Harry Potter, Part 1

Well, it's been over a week since Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows came out, so here's my post on it. There's going to be a big picture of the cover, and then I'm going to freely talk about what happened, so if you don't want to read it, come back Wednesday for a rant about UHaul and why it sucks....


Ok, this part of the Harry Potter post is going to be basic things that I did and didn't like about the book. Tomorrow will be slightly more substantive comments on themes and other literary stuff.

Overall, I thought this was an excellent ending to the series. I had almost all my questions answered, all the loose plot ends were tied together, and it was a fun, exciting book to read. If it were to rate it like I do Netflix movies, I'd give it 4.5 stars out of 5. Here's a short list of the few things in the book that I think could have been improved upon:

1. The middle of the book. So much of the series' charm comes from the supporting characters that Rowling has introduced over the course of 6 novels, and in the middle 200 pages of this book, she completely cuts them out. We're stuck with Harry, Ron, and Hermione (and sometimes only Harry and Hermione) getting crabby at each other in the middle of the woods. I felt like this section dragged quite a bit and really didn't take advantage of so many of the strong characters that Rowling had created. That said, it's probably a "realistic" portrayal of what looking for the Horcruxes was like, but that still doesn't make it interesting for the reader.

2. I think Snape got completely cheated. His role in this book is reduced to getting killed by Voldemort and a bunch of scenes in the Pensieve. His character has long been one of the more interesting ones in the series, and the memories in the Pensieve show how important he is to Harry's fate. He deserved more pages in the novel and a more active role.

3. I was disappointed that Harry was a Horcrux. I didn't think there would be a graceful way out of that one, and I'm still not sure there was. I think the prophecy and what Dumbledore says to Harry in the dream-like King's Cross helps his death/coming back to life make more sense, but it's still not 100% clear, and there may even be contradictions. Maybe it's just one of those powerful forms of magic beyond our understanding, but that seems to be a weak cop-out.

4. The epilogue. I liked the idea, but I think it was poor in execution. There were too many kids running around, all named after people we'd already seen, so it was hard to keep them straight. And we didn't get to find out about so many of the people we cared about, particularly Luna. What happens to her? What sorts of careers do Harry and co. have? It always seems that the purpose of the epilogue is to name-drop as much as possible to let the readers know what's happening to the characters, but this one didn't come through on its potential.

5. I still think that Ron or Hermione should have died. Yes, a lot of semi-major characters died, but none of the big three. I would have liked to see Rowling really be daring with her deaths and show her readers the true cost of standing up for what's right. Since the three friends survive completely intact, it's easy to see the ending as unmitigatedly happy, which it isn't. But I'm not sure that comes through, because the reader doesn't have the emotional connection to the 2nd tier characters who died.

That said, that's about all the stuff in the book that I wasn't happy with. Overall, it was great, and I wouldn't be able to pick it apart like this if it weren't. Here are some of the specific things that I really enjoyed:

1. Harry's character. He really steps up to the plate in this novel, and I'm really glad. I was worried that he would be a passive hero, but instead, he really takes charge, and this comes through so much in his ending fight with Voldemort. Now, he's the one who's telling Voldemort what is happening and why, and it makes him seem much more actually heroic than in any other book.

2. Along those same lines, I loved that Harry stuck with Expelliarmus. The scene in the beginning where he tells Lupin he's not going to sink to Voldemort's level, and then how that comes full circle in the end when he disarms Voldemort, which ends up killing up--that was fantastic. I think that was my favorite moment in the entire book, and when I realized what had happened, I started crying. Rowling really did something amazing there.

3. I was thrilled that Ron was the one who got the sword of Gryffindor from the pond. He's lived in Harry's shadow for so long, and it was nice to see that he was given his moment to shine.

4. I was also very excited with how Neville stepped up and became a hero, and how his grandmother recognized that. The almost-casual way that he talked about the horrible things going on at Hogwarts, as well as the way that he bonded with the Room of Requirement, really showed how connected he was with the castle and how brave he really was. And, of course, this comes through perfectly when he pulls the sword from the hat.

5. I liked Mrs. Weasley calling Bellatrix a "bitch" and killing her. That was fantastic.

6. I liked the addition of searching for the Hallows in addition to the Horcruxes in this book. I think it made it a book that has a plot of its own, rather than just following something set out in book 6.

