancy Miller (CSI: Miami; Law and Order), Ralph Winter (X2: X-Men United; Fantastic Four), Barbara Hall (Joan of Arcadia), David McFadzean (Home Improvement; What Women Want), and Lee & Janet Batchler (Batman Forever).
ACT ONE students are finding success at many levels of the entertainment industry's creative community, landing writing and producing jobs at DreamWorks, Imagine, CBS, HBO, PAX, MSNBC, and FOX, among others. Alumni David Hansenclaims "the amount of scholarship, the degree of professionalism, and the keen wisdom of the WRITING FOR HOLLYWOOD program is simply an unparalleled gift to burgeoning script writers. I can hardly believe it exists." Featured by CNN, CBS, Entertainment Weekly, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago Tribune, ACT ONE has been hailed by industry veteran Ron Austin (Mission: Impossible) as playng "an indispensable role in bringing young Christians into the mainstream of Hollywood."
ACT ONE can only accept 30 students into its summer program. The application process is very competitive, so interested writers are encouraged to begin the process as early as possible. "ACT ONE: WRITING FOR HOLLYWOOD is by far the most thorough, most inspiring intensive screenwriting program I've seen anywhere," notes screenwriter and faculty member Janet Batchler. "You can waste years of time tiptoeing around the edges of the entertainment industry, or you can come to ACT ONE and learn what you need to know in four weeks." Applications are due by April 1.
For more information about ACT ONE, visit our website at www.actoneprogram.com, or contact Anthony Platipodis, Program Coordinator, at 323-462-1348. Also, this summer ACT ONE launches the ACT ONE: EXECUTIVE PROGRAM, a training program for entertainment executives. For details, see our website or contact Director Todd Coleman at 323-462-1348.
Saturday, January 22, 2005
TOO MUCH CHOCOLATE
Never thought I'd write a title like that, but....
I've noticed the ads for Starbucks' new "drinkable chocolate" everywhere.... "If you lived in a chocolate house, and ate at a chocolate table and drank out of a chocolate cup, it wouldn't be as chocolatey as the chocolateness of Drinkable Chocolate..." That kind of thing.
So today Sabrina (a hot-chocolate maven in her own way) and I dropped by a Starbucks to try it. "What a gyp," I thought, as they handed her the tiniest cup I've ever see at a Starbucks. Six ounces. Do you know how small 6 oz. is?
But oh my goodness.
I have never drunk anything that rich and chocolately in my life. Never. And I've done some serious chocolate taste-testing in places like Switzerland.
Sabrina and I couldn't finish it between us. (Six ounces! 12 tablespoons!) It was just too rich. So we took it home to share with Cory and Lee. And we still have a couple of ounces left. It's hard for me to imagine anyone finishing a cup of it. (Maybe put it on ice cream? Maybe add several ounces of appropriate liquor? Other ideas?)
We all know that chocolate wards off dementors, of course. And that it increases serotonin and combats depression. So here's a recommendation: If your'e fighting off either dementors or depression, head to Starbucks for the densest chocolate you will probably ever experience.
Just take along 4 or 5 friends to help you finish it.
I've noticed the ads for Starbucks' new "drinkable chocolate" everywhere.... "If you lived in a chocolate house, and ate at a chocolate table and drank out of a chocolate cup, it wouldn't be as chocolatey as the chocolateness of Drinkable Chocolate..." That kind of thing.
So today Sabrina (a hot-chocolate maven in her own way) and I dropped by a Starbucks to try it. "What a gyp," I thought, as they handed her the tiniest cup I've ever see at a Starbucks. Six ounces. Do you know how small 6 oz. is?
But oh my goodness.
I have never drunk anything that rich and chocolately in my life. Never. And I've done some serious chocolate taste-testing in places like Switzerland.
Sabrina and I couldn't finish it between us. (Six ounces! 12 tablespoons!) It was just too rich. So we took it home to share with Cory and Lee. And we still have a couple of ounces left. It's hard for me to imagine anyone finishing a cup of it. (Maybe put it on ice cream? Maybe add several ounces of appropriate liquor? Other ideas?)
We all know that chocolate wards off dementors, of course. And that it increases serotonin and combats depression. So here's a recommendation: If your'e fighting off either dementors or depression, head to Starbucks for the densest chocolate you will probably ever experience.
Just take along 4 or 5 friends to help you finish it.
Friday, January 21, 2005
THE ADVENTURES OF FASHION GIRL
My daughter will never be a model. She is quite short, will remain short, and is likely to be, um, too curvy as she grows up to be a successful fashion model.
But that doesn't stop her from wanting to be one (even as we try to nudge her back toward her former goal of wanting to be a fashion designer -- for which she shows some talent). And she has actually gotten a couple of modeling gigs.
So allow me to direct you to the website for Lydia Loungewear. Click on "Just Lounging," then click on the left-most picture (the spring line) and scroll through the catalog till you see the little girl. That's her, in all her fashion-conscious glory.
In a couple of weeks, she should also appear in the summer catalog. Don't forget to bookmark it!
But that doesn't stop her from wanting to be one (even as we try to nudge her back toward her former goal of wanting to be a fashion designer -- for which she shows some talent). And she has actually gotten a couple of modeling gigs.
So allow me to direct you to the website for Lydia Loungewear. Click on "Just Lounging," then click on the left-most picture (the spring line) and scroll through the catalog till you see the little girl. That's her, in all her fashion-conscious glory.
In a couple of weeks, she should also appear in the summer catalog. Don't forget to bookmark it!
Thursday, January 20, 2005
WHY THEY MAKE FUN OF US
The New York Times this morning reports that James Dobson of Focus on the Family has come out in opposition to (wait for it...) SpongeBob SquarePants.
SpongeBob, along with other Nickelodeon stars, appears in a music video to the old disco hit "We Are Family," which Dobson labels a "pro-homosexual" video. He claims that it will be sent to school kids along with a pledge to "tolerate" people with different sexual identity.
As it turns out, Dobson has either (a) not looked at the materials accompanying the video, (b) not checked out the website associated with the video (that of the We Are Family Foundation, (c) confused it with a similiarly-named pro-gay website and not done any due diligence whatsoever; or (d) all of the above.
The We Are Family Foundation website does indeed include a "Tolerance Pledge" (which is not going out in the materials accompanying the video). Here's the language of the pledge:
"Tolerance is a personal decision that comes from a belief that every person is a treasure. I believe that America's diversity is its strength. I also recognize that ignorance, insensitivity and bigotry can turn that diversity into a source of prejudice and discrimination. To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own."
What?! We're asked to respect other people? How could any Christian sign up for that?!
The language of the pledge, by the way, is that of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Pretty poor timing, I have to say, to be dissing them during the week of Martin Luther King Day. Sort of shows, um, how do I put this... a certain disrespect.
I remember having a long-ago conversation with a college friend about the difference between "having an open mind" and "tolerance." Christians, he opined, couldn't have "an open mind" about certain subjects, because we simply do know right from wrong and have to say so. But we could -- and should -- approach people with whom we disagree with "tolerance" -- i.e., respect -- because they are made in the image of God (one might say each person is a "treasure") and as such, deserve respect.
Oh, I guess not. I guess Christians are now expected to disrespect others, to make sure kids aren't taught respect for those different than themselves (all those playground bullies are happy about that!), and to stay away from dangerous culture icons that teach such dangerous messages.
