Again I have fallen behind a bit on posting, although I confess I am not sure I would know what to post. Certainly I have said as much as I could and likely too much on Mario-gate (the ethics biz). We will find out what will happen in early August, I should think. And it looks like my Steve Austin reference failed to generate enough amusement to comment on. Meanwhile passing in front of our eyes are the euthanizing of the geese, the resignation, for real, of the URA’s director, the question of local taxes to pay for mass transit, the kitty follies in council and a host of other local and national issues as well (terrorist dry runs? Jesus Christ, Chertoff’s gut was right on).
My picture of Ted is gone because the Wikipedia changed its picture. Its possible its because of me that they did, though I recieved no email on that (and it would be nice if they shared). There is something called a fair use doctrine or statement. I should take some time and examine that in detail before trying another or the same picture. Or I could post a picture of (the real) me, as soon as I figure out where I should put it on the web.
Not that its any of your business, but in the interim I have been trying to work, we have had an in-law in, part of a steady parade coming because the mother-in-law is very frail (but finally lucid), and this was a freaking Harry Potter weekend. We (meaning my wife) bought the book, and through a variety of circumstances I ended up getting to read it first. We also saw the new movie Monday afternoon, in a corwded movie theatre of 7. I inhaled the book Saturday night and most of the day Sunday. I shan’t reveal anything about it, although I suspect anyone who truly cares has already picked one up and read it. Well, I will say two things, only one related specifically to the book. Did anyone else get a distinct Jonathan Livingston Seagull vibe in that one chapter towards the end? You'll know the one I mean if you've reached it and read JLS. Of course, the majority of Potter readers are too young to get the JLS reference, and no one has ever accused Rowling of originality. I do think the last sentence of that chapter at least acknowledged the (even for Rowling)silly-ness and also redeemed the chapter somewhat. The other odd vibe I come away with is how improbabble it is that these books are set in modern day. Even if you come from another country, you are somewhat aware of what is going on in other countries. The Virginia Tech shootings were the apparently the fourth item of the day on Al Jazeera TV, but they were there. The Brit-o-centric emphasis is a bit jarring to us yanks, and the absence of the internet and cell phones makes the whole thing a bit too seventies to me. I know fiction involves suspension of disbelief, but let's face it, it is always selective suspension. I think I'll leave it at that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hmm...I'm going to have to re-read JLS, but I think you mean the "King's Cross" chapter.
It was always a bit jarring to see the modern dates used, like James Potter died in 1981. My personal feeling is that while you knew these events took place in the modern world, too many references to modern technology and events would have been a bit like breaking down the fourth wall, so to speak.
Post a Comment