7. I was really excited to see how some of the characters became less good or evil and more gray. Dumbledore, Dudley, and Petunia all became much more interesting because we see a completely new side to them. The explanation of Dumbledore's past, in particular, really added depth to the book.

Ok, I think that's it for now...stay tuned for Part II tomorrow!

Just when you think you have someone figured out...

My husband and I live in a townhouse association where many of the residents are of retirement age or older. While we occasionally wish for a younger, hipper crowd to live with, for the most part, we appreciate the quiet and security of the neighborhood. I think it's also given us a new perspective on interacting with our grandparents; we regularly chat with neighbors the same age as our grandparents about things we would never talk about with our grandparents. I think it's helped me think of my grandparents not just as my grandparents, but as 80-somethings who are someone's neighbor.

At any rate, the other day I was at the pool, chatting with one of these neighbors. We were talking about television, and she was describing how she had been watching Letterman and he had done this bit about George Bush's colonoscopy that he had on Saturday:

"Yeah, he said that they removed four polyps, but when they were finished, they put his head back up his ass."

She paused, and looked a little uncomfortable. I expected she was about to start complaining about how she didn't think it was right to talk about the President like this, or even more possibly, that she was mad about what Letterman had implied. (Meanwhile, my husband and I are laughing uproariously.) But then she said,

"Which is true, of course, but he used the word ass on national television."

That's what really surprised me. I don't think of the word ass as particularly offensive at all. Sure, when I have kids, I wouldn't want them using it, but it's one of those "bad" words that I'm comfortable saying in front of my dad. I expected my neighbor to be upset at the political sentiment, but instead, she was upset by the language Letterman used to express it.

I don't know, for some reason I found this whole conversation to be quite eye-opening. I think it showed me that often, I sell people short because of some preconceived idea I have, but in reality, they're thinking something entirely different. And this is probably particularly true of someone several generations removed from me, who's had a very different life from what I've had. Living next to a lot of retired people certainly has its advantages.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm late for my canasta game....

Jane Austen in the 21st century

Would Jane Austen get published in the 21st century? That's the question that David Lassman, director of the Jane Austen Festival in Bath, England, wanted answered. So, he sent out slightly modified excerpts from several of Austen's most well-known works, starting with Northanger Abbey. When none of the publishers accepted or recognized this submission, he turned to a slightly better-known work--Persuasion. Still no luck. So, in a final attempt, he sent off Pride and Prejudice.

With only superficial modifications--changing the Bennets to the Barnetts, and Netherfield manor to Weatherfield--still only one publisher recognized the submission for what it actually was. And that was with the first line of the novel completely unchanged.

For those of you who aren't Austen fans or English majors, this first line is one that if you're in the business of literature, you should know: "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." It ranks right up there with "Call me Ishmael" and "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."

Lassman was pretty appalled at the results of his little experiment, and rightly so. But I think it's even more interesting to think about why these results happened. Three reasons come to mind:

1. Most of the editors/agents didn't even read the submissions. This seems pretty likely, since many of them are frantically backpedaling now that they've been called out as companies that can't even recognize Jane Austen. Several of the companies have even admitted that although their form letter might have said the work seemed "original" or "interesting," they probably didn't even read it. For many authors, this confession is probably even more depressing than the idea that publishers can't identify Austen's work--how are they supposed to get their brilliant novel published if it won't even be read?

2. Another possibility for these results is that the publishers, in fact, did not recognize Jane Austen's work. This is pretty appalling, since publishers are supposed to be able to judge literature with some sort of authority, and without having a solid basis in really great novels from history, how will they be able to do that?

3. Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, is the possibility that Jane Austen would actually not get published if she were alive today. It seems entirely possible that the generations of readers that enjoyed and had time for reading the kind of novels that Austen wrote have passed. I mean, let's face it. These books aren't exactly thrilling adventures. And there's not a lot of actual sex, although it's implied. Austen's novels are more about subtlety, ironic humor, and complicated relationships between human beings. The National Endowment for the Arts has done this study about how reading, specifically reading novels, is on the decline. I don't see this as a necessarily terrible thing. Literature changes. The novel wasn't always in existence, you know. It came to prominence as a literary form only a few hundred years ago. So there's nothing to say that it has to last forever. Particularly with the rise of the cinema and the internet, people are absorbing their stories and doing their reading in ways that aren't traditional, but aren't necessarily bad. What would concern me is if we, as a society, are no longer interested in the types of stories that Austen told. It takes a bit of patience to get into them, but once you do, they're rich, rewarding, and a lot of fun.

Let's hope this isn't the case. Since movies such as Pride and Prejudice and even Becoming Jane, which is a biography of Austen's life, keep getting made, it seems that there's hope that we still love these stories, just in the media of the 21st century.

But on the other hand, if you have time this summer, pick up a copy of Pride and Prejudice--the book--and give it a chance. You won't regret it.

Movies!

Here's a rundown of what I've been watching lately:

Four Last Songs is a movie that I don't remember why I put in my queue. I just did some poking around on Netflix, trying to find out if it was recommended because I liked something else, and I came up with nothing. At any rate, it tells the story of Larry, an American pianist living on an island in the Mediterranean. He's a decent pianist, but longs to do something special with his life, so he works to arrange a concert of music by this genius composer who lived on the island. Most of the movie is him running around, desperately trying to keep the concert from falling apart. The composer's wife and mistress are at odds with each other, Larry's girlfriend thinks he's cheating on her, and the island's self-appointed sycophant keeps getting in Larry's way. I don't really like movies where people continuously feel uncomfortable or on edge, and that's what Larry does for the first half of the movie. And if that weren't enough, lots of clichéd plot devices are thrown in to make the movie extra fun. First, there's the daughter who's come searching for the father she's never known, and then there's the man who's dying of cancer who just wants to live out his last 3 months of life in peace. Not nearly enough attention is paid to either the beautiful island or the music of the composer, both which appear to be beautiful but aren't used to the movie's advantage.

Rating: 2 stars out of 5

World Trade Center. Hoo, boy, I'm not even sure where to really start with this one. I was looking for a movie about 9/11 to use in the class I'm teaching this fall, and this seemed like a good place to start. It's a very straightforward story of 2 policemen who get trapped under the World Trade Center after it collapses on September 11, 2001. The movie shows their families struggling to control their worry, and generally portrays both these men and their families as heroes. But the focus of the movie seemed odd to me--these were two men who didn't have a chance to rescue anyone (although they certainly wanted to). If you're going to show heroes, why not make a movie about those who dug out these two men? They risked life and limb for them, knowing full well that the pile of rubble might collapse on them at any minute, trapping them as well. I also think that if this weren't a movie about 9/11, critics would be a lot harsher about some of the corny images. One of the policemen's wife's floating head, giving him inspiration? The other one, hallucinating that Jesus is bringing him water? But critics don't say anything about this; instead, they talk about how sensitive the movie is and how genuine the feelings are. Even as I'm writing this blurb, I'm feeling slightly guilty about what I'm saying, since I definitely don't want to mock or lessen what anyone went through during this tragedy. Perhaps the most accurate thing to say, then, is that it's too soon for a movie based on real people during 9/11. For better or worse, we are not yet far enough removed from this tragedy to be objective about how it is portrayed in film.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5

As I'm writing these reviews, I'm realizing that this was a pretty lousy batch of movies. Aeon Flux is last on the list, and although it was fun to watch, it certainly wasn't anything to write home about (and yet what am I doing?). I like sci-fi films, for the most part, and so I think that made this movie a lot more accessible for me; if this isn't a genre that you enjoy, you probably won't like the movie. The plot is pretty straight-forward, with good suspense to keep things moving. There are plenty of unanswered questions that drive the plot forward, and for the most part, they are wrapped up neatly at the end. Charlize Theron's action sequences are pretty cool, although her friend who has hands instead of feet is weird and kind of creepy. It's unfortunate, because the film doesn't really take advantage of Theron's acting abilities--most of the time, she just has this very direct, "don't-mess-with-me" sort of look on her face. It would have been nice to see a little more emotional vulnerability or even personality behind this amazing assassin facade.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5

Lolcats?!?