As a Christian in Hollywood, I sometimes feel I have to wear a sign that reads, "I'm not like that!" And once again, a Christian "cultural influencer" has made sure that I, as a Christian, will be ridiculed on my home turf... has made it just a little harder for believers on the front lines. Thanks, James. We appreciate it.
I think my only response can be to race over to Nick and see when the next SpongeBob marathon is.
All together now.... "Who lives in a pineapple under the sea...?"
SpongeBob, along with other Nickelodeon stars, appears in a music video to the old disco hit "We Are Family," which Dobson labels a "pro-homosexual" video. He claims that it will be sent to school kids along with a pledge to "tolerate" people with different sexual identity.
As it turns out, Dobson has either (a) not looked at the materials accompanying the video, (b) not checked out the website associated with the video (that of the We Are Family Foundation, (c) confused it with a similiarly-named pro-gay website and not done any due diligence whatsoever; or (d) all of the above.
The We Are Family Foundation website does indeed include a "Tolerance Pledge" (which is not going out in the materials accompanying the video). Here's the language of the pledge:
"Tolerance is a personal decision that comes from a belief that every person is a treasure. I believe that America's diversity is its strength. I also recognize that ignorance, insensitivity and bigotry can turn that diversity into a source of prejudice and discrimination. To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own."
What?! We're asked to respect other people? How could any Christian sign up for that?!
The language of the pledge, by the way, is that of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Pretty poor timing, I have to say, to be dissing them during the week of Martin Luther King Day. Sort of shows, um, how do I put this... a certain disrespect.
I remember having a long-ago conversation with a college friend about the difference between "having an open mind" and "tolerance." Christians, he opined, couldn't have "an open mind" about certain subjects, because we simply do know right from wrong and have to say so. But we could -- and should -- approach people with whom we disagree with "tolerance" -- i.e., respect -- because they are made in the image of God (one might say each person is a "treasure") and as such, deserve respect.
Oh, I guess not. I guess Christians are now expected to disrespect others, to make sure kids aren't taught respect for those different than themselves (all those playground bullies are happy about that!), and to stay away from dangerous culture icons that teach such dangerous messages.
As a Christian in Hollywood, I sometimes feel I have to wear a sign that reads, "I'm not like that!" And once again, a Christian "cultural influencer" has made sure that I, as a Christian, will be ridiculed on my home turf... has made it just a little harder for believers on the front lines. Thanks, James. We appreciate it.
I think my only response can be to race over to Nick and see when the next SpongeBob marathon is.
All together now.... "Who lives in a pineapple under the sea...?"
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
ALL THE NEWS THAT'S FIT TO NOTICE
We in southern California have been recovering this week from a series of storms which pounded us heavier than anything in my lifetime. Rainfall records were set and broken. Almost everyone I know either had storm damage, or avoided it by tarping roofs, repurposing jacuzzi pumps to clear water from the sides of houses, and the like. (We ourselves had to tarp our deck, and have some serious drywall damage. And let's not talk about the ants.)
Traffic has also been horribly snarled by road closures, as boulders and mudslides come down and block mountain roads (L.A. is the only major city in the U.S. with a mountain range running through its midst). Downed trees and power lines have also blocked roads, including in our little canyon, where the kids' quickest path to school was blocked this week by a 200' eucalyptus tree that collapsed clear across the road.
And the day after it cleared, we noticed two things while on our way to school: (a) The tree itself, now neatly sawed into logs and piled along the side of the road; and (b) a film crew at work in our local park.
As we speculated on what they could be filming, Sabrina, excited, spouted, "I bet they're filming the tree that fell down for the news!"
Now of course this wasn't true. Probably they were filming a commercial. At any rate, our little tree crash wouldn't rate the news during a week like we were having in L.A.
But it made me think about the nature of the news.
Once upon a time, when the world was smaller and more intimate, news typically consisted of what amounts to gossip today. Someone had a baby. Or someone's pregnant again. That couple down the street is having a fight and their kids are really upset. Someone's business is having trouble. Or doing well. Someone's basement was flooded by the storm and they can't afford to fix the damage. A tree fell down.
The news was local and relevant. You knew the people the news was about. You rejoiced with them, mourned with them, or were jealous of them. The news you heard mattered to your own life.
Today, well, the news is usually irrelevant. Yes, we'll send money to Asia, but how many of us are intimately affected by the tsunami? Corporate CEOs are indicted (or not). Government scandals occur. Elections are held halfway around the world. But it's all just words on a page, in some ways. None of it has a direct effect on our lives. (Yes, I know there will be repercussions in prices, if nothing else. But it's not like having to take a detour because the road to school is blocked.
We live in a global economy. We can communicate around the world in seconds. All is interconnected these days. And I'm a city girl myself. I'd go crazy living in an agrarian, small town world.
But during the brief moment when Sabrina thought that our paltry fallen tree was important enough to warrant being on "the news," I really wanted the news to be that immediate. And the world to be that small.
Traffic has also been horribly snarled by road closures, as boulders and mudslides come down and block mountain roads (L.A. is the only major city in the U.S. with a mountain range running through its midst). Downed trees and power lines have also blocked roads, including in our little canyon, where the kids' quickest path to school was blocked this week by a 200' eucalyptus tree that collapsed clear across the road.
And the day after it cleared, we noticed two things while on our way to school: (a) The tree itself, now neatly sawed into logs and piled along the side of the road; and (b) a film crew at work in our local park.
As we speculated on what they could be filming, Sabrina, excited, spouted, "I bet they're filming the tree that fell down for the news!"
Now of course this wasn't true. Probably they were filming a commercial. At any rate, our little tree crash wouldn't rate the news during a week like we were having in L.A.
But it made me think about the nature of the news.
Once upon a time, when the world was smaller and more intimate, news typically consisted of what amounts to gossip today. Someone had a baby. Or someone's pregnant again. That couple down the street is having a fight and their kids are really upset. Someone's business is having trouble. Or doing well. Someone's basement was flooded by the storm and they can't afford to fix the damage. A tree fell down.
The news was local and relevant. You knew the people the news was about. You rejoiced with them, mourned with them, or were jealous of them. The news you heard mattered to your own life.
Today, well, the news is usually irrelevant. Yes, we'll send money to Asia, but how many of us are intimately affected by the tsunami? Corporate CEOs are indicted (or not). Government scandals occur. Elections are held halfway around the world. But it's all just words on a page, in some ways. None of it has a direct effect on our lives. (Yes, I know there will be repercussions in prices, if nothing else. But it's not like having to take a detour because the road to school is blocked.
We live in a global economy. We can communicate around the world in seconds. All is interconnected these days. And I'm a city girl myself. I'd go crazy living in an agrarian, small town world.
But during the brief moment when Sabrina thought that our paltry fallen tree was important enough to warrant being on "the news," I really wanted the news to be that immediate. And the world to be that small.
Monday, January 17, 2005
THOUGHTS ON THE GOLDEN GLOBES
I usually like watching the Golden Globes. The fashions are great, the importance is minimal, and everything is looser and more spontaneous than the Oscars.
But this year it just seemed a snooze.
Maybe it was because there were so few movies to root for. The Aviator as best picture? I mean, really. What a sad statement of 2004. Especially when Finding Neverland is there to vote for. (With The Incredibles -- also a loser last night -- available to vote for on the comedy side.)
