“I’d rather have a show that a hundred people need to see, than a thousand people like to see” - Joss Whedon
Joss is so cool. :D
(Source: nick-lehane)
Time together isn’t ever quite enough.
When we’re apart whatever are you thinking of?
What will it take to make or break this into love?
So tell me darling do you wish we’d fall in love?
Oh all the time.
Owl City, “The Saltwater Room”
“Writing is…. being able to take something whole and fiercely alive that exists inside you in some unknowable combination of thought, feeling, physicality, and spirit, and to then store it like a genie in tense, tiny black symbols on a calm white page. If the wrong reader comes across the words, they will remain just words. But for the right readers, your vision blooms off the page and is absorbed into their minds like smoke, where it will re-form, whole and alive, fully adapted to its new environment.”
― Mary Gaitskill
Writing: defined.
Stephen King’s “The Stand”
Like, seriously, what the hell?
Really great read. But the ending…..WHATTHEHELL?
It took me about two weeks to read it, and I’m glad I did, but the last fifty pages or so were completely, like, I don’t even know. I had a friend who had read it and warned me that the ending was a little lax.
An extremely shortened version of the book is this: a plague of flu kills 99% of the human population (it’s unclear if it’s just America or the whole world, though A) it seems impossible that it didn’t leave the continent - there’s a whole two chapters just telling how this person went here and infected all these other people, who did this and infected these people, showing how it basically went on exponentially. And what with air travel and all, I don’t doubt it was the whole world, and B) I feel like if it were only America, there would have been some sort of relief sent from other countries that we would have heard about.) But anyway, this plague kills almost everyone. The (very long) book follows the journeys of a handful of different characters as they start out in this new world, eventually crossing paths and forming one big story. After the plague, two “camps” form: ultimately, it’s a showdown of good and evil. This encompasses most of the novel, and I won’t say any more about it so as not to spoil it.
Of course, being Stephen King, the book is full of terror, horror, sensuality, bawdy humor, and insight. I’ve always been a big fan of his, but it’s been a long time since I’ve had the time to sit down and plow my way through one of his books. The first 97% of the book, in my opinion, was pretty well near flawless. Each character is an entity unto himself - not an archetype or a static, useless character. Each character has a very specific set of tics and flaws, and through the story each character subtly and believably changes because of his or her experiences. I think it’s this delicate, intricate treatment of his characters that really made this novel outstanding.
However, it was the last two acts or so of this immense, 1145-page/77 chapter/3 Book novel that really declined for me. I won’t post the details here, but, as my friend warned me before, there are too many deux ex machinas to accept in such a short section. Although I found myself liking bits of it, when I read the last two pages, I was just seriously stunned and not sure what to think.
Now, my list of characters that now I must name children after:
- Nick: a deaf-mute who may just be one of the best men I’ve ever met. He was relentlessly good of heart and clear of mind. He knew how things should go and worked to get them there, even if it meant making difficult choices. He gave his heart freely to his friends, but had a good sense about him as to who would do no good to him or his kin. Nick took his responsibilities to himself, to others, to humanity truly to heart and never wavered in his intention to stick to them.
- Glen Bateman: a sociology professor, he was unfailingly wise about how society should reform and, contrarily, how it would reform. He was so brave and courageous for an old man, and he was so confident yet fearful for the future of humankind. He was exceedingly kind.
- Mother Abagail: first of all, love the unconventional spelling. Secondly, I think any woman who lives to be 108, who - at the ripe old age - lives through the plague and is able to take care of herself afterward, deserves to be commemorated. But Abagail was special: she had a special connection to God, and her devotion to Him and her belief and faith that He would provide for her was inspiring. She gives her background story, and even Abagail as a youth and a young adult is brave and extraordinary to me.
- Kojak: alright, I’m gonna have to settle for a dog-name here. It’s fitting, since Kojak was the dog that Glen found soon after the sickness. Kojak was sharp and intuitive. After he and Glen were separated, he followed him thousands and thousands of miles, fighting wolves and almost dying in order to plop down right next to Glen months later. He was so loyal to all of the characters he met, and saved many of their lives in a scramble.
- Stu Redman: this might have to be a middle name, but Stu was easily my second favorite character after Nick. He was intelligent yet quiet - the smartest men listen while everyone else talks, I always heard. He was a great leader when he needed to be, and could make the difficult choices no one else could. He was loving, caring, thoughtful, intelligent, and just tough.
And, last but not least…
- Tom Cullen: a middle-aged-ish man with a slight mental retardation, Tom is the most genuine character in the book (next to Nick, which makes sense, as they’re best friends). Though a lot of people pre-plague dismissed him because of his handicap, he really was a smart guy and very intuitive and brave. He was willing to do whatever needed to be done to ensure the safety of his friends. He had a special connection to the powers-that-be, as well, and I think only a special person can have that connection.
To those who have read The Stand, what do you think? Discussions? Comments?
5 Reasons Why “Titanic” Rocks
Talking about the movie here, not the horrendous tragedy that occurred just over a century ago. That was terrible. Anyway, let’s begin.
1. It is a fictional-historic movie. By this, I mean that a large percentage of movies of modern times are inspired by other sources: historical events or people, books, other movies, etc. It’s refreshing to see a movie that, yes, is based in an actual historical event and features some historical figures, but that is largely fictional - largely original writing.