Well, I'm going to admit it now--I think lolcats are hilarious. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but there's something about skewed grammar and spelling and inside nerd jokes, superimposed on funny pictures of animals (particularly cats), that really makes me laugh.

What is a lolcat? Basically, it's a picture of a cat (sometimes another animal, like a walrus or a gerbil) that is often funny in and of itself, made even better with a humorous caption that often draws on programming or gaming inside jokes. One of the more popular lolcat jokes involves cheeseburgers; this is due to one of the first (if not the first) lolcats shown on the left, with a can asking, "I can has cheezburger?" Wikipedia has a basic history of the lolcat; Slate has an informative pictorial guide, if you want to know more. (And why wouldn't you? They're lolcats!) There are some very dumb ones out there, but there are also quite a few that are very clever and well-done.


If you still don't get it, here are a few of my favorites...

Sure, they're kind of silly, but they're also a lot of fun. Maybe what fascinates me about them the most is the way they show how quickly the Internet allows for changes, and how pervasive certain memes have become because of this.

A riddle, wrapped up in a mystery, inside an enigma

Looking for a way to make sure your pesky little brother doesn't read your diary? Need a way to make those notes you pass in class completely undecipherable, even if intercepted by a teacher?

Well, here's a solution. For a limited time only (the next 7 days), one of the original Enigma cipher machines is available for public purchase on Ebay. That's right. A piece of remarkable cryptological history is up for sale on an online auction site, right there with Beanie Babies and autographed pictures of the Spice Girls.

What is an Enigma machine? Wikipedia has a great history of the Enigma, but in short, it was a cipher machine used by the Germans during World War II. The machine operates on the basic principle of a substitution cipher (A=Z, B=Y, C=X, etc.) but instead of just having this basic substitution, rotors within the machine would turn whenever a key was pressed, changing the cipher key. It's a pretty cool idea (yes, I realize that's an understatement), and one that makes messages encoded by the Enigma extremely challenging to crack, particularly in the days before computers.

Several Polish cryptographers were able to crack the Enigma in 1932, primarily because the Germans made mistakes like using the same starting position on the machine for a long time or letting a codebook fall into enemy hands. Cracking the Enigma machine was a real asset to the Allied war effort.

If you're interested in seeing one of these machines, there are quite a few still in existence, and some are scattered at museums throughout the country. The one on display at the National Cryptologic Museum at the NSA headquarters in Ft. Meade, Maryland is particularly cool because you can play around with it and encode and decode your own messages. I've been there--it's pretty fun (although the rest of the museum isn't too much to write home about).

So, now that you're all excited to get one of these machines and start encoding messages of your own, care to know how much the Ebay asking price is? Well, the current price is $28,000, plus $65 to ship it from Italy to the US; the reserve has been met, so now it's just a question of how much people out there are willing to spend.

Honestly, $28,000 doesn't seem all that bad to me. If I had loads of money to toss around, I'd much rather spend it on a cool, working code machine that some piece of crap modern art that costs millions of dollars. But maybe that's just me...

The Dark Side of Harry Potter

I know, I know. For those of you who don't care about Harry Potter, you're sick and tired of the endless excitement about the last book and the most recently released movie. And the fact that I keep blathering about them probably doesn't help either.

But, I was so appalled by what Roger Ebert had to say about the latest Harry Potter film that I just had to vent. I really respect what Ebert has to say about films, for the most part. Even if I don't agree with exactly what he says, he usually makes one or two observations that I agree with or that influence the way that I think about a film. And usually, if Ebert likes a film, that's a decent indication of whether I'll like it, too.

But when it comes to his review of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, he is completely off. I just saw the movie last night, and I loved it. I thought it was the best of the series. The opening sequence when Harry is attacked by dementors is completely amazing. And the flashbacks/dreams that Harry has throughout the movie are just snippets of scenes, rather than fluid narratives, giving them a frantic, unsettling feeling. The lighting is fantastic, and overall, the movie completely lives up to the darkness of the book (something that I hoped it would). There is a lot that gets left out, but director David Yates has skillfully chosen those scenes that don't matter quite as much to the development of the plot. And, dare I say it, I liked the climax in the Ministry of Magic more in the movie than I did in the book--I think it makes Harry more of an active hero than he is in the books, which is something I really hope Rowling addresses in book 7. At any rate, I loved the film, and I'm thrilled that Yates is on board to direct the next installment.