Somehow this year the actors all seemed more into themselves than usual. "Yes, it really is all about me!" And the pandering to the nonsensical Hollywood Foreign Press (who consist of less than 100 obscure reporters) seemed more ramped up than usual.
A few thoughts:
--A nice acceptance speech from Teri Hatcher. I liked her thanking her agent for sticking with her when she couldn't get an audition. Just the acknowledgement of how in the toilet her career had been was pretty audacious in that particular context. And did she look gorgeous, for a woman admitting she's over 40! (And there's the real problem with Desperate Housewives -- it sets an impossible standard for women over 40 in terms of expectations for how they'll look -- at least here in L.A.!)
--Also a nice acceptance speech from Jamie Foxx, who's having the professional year of his life. I liked his starting off his speech by going into "What'd I Say." Don't know if that'll work at the Oscars though -- the audience won't have had enough wine to respond the way he did.
--Clint Eastwood's daughter will be embarrassed when she looks at the Tivo and sees how chunky she looked onscreen. And who let her choose a dress with a big horizontal line right across the hips?
--Why did Robin Williams looks so incredibly sad through the evening, even through his tribute? Yes, he came through with a terrific acceptance speech. But why did his wife look so furious at him when he thanked her? Even watching something so funny, I felt such sorrow for him.
--Usually the Globes cuts to Harvey Weinstein constantly. This year I didn't even think he was there until The Aviator got its award. Did someone tell the on-air director that Miramax is about to fold, and don't cut to Harvey?
...I think that's about it from me. I'm the kind of person who tapes the Oscars and watches the highlights the day after -- but I think a highlight tape from last night would last about 5 minutes (and most of it would be Robin Williams' speech). Just a snooze.
Oh well. At least The Incredibles will win the best animation Oscar. In the meantime, get out there and see Finding Neverland while you still can.
But this year it just seemed a snooze.
Maybe it was because there were so few movies to root for. The Aviator as best picture? I mean, really. What a sad statement of 2004. Especially when Finding Neverland is there to vote for. (With The Incredibles -- also a loser last night -- available to vote for on the comedy side.)
Somehow this year the actors all seemed more into themselves than usual. "Yes, it really is all about me!" And the pandering to the nonsensical Hollywood Foreign Press (who consist of less than 100 obscure reporters) seemed more ramped up than usual.
A few thoughts:
--A nice acceptance speech from Teri Hatcher. I liked her thanking her agent for sticking with her when she couldn't get an audition. Just the acknowledgement of how in the toilet her career had been was pretty audacious in that particular context. And did she look gorgeous, for a woman admitting she's over 40! (And there's the real problem with Desperate Housewives -- it sets an impossible standard for women over 40 in terms of expectations for how they'll look -- at least here in L.A.!)
--Also a nice acceptance speech from Jamie Foxx, who's having the professional year of his life. I liked his starting off his speech by going into "What'd I Say." Don't know if that'll work at the Oscars though -- the audience won't have had enough wine to respond the way he did.
--Clint Eastwood's daughter will be embarrassed when she looks at the Tivo and sees how chunky she looked onscreen. And who let her choose a dress with a big horizontal line right across the hips?
--Why did Robin Williams looks so incredibly sad through the evening, even through his tribute? Yes, he came through with a terrific acceptance speech. But why did his wife look so furious at him when he thanked her? Even watching something so funny, I felt such sorrow for him.
--Usually the Globes cuts to Harvey Weinstein constantly. This year I didn't even think he was there until The Aviator got its award. Did someone tell the on-air director that Miramax is about to fold, and don't cut to Harvey?
...I think that's about it from me. I'm the kind of person who tapes the Oscars and watches the highlights the day after -- but I think a highlight tape from last night would last about 5 minutes (and most of it would be Robin Williams' speech). Just a snooze.
Oh well. At least The Incredibles will win the best animation Oscar. In the meantime, get out there and see Finding Neverland while you still can.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
COIN A PHRASE
Loving words as I do, I wanted to point you all to a fun new blog. An Act One alum will be posting three new word games a week, and waiting for interactive response. It looks fun.
The first one is for people to come up with their own version of the phrase "a thorn in my side." My personal favorite response was "You are the spam in my inbox." (I contributed "You are the ants in my pantry." Don't ask.)
The site is: Coin a Phrase. Check it out and enjoy!
The first one is for people to come up with their own version of the phrase "a thorn in my side." My personal favorite response was "You are the spam in my inbox." (I contributed "You are the ants in my pantry." Don't ask.)
The site is: Coin a Phrase. Check it out and enjoy!
THE $100,000 QUESTION
I have always liked quiz shows. I have been a (losing) contestant on "Jeopardy" twice. (I can't go back on because I have a friend who works there.)
And many nights, the 7 to 8 hour finds me watching "Jeopardy" and "Millionaire" back to back. I usually outplay the "Millionaire" contestants, and am frustrated when they lose because I don't get to the point where *I* would lose.
And it's always frustrating when they post the question that they should have saved for *me*. Last night was one of those nights. The question, worth $100,000, was:
"Which of the following words begins with what linguists would call a "voiceless glottal fricative"?
A. Thrilled
B. Cheerful
C. Glad
D. Happy"
So while the actual contestant, who had foolishly used up his lifelines earlier, dithered around, I turned to Lee and said, "Well, 'thrilled' begins with a voiceless interdental fricative. 'Cheerful' begins with a voiceless alveopalatal affricate. 'Glad' begins with a voiced velar stop. So that leaves 'happy'." (I'm a Ph.D. dropout in linguistics. This was the equivalent of a $200 question for me.)
Lee just sort of looked at me for a moment, and said "You should go on Millionaire." (But of course, they've used up my question now!)
Sigh.....
And many nights, the 7 to 8 hour finds me watching "Jeopardy" and "Millionaire" back to back. I usually outplay the "Millionaire" contestants, and am frustrated when they lose because I don't get to the point where *I* would lose.
And it's always frustrating when they post the question that they should have saved for *me*. Last night was one of those nights. The question, worth $100,000, was:
"Which of the following words begins with what linguists would call a "voiceless glottal fricative"?
A. Thrilled
B. Cheerful
C. Glad
D. Happy"
So while the actual contestant, who had foolishly used up his lifelines earlier, dithered around, I turned to Lee and said, "Well, 'thrilled' begins with a voiceless interdental fricative. 'Cheerful' begins with a voiceless alveopalatal affricate. 'Glad' begins with a voiced velar stop. So that leaves 'happy'." (I'm a Ph.D. dropout in linguistics. This was the equivalent of a $200 question for me.)
Lee just sort of looked at me for a moment, and said "You should go on Millionaire." (But of course, they've used up my question now!)
Sigh.....
Thursday, January 13, 2005
THE BOOKS OF 2004: THE REST OF THEM
Okay, we're well into 2005 -- I'm already 5 books into the new year, reading-wise, so I'd better knock out the rest of my 2004 book list.... Again, as a reminder -- A couple of years ago I made a New Year's resolution to read -- to make a list of books I wanted to read, and to actually track them down and read them. One of the few resolutions I've really really kept!
So here's the rest of 2004.... As before, I've provided links for those which I think you should pick up and read, too.