2. Kate Winslet. I read an article fairly recently that mentioned a few other actresses considered for the role of Rose. However, Kate was the best pick for a number of reason. For one, she pulled it off flawlessly. Maybe the others could have, as well - the only names I really recognized were Jodie Foster, Gwyneth Paltrow, Nicole Kidman, Cameron Diaz, and Madonna. But Kate’s Rose was about as perfect as it gets - I simply can’t imagine any of these women pulling off the delicate yet feisty character in the same triumphant way that Kate did.
For another thing - and a MAJOR reason I love both this movie and Kate as an actress - Kate is not a stick-thin woman. She is curvy and voluptuous. Drop-dead gorgeous, absolutely. Size zero or two? Nope. But I love that about her! Rose was depicted as intelligent, sharp, slightly rebellious (read: not just a tool), but also highly beautiful and desirable (read: what every woman, despite whatever feministic crap she spews, wants to feel). None of those other women listed have the beauty that Kate has, simply because they are stick-thin and bony. As a woman with a similar figure to Kate and as someone who has always struggled in a society where the Cameron Diazes and Miley Cyruses were deemed beautiful while anything larger than a size 4 is “plus size”, I truly appreciated that she was not a wisp of a girl. She was sturdy yet also soft and beautiful and delicate.
3. The cast had such a blast making the movie. Again, I’ve read several articles about the movie and the making of it. Some of the hijinks pulled on set: when Leo and Kate met for the first time, she flashed him (knowing that they would have that nudity scene later and wanting to break the ice); apparently, one of the actors spiked some chowder with PCP - they were never caught. (see link above for actual site). On a less fun/more authentic branch of this bullet, Kate didn’t want to wear a wetsuit in her ocean scenes like the rest of the cast, so she ended up with pneumonia. Stupidity or actor’s integrity? I tend to favor the latter, but either way - way to suffer for your art!
4. It’s not dated. Well, not in the way you’re thinking. A lot of movies make pop-culture references or technological references, even, that really date the movie. Watching a movie from the early 2000s, certain jokes or references or even filming styles are employed that make you easily able to place that movie in the era it was filmed. “Titanic” was filmed fifteen years ago, but it could very well have been filmed two years ago from the filming style and conspicuous lack of pop-culture. The only pop-culture used in the movie dates to 1912, and let’s face it - no one is under the delusion that the sinking of the Titanic happened two years ago. The half hour or so of film that is set in “modern day” is really devoid of anything (other than a brief scene in which Rose’s age is stated, thus allowing a little math to do the dating for you) that would cause you to say, “oh, that movie was filmed fifteen years ago.” Even the quality of film and filming style is at the worst generic and at the best classic, perhaps even avant-garde. No, no one is watching this movie going, “wow, it’s so old it doesn’t even apply or have the same relevance.”
And, finally….
5. It ended realistically, if tragically. (SPOILER ALERT.) Let’s face it: we all love Jack - he captured the hearts of millions of girls and women, and we all would have been overjoyed if he had survived to the very end. I don’t think anyone but a movie critic would have been unhappy if he and Rose had disembarked from the rescue ship in New York, watching the Statue of Liberty passing above them in the rain, clutching each other silently, and giving their names as “Dawson”. It’s the subject of fan fiction everyone: Jack survives and he and Rose live happily ever after; after a scientific exploration, he is unfrozen and finds old-lady-Rose and they live happily! etc.
However, let’s be real: even having just Rose live long enough to get on the lifeboat is miraculous and highly improbable. I’m not saying it didn’t happen - there were a few that were saved and survived after going into the water. But to have both survived? It begs for a lot of suspension of disbelief.
What Jack’s death really allowed for is to show how strong Rose really was: she loved Jack; she gave up her chance of (more probable) survival to stay with him; she gave up the luxurious life promised her to be with him, leaving her mother behind. But he did not DEFINE her, even in the height of their passion. She went on to live a full life with a husband and children and grandchildren. She did the things they talked about together, keeping his memory alive within her. But she did not shut down. She found life and love, even though she lost that ultimate love.
His death (and the final scene of Rose’s dream/death) also lends itself to ideas regarding the afterlife. I may be digging a bit deep here, but I’m a literary person, so it’s my nature to “read” TV closely. Besides, it’s something I’ve always thought about. We’re told that everyone has their soulmate, their life partner. What happens when they die and you remarry, start a new life? Does that mean, since they are not your soulmate and you are not theirs, that they miss out? Or can you be someone’s soulmate without them being yours? Or can you have multiple soulmates? And what about heaven/afterlife! Do you life with both/all spouses and families? What happens then?
Okay, that was a bit tangent-y, but my point is: the writers could have easily written a happy ending, but they gave us tragedy to drive home the fact that the Titanic was a disaster, and that most people who got on that boat died. Almost everyone on board lost someone - even the heroine.
You either love or hate the movie, there’s not much in between. This was really random, but I love Titanic - the movie as well as the event itself fascinate me endlessly. Also, I found a new blog recently entitled theunsinkableship that got me thinking. Hope you were entertained. Let me know your reasons “Titanic” rocks!
“A woman who is willing to be herself and pursue her own potential runs not so much the risk of loneliness, as the challenge of exposure to more interesting men - and people in general.”
—Lorraine Hansberry
Birthday wishes to playwright Lorraine Vivian Hansberry ( born today in 1930), author of “A Raisin in the Sun” (1959).