That said, what does Ebert get wrong? Partly frustrating is that Ebert seems to miss the point of a scene early in Order, in which Harry gets attacked by dementors and then is nearly expelled from Hogwarts for using magic as an underage wizard. Ebert writes, "An early scene illustrates this change. Harry and his cousin Dudley are attacked by Dementors, and in desperation he uses a secret spell to defeat them. But that earns the disapproval of his superiors at Hogwarts, and he is threatened with expulsion, because the spell is not to be used in public around Muggles. What is it, like a secret Masonic grip? When you're about to get your clock stopped by Dementors and you know the spell, what are you expected to do? Fall over passively and get Demented?"

Ebert misses the fact that the whole underlying theme in this scene, and then later in Harry's trial, is that someone is conspiring to get Harry. As the book progresses, it becomes even more clear that this someone is within the Ministry of Magic itself. One of the very real powers of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is the political statement that it makes about the role of government and the press in a time of terror. Ebert asks about the connection between Harry Potter and the real world, but misses the solid connection that J.K. Rowling makes between the threat of Voldemort and threat of terror in the real world. He says, "That causes me to wonder, what is the practical connection between the world of magic and the world of Muggles? Will Harry, or should Harry, become a world leader? Can wands and spells be of use in today's geopolitical turmoil?" Such questions are interesting, but miss the even more interesting points that Rowling makes about a world in which terrorism rules the day.

The biggest problem with Ebert's review of the series, however, is his idea of what the whole point of the series is. At the beginning of his review, he says, "Whatever happened to the delight and, if you'll excuse the term, the magic in the "Harry Potter" series?" And in the last paragraph, he says, "My hope, as we plow onward through "Potters" Nos. 6-7, is that the series will not grow darker still." I'm sorry, what? Seven books and movies cannot be sustained by cute, whimsical bits of magic. Don't get me wrong--I like the chocolate frogs, the talking paintings, and invisible cloaks. I think seeing the world of Hogwarts come to life is fascinating. But it's all the more fascinating because it's threatened. We want Harry to win against Voldemort because we love the world he lives in, and we don't want to have it disappear. The cute bits of magic would just be so much fluff, except for the fact that there's the possibility that they might be wiped out by the ultimate force of evil. The dark side of Harry Potter is what makes the delight so special, so magical.

These comments also seem to miss the point that Rowling has been building up to throughout the entire series. Every book gets progressively darker. She's leading up to an ultimate battle between good and evil. She's setting Harry apart as someone who is marked, someone who is destined to fight Voldemort. She's teaching about the necessity of sacrifice and loss in growing up. Without this progression, the series wouldn't go anywhere. It would just stand still, marking time. But by adding a dark side to Harry Potter, Rowling shows the complexity of life.

Even though the movie cuts out a lot from the book, this overall point still comes through in a big way. There are lots of characters who talk about Harry's destiny, and there's even an added speech (I think) by Sirius Black about how Harry's choices are what set him apart. But Ebert's comments still show that he's not paying close enough attention to what's actually going on in the movies, and what Rowling is building up to. It's much more significant than a world of whimsical magical pranks and staircases that move, and Ebert doesn't seem to understand that.

Rating for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: 4.5 stars out of 5

Homemade versus storebought

Last night, my husband and I had his parents over for dinner. For dessert, I wanted to try out this recipe that I had found in Cooking Light for Angel Food cake stuffed with whipped cream and berries. It looked like the perfect thing for a hot summer evening, and so when I went to make up my shopping list on Sunday night, I was really surprised at how the magazine made a potentially super-simple recipe into an enormous pain.

What did they do? Well, the recipe has you make your angel food cake and your whipped cream from scratch. What does it take to make angel food cake from scratch? 12 egg whites, for one thing. And then beating them until they're nice and fluffy.

To heck with that. I bought a box mix, a container of Cool Whip, and everything turned out deliciously. And making the cake took about 10 seconds (just add water) instead of a half and hour.