ORBITING THE GIANT HAIRBALL: A CORPORATE FOOL'S GUIDE TO SURVIVING WITH GRACE, by Gordon MacKenzie. Over the top in terms of cuteness, this book pretends to be brimming with creativity, when actually it's just sort of dumb. Written by a guy who's clearly a little too in love with himself, its major point is that the institutions of school and corporate life tend to squash creativity and diversity. Well, duh. Skip it.
PATTERN RECOGNITION, by William Gibson. A fascinating futuristic novel by the guy who invented the word "cyberspace." An uber-hacker goes on the trail of a mystery online video that is changing many lives, and finds herself wrapped in more mystery than she expected. A very weak ending, but a good ride for the right reader.
PERIL AT END HOUSE, by Agatha Christie. I am definitely an Agatha fan, but you won't see many of her books listed here, as I've read most of them already (and it does take a while till I've forgotten the ending enough to reread... I will never be able to read The Murder of Roger Ackroyd again, at that rate). A good solid Agatha -- A great look into a world that will never exist again, with perfect plotting and motives. Doesn't stand out, but definitely solid.
POSITIVELY 5TH STREET: MURDERERS, CHEETAS AND BINION'S WORLD SERIES OF POKER, by Ted McManus. McManus, sent to Las Vegas to cover the World Series of Poker for a magazine, throws his advance in the ring and plays as well, making it much further than he had any right to. At the same time, the Binion family (the host of the Series) is in the midst of a murder trial that McManus also covers. The murder stuff sort of drags along. The poker stuff is cool.
THE REFLECTIVE EXECUTIVE, by Emilie Griffith. Thoughts on being a Christian executive. Frankly, I read this at the beginning of 2004, and I don't remember much of it. I don't remember being very impressed.
THE REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNICATOR, by Erik Lokkesmoe and Jedd Medefind. ***Reviewed on this blog 8.10.04***. Okay, my blurb is on the front cover of this book (a mistake on the publisher's part, I deem), so I guess I have to say good things about it! (Kidding.) Erik (an Act One alum) and Jedd have done a great job of summarizing the principles of communications Jesus used. They make application clear and easy. Really a terrific book for anyone who ever has to, oh, communicate with anyone. Go buy it!
RICH DAD, POOR DAD: WHAT THE RICH TEACH THEIR KIDS ABOUT MONEY THAT THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS DO NOT, by Robert T. Kiyosaki and Sharon Lechter. This seems to be the book version of a seminar that Kiyosaki apparently does around the country (I've heard the radio ads). It's actually quite interesting, though he's not much of a writer. His primary points are (a) a plea for teaching financial literacy to kids and (b) a redefinition of the concept of assets and liabilities (for instance, he considers a personal residence a liability rather than an asset -- something I can sort of relate to at times these days!). Worth picking up before you go out and spend mega-bucks investing, I'd say.
THE SEVEN DIALS MYSTERY, by Agatha Christie. Sadly, not one of her best. The ending is, of course, well-plotted, but there are a couple of unbelievable twists at the end, and it's a bit too dependent on our understanding the social and political goings-on of the time.
SHADOWMANCER, by G.P. Taylor. "Hotter than Potter" (as it's been blurbed)? I think not. Taylor is a first-time writer, and it shows. While this is being marketed as Christian fantasy, I would really put it in the category of Christian horror.
THE SPOOKY ART, by Norman Mailer. I had read a few great quotes about writing from this book, so I wanted to read the whole thing. Not worth it. Mailer is just too full of himself. Read Stephen King's On Writing instead.
THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE, by Audrey Niffenegger. This is one of those romances that works wonderfully while you're reading it, then you step back and say, "Wait a minute. All these people had in common was sex and a certain amount of narcissism." And its allure sort of fades at that point. However, the plotting is compelling (I would love to see the charts that the author certainly had to draw to keep the different time lines straight), as she follows the story of a time-traveller dropping into his love's life from the time she's 8 years hold until she's 80+. Supposed Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston were set to make this as a movie. Oh well. I guess not any more.
TOLKIEN: MAN AND MYTH, by Joseph Pierce. The first book I read in 2004, and I've read other bios / analyses of Tolkien, so it's sort of dropping away in my memory. I recall it as being fairly academic, but w/ some good points about myth. Sorry I can't be more specific.
WHY WE BUY: THE SCIENCE OF SHOPPING, by Paco Underhill. I linked Underhill's second book, THE CALL OF THE MALL, but not this one. That's because I read THE CALL OF THE MALL first, and found a lot of the material repetitive. I also found the structure of THE CALL OF THE MALL more interesting, as it takes us around a mall and analyzes what works and (more often) what doesn't. This book is interesting, but if you're only going to read one, read THE CALL OF THE MALL instead.
WORD FREAK: HEARTBREAK, TRIUMPH, GENIUS AND OBSESSION IN THE WORLD OF COMPETITIVE SCRABBLE PLAYERS, by Stephen Fatsis. ***Reviewed on this blog 3.15.04.*** Who knew this fascinating and weird world even existed?! I was riveted from start to finish reading WORD FREAK -- the weirdness of the people who devote their lives to Scrabble, the odd pull it all has on the writer... it all starts to add up till you almost think it makes sense to live your life that way. This was supposed to be made into a movie under the truly brilliant title "Your Word or Mine?" -- I think it's fallen apart, though I believe there was a documentary on the subject this year. All I can say is, this book drove me to find an online scrabble game -- where I promptly got my butt kicked. (I'm more a Boggle girl.)
....Okay, that's 2004 wrapped and shelved. Onward to more great reading in 2005! Thanks for walking through my list with me, and hope you find something you want to pick up and read.
So here's the rest of 2004.... As before, I've provided links for those which I think you should pick up and read, too.
ORBITING THE GIANT HAIRBALL: A CORPORATE FOOL'S GUIDE TO SURVIVING WITH GRACE, by Gordon MacKenzie. Over the top in terms of cuteness, this book pretends to be brimming with creativity, when actually it's just sort of dumb. Written by a guy who's clearly a little too in love with himself, its major point is that the institutions of school and corporate life tend to squash creativity and diversity. Well, duh. Skip it.
PATTERN RECOGNITION, by William Gibson. A fascinating futuristic novel by the guy who invented the word "cyberspace." An uber-hacker goes on the trail of a mystery online video that is changing many lives, and finds herself wrapped in more mystery than she expected. A very weak ending, but a good ride for the right reader.
PERIL AT END HOUSE, by Agatha Christie. I am definitely an Agatha fan, but you won't see many of her books listed here, as I've read most of them already (and it does take a while till I've forgotten the ending enough to reread... I will never be able to read The Murder of Roger Ackroyd again, at that rate). A good solid Agatha -- A great look into a world that will never exist again, with perfect plotting and motives. Doesn't stand out, but definitely solid.
POSITIVELY 5TH STREET: MURDERERS, CHEETAS AND BINION'S WORLD SERIES OF POKER, by Ted McManus. McManus, sent to Las Vegas to cover the World Series of Poker for a magazine, throws his advance in the ring and plays as well, making it much further than he had any right to. At the same time, the Binion family (the host of the Series) is in the midst of a murder trial that McManus also covers. The murder stuff sort of drags along. The poker stuff is cool.
THE REFLECTIVE EXECUTIVE, by Emilie Griffith. Thoughts on being a Christian executive. Frankly, I read this at the beginning of 2004, and I don't remember much of it. I don't remember being very impressed.
THE REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNICATOR, by Erik Lokkesmoe and Jedd Medefind. ***Reviewed on this blog 8.10.04***. Okay, my blurb is on the front cover of this book (a mistake on the publisher's part, I deem), so I guess I have to say good things about it! (Kidding.) Erik (an Act One alum) and Jedd have done a great job of summarizing the principles of communications Jesus used. They make application clear and easy. Really a terrific book for anyone who ever has to, oh, communicate with anyone. Go buy it!
RICH DAD, POOR DAD: WHAT THE RICH TEACH THEIR KIDS ABOUT MONEY THAT THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS DO NOT, by Robert T. Kiyosaki and Sharon Lechter. This seems to be the book version of a seminar that Kiyosaki apparently does around the country (I've heard the radio ads). It's actually quite interesting, though he's not much of a writer. His primary points are (a) a plea for teaching financial literacy to kids and (b) a redefinition of the concept of assets and liabilities (for instance, he considers a personal residence a liability rather than an asset -- something I can sort of relate to at times these days!). Worth picking up before you go out and spend mega-bucks investing, I'd say.
THE SEVEN DIALS MYSTERY, by Agatha Christie. Sadly, not one of her best. The ending is, of course, well-plotted, but there are a couple of unbelievable twists at the end, and it's a bit too dependent on our understanding the social and political goings-on of the time.
SHADOWMANCER, by G.P. Taylor. "Hotter than Potter" (as it's been blurbed)? I think not. Taylor is a first-time writer, and it shows. While this is being marketed as Christian fantasy, I would really put it in the category of Christian horror.
THE SPOOKY ART, by Norman Mailer. I had read a few great quotes about writing from this book, so I wanted to read the whole thing. Not worth it. Mailer is just too full of himself. Read Stephen King's On Writing instead.
THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE, by Audrey Niffenegger. This is one of those romances that works wonderfully while you're reading it, then you step back and say, "Wait a minute. All these people had in common was sex and a certain amount of narcissism." And its allure sort of fades at that point. However, the plotting is compelling (I would love to see the charts that the author certainly had to draw to keep the different time lines straight), as she follows the story of a time-traveller dropping into his love's life from the time she's 8 years hold until she's 80+. Supposed Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston were set to make this as a movie. Oh well. I guess not any more.
TOLKIEN: MAN AND MYTH, by Joseph Pierce. The first book I read in 2004, and I've read other bios / analyses of Tolkien, so it's sort of dropping away in my memory. I recall it as being fairly academic, but w/ some good points about myth. Sorry I can't be more specific.
WHY WE BUY: THE SCIENCE OF SHOPPING, by Paco Underhill. I linked Underhill's second book, THE CALL OF THE MALL, but not this one. That's because I read THE CALL OF THE MALL first, and found a lot of the material repetitive. I also found the structure of THE CALL OF THE MALL more interesting, as it takes us around a mall and analyzes what works and (more often) what doesn't. This book is interesting, but if you're only going to read one, read THE CALL OF THE MALL instead.
WORD FREAK: HEARTBREAK, TRIUMPH, GENIUS AND OBSESSION IN THE WORLD OF COMPETITIVE SCRABBLE PLAYERS, by Stephen Fatsis. ***Reviewed on this blog 3.15.04.*** Who knew this fascinating and weird world even existed?! I was riveted from start to finish reading WORD FREAK -- the weirdness of the people who devote their lives to Scrabble, the odd pull it all has on the writer... it all starts to add up till you almost think it makes sense to live your life that way. This was supposed to be made into a movie under the truly brilliant title "Your Word or Mine?" -- I think it's fallen apart, though I believe there was a documentary on the subject this year. All I can say is, this book drove me to find an online scrabble game -- where I promptly got my butt kicked. (I'm more a Boggle girl.)
....Okay, that's 2004 wrapped and shelved. Onward to more great reading in 2005! Thanks for walking through my list with me, and hope you find something you want to pick up and read.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
THE TOP FIVE
Well, the 2004 box office has been tallied, and the top 5 movies (in terms of box office) are:
1. SHREK 2
2. SPIDER-MAN 2
3. THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST
4. THE INCREDIBLES
5. HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN
Now, the pundits are trying to analyze this list -- look how many sequels there are, etc. And one of the most interesting points I've seen raised was that none of these movies are star-driven -- instead, they're "branded" (it's a "Harry Potter" film, it's a Pixar film, it's a Jesus film). In the same way that you know what to expect when you go to McDonalds, you know what to expect when you go into one of these movies.
But I noticed something else as well.
With the exception of SHREK 2, all these movies (and/or their source material) point solidly to Christian themes.
SHREK 2, of course, is just a fractured fairy tale, a pastiche of jokes cleverly strung together around a typical, yet slightly warped fairy story. There's a strain of selfishness that runs through the Shrek movies -- good for comedy, but not thematically uplifting. And ultimately, they're not about much ("Love who you are"?).
But the others are more interesting.
SPIDER-MAN, for instance. The overarching theme of the series is quite overt and quite biblical: "With great power comes great responsibility." (We would say, "From him to whom much is given, much shall be demanded.") And we get even more in this second outing from Spidey, as I reviewed on July 10, 2004 on this blog. Here, Peter Parker faces up to the responsibilities facing him and says, in essence, "Let this cup pass from me." And then he goes through the struggle and takes the heavy responsibility on again, at great sacrifice to himself.
I have no problem with those messages being sent out to millions of people, even they are wrapped in red and blue spandex. Heck, I wish I'd written the thing!
On to THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. Um, do I really need to spell out the Christian themes here? Think anyone could possibly have missed 'em?
Okay, next. THE INCREDIBLES. One of my faves of the year, maybe even at the top of the list. Besides the obvious good vs. evil storyline, this is a story about not hiding your light under a bushel. About "Because a hand is not an eye, it is not any less a part of the body." Sure, it's fun, and the kids all love Frozone, and the jokes, etc. But when I hear adults talking about this movie, it's those deeper themes they're talking about -- and talking about -- over and over. The themes struck a chord deep inside a lot of people.
And if you've been reading this blog for a while, you know my thoughts on the Christian themes underlying HARRY POTTER. (See the discussions around about June 23, 2004, if you want to catch up.) Yes, the movie didn't do much to highlight the themes that are there. But, as with LORD OF THE RINGS, where Peter Jackson went on the record to say he had no interest whatsoever in preserving the Christian themes of the books, it's impossible to snuff them out. The necessity of choice, of the need to choose good rather than evil -- or to choose that which is right rather than that which is easy -- drives every part of these stories forward. And in a world where, as in HP, the choice often is between the right and the easy -- well, that's a message I don't mind rattling around in the brains of my kids.
Now, none of the studios will bother to analyze these movies' success thematically. They'll look at demographics, they'll look at the whole sequel thing. But I would contend -- as my "Quote of the Month" points out -- that these movies are successful, at least in part, because they tap into a deep-seated, hard-wired sense of the "true myth" that our souls long to see reflections of. And when we see them, we may not recognize them consciously -- but we know. Deep down, we know.