But this made me wonder...where do I draw the line between buying storebought things and making them myself? Because I had no qualms buying a box mix, but I didn't feel quite right buying the pre-made angel food cake from the bakery. And I make my own pie crust, but I make brownies out of the box. Which is strange; buying the Pillsbury pie crusts seems like cheating, but brownies from a box are delicious.

I think it might have something to do with the fact that pie crust is supposed to be hard to make, and there's a certain amount of baking prestige attached to making your own pies. And, the pie crust recipe I use lets me make the crusts in advance, then put them in the freezer until I need them. So I don't have to spend all the time making crust and pie at once.

I'm still not sure, though. Maybe I'll have to do some taste-testing. Now that would be a shame :)

Requiem for a Dream

All I can say about this movie is that it's amazing.

Ok, that's not really all I can say, because the word amazing can be applied to so many things--a sunset, creme brulee, a bad pileup on the highway, passing a class that you thought you'd fail--that a little more explanation is necessary so that you understand how this movie is amazing. Because to call a movie about 3 young people and one old woman who all get hooked on drugs "amazing" does require a little explanation.

I rented Requiem for a Dream because I heard the soundtrack and loved it. It's haunting, it's somber and it stays with you. The same could be said for the movie itself. The images in the film get under your skin and won't let you go, and that's what makes it so powerful.

Director Darren Aronofsky does an incredible job setting up the shots in the movie. One of the most obvious things he does is to shoot from the perspective of the characters, so that the viewer gets caught up in what it means to be addicted. However, in addition to this general technique, he has several specific shots that are just brilliant. One that keeps recurring is a series of quickly flashed images--a pile of powder, a pupil dilating, a rolled-up dollar bill, the inside of the body at the injection site. Each of these images by itself is crystal-clear and beautifully photographed, but when flashed in sequence, they portray the fleetingness of a high off drugs.

Another thing he does to great effect is use split screens when filming two characters interacting with each other. This happens mostly at the beginning, and the most poignant use of it was when he filmed Harry and Marion lying together, telling each other how beautiful and special the other one is. It would be a romantic scene, except we realize that they're so high that the words don't actually mean anything. And Aronofsky does a fantastic job of portraying this by splitting the screen; we see them move into the other's space, but in reality, they're alone, even when together.

The other scene that is just fantastic is the ending sequence, in which it quickly flashes from one character to the next, showing each character's demise. The movement of the scenes suggests a spiral from which there is no escape--a particularly visual representation of the horrors of drug addiction.

In addition to the cinematography, there were several aspects of the plot that made this more than just a movie about the dangers of young kids using drugs. The most significant thing is that the movie parallels Harry's life and his mother's life, and how both of them are caught up in this downward spiral. This adds depth to the movie, and shows how drug addiction comes in many forms, not just needles and powder. Ellen Burstyn does an amazing job as Harry's mother; she definitely deserved the Oscar nomination, if not more.

For me, the most poignant moment of the film came about halfway through. I was a little apprehensive going into it, because the Netflix blurb said "Not for the sqeamish" (which is true, by the way, but really only applies to the end). I was waiting for all sorts of horrible images, and although there had been plenty of drug use, nothing horrible had happened yet. In fact, it looked like Harry and Marion and Tyrone were about the get their life back on track. And then it hit me--this movie is a requiem. It is a lament for the dead. There is no hope for a better life--this film is mourning the passing of the hopes and dreams that these characters have, whether it's the dream to be on television, the dream to be loved by your mother, or the dream to open a clothing shop. These dreams are dead.

The film has an NC-17 rating, primarily, I think, because of a particularly graphic sex scene near the end. But when I have teenagers, I honestly might consider showing them Requiem for a Dream. The most heartbreaking scene comes at the very end, after Marion has just done all sorts of demeaning things to get drugs; she curls up with the drugs and goes to sleep, just like a little child would curl up with a teddy bear. The horror and unbelievable sadness of that image, along with the physical trauma that all the characters go through, will stick with viewers and haunt them, acting as a more effective deterrent to drug use than anything else I can think of.