I think we should find it encouraging that these are the movies America is choosing to go to. True, none of these films will be nominated for Best Picture (an outside chance for THE INCREDIBLES, but I doubt it). But they won at the box office. And in many ways, that's the more important prize to win.
1. SHREK 2
2. SPIDER-MAN 2
3. THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST
4. THE INCREDIBLES
5. HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN
Now, the pundits are trying to analyze this list -- look how many sequels there are, etc. And one of the most interesting points I've seen raised was that none of these movies are star-driven -- instead, they're "branded" (it's a "Harry Potter" film, it's a Pixar film, it's a Jesus film). In the same way that you know what to expect when you go to McDonalds, you know what to expect when you go into one of these movies.
But I noticed something else as well.
With the exception of SHREK 2, all these movies (and/or their source material) point solidly to Christian themes.
SHREK 2, of course, is just a fractured fairy tale, a pastiche of jokes cleverly strung together around a typical, yet slightly warped fairy story. There's a strain of selfishness that runs through the Shrek movies -- good for comedy, but not thematically uplifting. And ultimately, they're not about much ("Love who you are"?).
But the others are more interesting.
SPIDER-MAN, for instance. The overarching theme of the series is quite overt and quite biblical: "With great power comes great responsibility." (We would say, "From him to whom much is given, much shall be demanded.") And we get even more in this second outing from Spidey, as I reviewed on July 10, 2004 on this blog. Here, Peter Parker faces up to the responsibilities facing him and says, in essence, "Let this cup pass from me." And then he goes through the struggle and takes the heavy responsibility on again, at great sacrifice to himself.
I have no problem with those messages being sent out to millions of people, even they are wrapped in red and blue spandex. Heck, I wish I'd written the thing!
On to THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. Um, do I really need to spell out the Christian themes here? Think anyone could possibly have missed 'em?
Okay, next. THE INCREDIBLES. One of my faves of the year, maybe even at the top of the list. Besides the obvious good vs. evil storyline, this is a story about not hiding your light under a bushel. About "Because a hand is not an eye, it is not any less a part of the body." Sure, it's fun, and the kids all love Frozone, and the jokes, etc. But when I hear adults talking about this movie, it's those deeper themes they're talking about -- and talking about -- over and over. The themes struck a chord deep inside a lot of people.
And if you've been reading this blog for a while, you know my thoughts on the Christian themes underlying HARRY POTTER. (See the discussions around about June 23, 2004, if you want to catch up.) Yes, the movie didn't do much to highlight the themes that are there. But, as with LORD OF THE RINGS, where Peter Jackson went on the record to say he had no interest whatsoever in preserving the Christian themes of the books, it's impossible to snuff them out. The necessity of choice, of the need to choose good rather than evil -- or to choose that which is right rather than that which is easy -- drives every part of these stories forward. And in a world where, as in HP, the choice often is between the right and the easy -- well, that's a message I don't mind rattling around in the brains of my kids.
Now, none of the studios will bother to analyze these movies' success thematically. They'll look at demographics, they'll look at the whole sequel thing. But I would contend -- as my "Quote of the Month" points out -- that these movies are successful, at least in part, because they tap into a deep-seated, hard-wired sense of the "true myth" that our souls long to see reflections of. And when we see them, we may not recognize them consciously -- but we know. Deep down, we know.
I think we should find it encouraging that these are the movies America is choosing to go to. True, none of these films will be nominated for Best Picture (an outside chance for THE INCREDIBLES, but I doubt it). But they won at the box office. And in many ways, that's the more important prize to win.
Sunday, January 09, 2005
MOVIE THOUGHTS: THE AVIATOR AND THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA
We went to see a couple of movies back to back this week: Martin Scorsese's THE AVIATOR and Joel Schumacher's THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. And boy, is my advice on what to see not what I expected it to be when I went in to the movies.
THE AVIATOR, to its credit, has some lovely stuff in it on a scene-by-scene basis. Some scenes just sing visually. And Cate Blanchett makes the screen sparkle as Katherine Hepburn, whom she seems to be channelling.
Leonardo di Caprio is, shall we say, a tad miscast (so young! so callow!). But the real problem is this: The movie is so woefully overdirected that after a point, I had to wince at moments where I think Scorsese wanted me to marvel (e.g., the movie being projected on Leo's naked back). Every scene seems to cry out, "Look at me! Here behind the camera! This is worth an Oscar? Isn't it? Isn't it?"
I'm not saying don't see it. Because it does have some worthwhile moments and images. Ultimately, though, it's a disappointment. Not much of a coherent throughline (always a problem with biographies). And a director who simply will not get behind the camera and let us forget about him so we can watch the movie.
To my surprise, I found myself feeling just the *opposite* when we saw THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA.
PHANTOM is the movie Joel Schumacher was born to make. The snapping capes! The canted angles! The fabulous male dancers! The roses! The masks! The melodrama!.... It is, frankly, an absolutely perfect pairing of director and subject matter. This PHANTOM is what the stage play always wanted to be, but couldn't because of the limitations of the stage.
Joel has wrapped the stage play into three acts, each bordered by a black-and-white "modern-day" (i.e., 1930s, compared to the 1870s time line of the main story) prologue/interlogue/epilogue, which works quite well, I thought. (Not all critics agreed.) He's altered the story a bit (e.g., the chandelier crashes at a different point), but it all works.
Let's face it. If you hate Andrew Lloyd Webber, you'll hate this movie. (I personally am more Sondheim than Lloyd Webber in my predilections -- I sort of side with the critic who noted that Lloyd Webber writes one great song and starts rehearsals -- but I find PHANTOM one of his more musically interesting pieces.) If you're hung up on Michael Crawford as the Phantom, you'll have something to gripe about (The Phantom here has a lovely voice, but takes a while to grow into the part).
But if you ever listened to the PHANTOM soundtrack, or saw the musical, you should see this version before it leaves the theatres. It is sumptuous to look at in every way -- costumes, production design, choreography, cinematography -- just a treat. And Emme Rossum, playing Christine, is a newly discovered treasure.
All I can say is, run right out and see PHANTOM OF THE OPERA on the big screen. And hold THE AVIATOR for the DVD -- or maybe even the edited for TV version.
Who knew?
THE AVIATOR, to its credit, has some lovely stuff in it on a scene-by-scene basis. Some scenes just sing visually. And Cate Blanchett makes the screen sparkle as Katherine Hepburn, whom she seems to be channelling.
Leonardo di Caprio is, shall we say, a tad miscast (so young! so callow!). But the real problem is this: The movie is so woefully overdirected that after a point, I had to wince at moments where I think Scorsese wanted me to marvel (e.g., the movie being projected on Leo's naked back). Every scene seems to cry out, "Look at me! Here behind the camera! This is worth an Oscar? Isn't it? Isn't it?"
I'm not saying don't see it. Because it does have some worthwhile moments and images. Ultimately, though, it's a disappointment. Not much of a coherent throughline (always a problem with biographies). And a director who simply will not get behind the camera and let us forget about him so we can watch the movie.
To my surprise, I found myself feeling just the *opposite* when we saw THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA.
PHANTOM is the movie Joel Schumacher was born to make. The snapping capes! The canted angles! The fabulous male dancers! The roses! The masks! The melodrama!.... It is, frankly, an absolutely perfect pairing of director and subject matter. This PHANTOM is what the stage play always wanted to be, but couldn't because of the limitations of the stage.
Joel has wrapped the stage play into three acts, each bordered by a black-and-white "modern-day" (i.e., 1930s, compared to the 1870s time line of the main story) prologue/interlogue/epilogue, which works quite well, I thought. (Not all critics agreed.) He's altered the story a bit (e.g., the chandelier crashes at a different point), but it all works.
Let's face it. If you hate Andrew Lloyd Webber, you'll hate this movie. (I personally am more Sondheim than Lloyd Webber in my predilections -- I sort of side with the critic who noted that Lloyd Webber writes one great song and starts rehearsals -- but I find PHANTOM one of his more musically interesting pieces.) If you're hung up on Michael Crawford as the Phantom, you'll have something to gripe about (The Phantom here has a lovely voice, but takes a while to grow into the part).
But if you ever listened to the PHANTOM soundtrack, or saw the musical, you should see this version before it leaves the theatres. It is sumptuous to look at in every way -- costumes, production design, choreography, cinematography -- just a treat. And Emme Rossum, playing Christine, is a newly discovered treasure.
All I can say is, run right out and see PHANTOM OF THE OPERA on the big screen. And hold THE AVIATOR for the DVD -- or maybe even the edited for TV version.
Who knew?
Saturday, January 08, 2005
THE ANTS GO MARCHING ONE BY ONE
We only have weather a couple weeks of the year in Southern California. And this is one of the weeks. It has been pouring here. The local mountains are expected to have 3' of new powder by Monday, just from the 3 storms passing through this weekend.
And the song lies. The ants do not go marching "down to the ground to get out of the rain (boom boom boom)." They come marching up out of the ground -- and into our pantry.
Now, you can't exactly let loose with a can of Raid in a pantry. So we have been squirting with unscented, biodegradable cleaning spray. (They can't breathe it. They die. I'm fine with that.) And rubbing alcohol. (Not nearly as effective.) If they make it into the sink, I just use bucketfuls of hot water (sickly screaming "Tsunami warning" as I let loose).
The ants have evidently been surfacing in a big way all over L.A. -- I've seen a lot in the news about it. Some people recommend surrounding their entry holes with Palmolive. That seems to work on a medium-term basis. The problem is, they find new holes.
I'm ready to write a murder mystery. I'd have a great time empathizing with the murderer. I have found I have no problem killing hundreds of living beings, and actually take a perverse glee in it.
Someone give me some new ideas. How do I get rid of the ants? I am starting to dream about them. I would rather dream about (say) Johnny Depp. Or hot fudge sundaes.
Help!
And the song lies. The ants do not go marching "down to the ground to get out of the rain (boom boom boom)." They come marching up out of the ground -- and into our pantry.
Now, you can't exactly let loose with a can of Raid in a pantry. So we have been squirting with unscented, biodegradable cleaning spray. (They can't breathe it. They die. I'm fine with that.) And rubbing alcohol. (Not nearly as effective.) If they make it into the sink, I just use bucketfuls of hot water (sickly screaming "Tsunami warning" as I let loose).
The ants have evidently been surfacing in a big way all over L.A. -- I've seen a lot in the news about it. Some people recommend surrounding their entry holes with Palmolive. That seems to work on a medium-term basis. The problem is, they find new holes.
I'm ready to write a murder mystery. I'd have a great time empathizing with the murderer. I have found I have no problem killing hundreds of living beings, and actually take a perverse glee in it.
Someone give me some new ideas. How do I get rid of the ants? I am starting to dream about them. I would rather dream about (say) Johnny Depp. Or hot fudge sundaes.
Help!
Saturday, January 01, 2005
THE BOOKS OF 2004: THE SECOND DOZEN
Okay, moving on, as I close out 2004 and get started reading into 2005. Here's the next dozen books I read in 2004 -- Again, anything I highly recommend has a link to its amazon.com site so you can read more. I hope you pick up one or two things here that will help make 2005 a more pleasurable year. Or if you disagree with my take on a book, please say so!
Here we go....
EATS, SHOOTS AND LEAVES: THE ZERO TOLERANCE APPROACH TO PUNCTUATION, by Lynne Truss. ***Reviewed on this blog 9.28.04.*** I was stuck reading USA Today while out of town last week, and saw this was number one on some list or other there. Not surprising. It's a delightful book, a short read, and makes those of us who really, truly care about things like grammar and punctuation feel really, really justified.
THE EYRE AFFAIR, by Jasper Fforde. If you liked HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY, you'll probably like this. If you've never heard of HITCHHIKER, then this is probably not the book for you. THE EYRE AFFAIR postulates a world in which a dastardly villain is going inside the original manuscript of JANE EYRE to change the ending, thus scandalizing the entire British Isles, unless Literary Detective Thursday Next can stop them. There, just by reading that sentence, you already know if you want to read this book and join its cult following.
FOR US, THE LIVING, by Robert A. Heinlein. Heinlein's first, heretofore unpublished novel. And much as I sit at the feet of the SF master, I have to say there's a reason this book was unpublished. Only for those who know and love the entire Heinlein canon, and will therefore be able to relate bits and pieces here to later works.
GOOD TO GREAT: WHY SOME COMPANIES MAKE THE LEAP... AND OTHERS DON'T, by Jim Collins. Collins and his team analyzed over 1400 companies, looking for those that moved from "good" to "great" (terms he defines well) -- and found a total of 11 (!) that "made the leap." Then he looked at what those companies have in common. The two points that stood out for me: These companies do not have flashy, publicity-grabbing CEOs (quite the opposite, in fact)... and the focus at these companies is on getting the right people "on the bus," as he puts it, and only then deciding where to go. A little too business-school for me, but some fascinating concepts.
THE GREEN MILE, by Stephen King. Here's my dilemma. I really don't like the horror genre at all. Yet, when reading Stephen King's ON WRITING (a book that would surely contain an amazon link had I read it in 2004 rather than 2003), I found his writing captivating. So I have been slowly working my way through his non-horror works, which pretty much seem to be limited to THE GREEN MILE and DIFFERENT SEASONS (read it last year). Sigh. If you've seen the movie, you'll find the book even richer.
THE JANE AUSTEN BOOK CLUB, by Karen Joy Fowler. This book has been ending up on some year-end top-10 lists, and for the life of me, I can't see why. It meanders through a group of women (and one man) who meet regularly to read Jane Austen books. In each chapter they read a new book, and we learn the background of one of the club's members, whose story roughly parallels the book being read that month. Maybe it's too self-consciously cute for me. Or maybe these characters just aren't worth spending the time with. Anyway, I'd pass. Sorry. But a fabulous title, though.
JONATHAN STRANGE AND MR. NORRELL, by Susannah Clarke. I hesitated about linking this book because (a) it's well over 800 pages and could/should probably be 200 pages shorter; (b) the ending is rather unsatisfying; and (c) the subject matter is a bit arcane. But I found it captivating -- like reading an undiscovered Dickens with a twist. Set in Dickensian times, it postulates a world in which real live magicians used to live in England, and where two magicians have now appeared, first working as allies, then as rivals. A fascinating world.
LINCOLN'S DREAMS, by Connie Willis. This was a re-read for me. I am a huge Connie Willis fan, yet this book, her first, is probably her weakest, in my opinion. A Civil War researcher tries to help (and falls in love with) a woman who seems to be dreaming the dreams of Robert E. Lee as he progresses through the Civil War. Maybe if you're more up on your Civil-Wariana this book would be more compelling. Don't let it stop you from checking out other Connie Willis titles, however.
LOOKING FOR GOD IN HARRY POTTER, by John Granger. ***Reviewed on this blog 7.6.04.*** One of my top picks of the year. The definitive answer to anyone who asks, "How can a Christian read/love Harry Potter?" John's personal backstory -- a Christian, homeschooling dad who only read the first HP book to be able to tell his daughter why she couldn't read it, then recognized the Christian themes as he read -- makes the entire book more personal and relevant somehow. Make sure you read it before July 16th, 2005. (And if you don't know what that date means, probably this book is not foryou.)
THE MAILROOM: HOLLYWOOD HISTORY FROM THE BOTTOM UP, by David Rensin. ***Reviewed on this blog 6.11.04.*** A must-read for anyone who wants to understand how Hollywood really works. Breathtaking in its honesty and (often) venality. Absolutely fascinating -- and rather scary.
THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE RICH: A FIELD GUIDE, by Richard Conniff. A clever attempt to analyze the rich by treating them as some odd species of animal in need of a scientist's eye. However, in avoiding completely the spiritual aspects of wealth, it misses the real story entirely.
OLIVIA JOULES AND THE OVERACTIVE IMAGINATION, by Helen Fielding. The author of BRIDGET JONES' DIARY tries to write a James Bond (or, dare I say it, Modesty Blaise) type of book, following a photojournalist who stumbles into a huge story, but whom no one really believes. It could have made a terrific movie but for one thing -- her heroine stumbles upon Osama bin Laden, who is treated as a bit of a joke in the book. Oops. It's one thing to tell Osama jokes, it's another to base a whole storyline on him. So ultimately (as many critics have pointed out, some rather forcefully), it fails.
....Okay, one more post coming, and then I will be ready to start reading my way into 2005!
Here we go....
EATS, SHOOTS AND LEAVES: THE ZERO TOLERANCE APPROACH TO PUNCTUATION, by Lynne Truss. ***Reviewed on this blog 9.28.04.*** I was stuck reading USA Today while out of town last week, and saw this was number one on some list or other there. Not surprising. It's a delightful book, a short read, and makes those of us who really, truly care about things like grammar and punctuation feel really, really justified.
THE EYRE AFFAIR, by Jasper Fforde. If you liked HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY, you'll probably like this. If you've never heard of HITCHHIKER, then this is probably not the book for you. THE EYRE AFFAIR postulates a world in which a dastardly villain is going inside the original manuscript of JANE EYRE to change the ending, thus scandalizing the entire British Isles, unless Literary Detective Thursday Next can stop them. There, just by reading that sentence, you already know if you want to read this book and join its cult following.
FOR US, THE LIVING, by Robert A. Heinlein. Heinlein's first, heretofore unpublished novel. And much as I sit at the feet of the SF master, I have to say there's a reason this book was unpublished. Only for those who know and love the entire Heinlein canon, and will therefore be able to relate bits and pieces here to later works.
GOOD TO GREAT: WHY SOME COMPANIES MAKE THE LEAP... AND OTHERS DON'T, by Jim Collins. Collins and his team analyzed over 1400 companies, looking for those that moved from "good" to "great" (terms he defines well) -- and found a total of 11 (!) that "made the leap." Then he looked at what those companies have in common. The two points that stood out for me: These companies do not have flashy, publicity-grabbing CEOs (quite the opposite, in fact)... and the focus at these companies is on getting the right people "on the bus," as he puts it, and only then deciding where to go. A little too business-school for me, but some fascinating concepts.
THE GREEN MILE, by Stephen King. Here's my dilemma. I really don't like the horror genre at all. Yet, when reading Stephen King's ON WRITING (a book that would surely contain an amazon link had I read it in 2004 rather than 2003), I found his writing captivating. So I have been slowly working my way through his non-horror works, which pretty much seem to be limited to THE GREEN MILE and DIFFERENT SEASONS (read it last year). Sigh. If you've seen the movie, you'll find the book even richer.
THE JANE AUSTEN BOOK CLUB, by Karen Joy Fowler. This book has been ending up on some year-end top-10 lists, and for the life of me, I can't see why. It meanders through a group of women (and one man) who meet regularly to read Jane Austen books. In each chapter they read a new book, and we learn the background of one of the club's members, whose story roughly parallels the book being read that month. Maybe it's too self-consciously cute for me. Or maybe these characters just aren't worth spending the time with. Anyway, I'd pass. Sorry. But a fabulous title, though.
JONATHAN STRANGE AND MR. NORRELL, by Susannah Clarke. I hesitated about linking this book because (a) it's well over 800 pages and could/should probably be 200 pages shorter; (b) the ending is rather unsatisfying; and (c) the subject matter is a bit arcane. But I found it captivating -- like reading an undiscovered Dickens with a twist. Set in Dickensian times, it postulates a world in which real live magicians used to live in England, and where two magicians have now appeared, first working as allies, then as rivals. A fascinating world.
LINCOLN'S DREAMS, by Connie Willis. This was a re-read for me. I am a huge Connie Willis fan, yet this book, her first, is probably her weakest, in my opinion. A Civil War researcher tries to help (and falls in love with) a woman who seems to be dreaming the dreams of Robert E. Lee as he progresses through the Civil War. Maybe if you're more up on your Civil-Wariana this book would be more compelling. Don't let it stop you from checking out other Connie Willis titles, however.
LOOKING FOR GOD IN HARRY POTTER, by John Granger. ***Reviewed on this blog 7.6.04.*** One of my top picks of the year. The definitive answer to anyone who asks, "How can a Christian read/love Harry Potter?" John's personal backstory -- a Christian, homeschooling dad who only read the first HP book to be able to tell his daughter why she couldn't read it, then recognized the Christian themes as he read -- makes the entire book more personal and relevant somehow. Make sure you read it before July 16th, 2005. (And if you don't know what that date means, probably this book is not foryou.)
THE MAILROOM: HOLLYWOOD HISTORY FROM THE BOTTOM UP, by David Rensin. ***Reviewed on this blog 6.11.04.*** A must-read for anyone who wants to understand how Hollywood really works. Breathtaking in its honesty and (often) venality. Absolutely fascinating -- and rather scary.
THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE RICH: A FIELD GUIDE, by Richard Conniff. A clever attempt to analyze the rich by treating them as some odd species of animal in need of a scientist's eye. However, in avoiding completely the spiritual aspects of wealth, it misses the real story entirely.
OLIVIA JOULES AND THE OVERACTIVE IMAGINATION, by Helen Fielding. The author of BRIDGET JONES' DIARY tries to write a James Bond (or, dare I say it, Modesty Blaise) type of book, following a photojournalist who stumbles into a huge story, but whom no one really believes. It could have made a terrific movie but for one thing -- her heroine stumbles upon Osama bin Laden, who is treated as a bit of a joke in the book. Oops. It's one thing to tell Osama jokes, it's another to base a whole storyline on him. So ultimately (as many critics have pointed out, some rather forcefully), it fails.
....Okay, one more post coming, and then I will be ready to start reading my way into 2005!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