Rating: 4 stars out of 5

Blenders, Smoothies, and Shakeratos

I get Bon Appétit every month, which is something that I look forward to. I'm not really a food snob, but I might be on the lower border of one. I don't aspire to be a food snob, and I don't look down on things like Kraft macaroni and cheese (hello, it's delicious), but when I cook at home, I tend to make things that are kind of complicated and involve cheeses other than American or cheddar.

Normally, the stuff in the magazine is interesting enough, and I usually cut out 5 or 6 recipes a month. Often, there is an article about food and travel that is pretty interesting and makes me want to leave the Midwest where we're a good day's travel from decent seafood. This month (August) had the added bonus of the travel article being told in cartoon by Marisa Acocella Marchetto, who writes cartoons for the New Yorker and whose husband (Silvano Marchetto) owns the Da Silvano restaurant in New York City. It's a lot of fun to read if you're into this sort of thing, and there are even some recipes included. One of the recipes is for a shakerato, which is what Italians drink in the afternoon. You take 1/2 c. hot espresso and 4 tsp. sugar and blend it in a blender. Add 1 c. of ice and blend for 15 seconds. Garnish with a lemon strip. I haven't tried it yet, but it seems like it could be a fun combination of sweet, coffee, cool, and tangy. This week's quote is courtesy of this comic--it's much funnier in context, but I still couldn't resist.

Speaking of blended drinks, I've been making fruit smoothies for breakfast and really enjoying them. I'm always struggling to eat enough fruits and vegetables every day, and I've found this is a pretty easy and tasty way to get a bunch of fruit and fiber without much effort or extra calories from sugar or ice cream. I take a peach, cut it up and remove the pit, and put it in the blender. Then I add a cup and a half of frozen berries (you can find them in the frozen section near the dessert toppings). Using individually frozen, unsweetened berries is the key to getting the correct smoothie consistency. And then I put in enough juice to fill up the blender about an inch and a half. I've used both lemonade and cranberry juice and they both taste great; I think citrus juices with a little tang work best.

You can use whatever kind of berries you want--if you use raspberries or blackberries, there will be seeds in the smoothie, which you may or may not want. The trick, I think, is using a mixture of fruit that provides a good smooth base and fruit that has concentrated flavor. Peaches and bananas are good base fruits; berries are good for providing the flavor. The result looks a lot like what you'd get from Jamba Juice, but a lot cheaper and you know everything that goes into it. Putting in this much fruit makes 2 almost-pint-sized smoothies--perfect if you want one now, one later, or if you want to share with a friend.

The one drawback is that you need a decent blender to make these. I have a KitchenAid, which works wonderfully, but if you're in the market for a blender (or if you just want to waste time on the Internet), you might want to check out Will It Blend? This awesome website advertises the Total Blender, demonstrating its power by blending object after object. The blender can handle hockey pucks, a can of EZ Cheez, a tiki torch, a Transformer--you name it, they've blended it. The latest thing to be blended is the iPhone, seen in this video:



I don't know if the blender is actually any good, but watching these videos sure is funny :)

Transformers

I was deprived as a kid, and never really got to watch Saturday morning cartoons (among other things). Ok, so I really think it was probably good for me to not spend the whole day in front of the TV, but I did miss out on some notable cultural icons of the 80s, like the Smurfs, He-Man, and Transformers. My brother did have a Transformer, though, although I don't remember which one it was. I think it might have been a fire truck.

But when my husband said he wanted to go see Transformers in the movie theater, on July 4th, I was excited. Seeing movies with huge special effects in the theater is always pretty cool, and the way the Transformers, um, transformed in the previews looked sweet.

In short, I really liked the movie. I didn't go in with high expectations for plot, dialog, or acting, and I was pleasantly surprised on all three fronts. Yes, the plot is basic action-movie fare, but it's easily understandable, and there aren't many details that fall through the cracks. My only big complaint about the plot was near the end, when the army guys decide to take the battle to a nearby city. It's not clear to me why that move was necessary, except perhaps that smashing big buildings with robots makes for better special effects that simply having robots fight in the desert--clearly a choice motivated purely by plot.

I also thought the dialog was pretty funny. Maybe I was feeling generous that day, but the corny one-liners that the movie delivered struck me as a step up from where they could be. The Autobots in particular (they're the good Transformers) were pretty funny, especially in the scene when they go to Sam Witwicky's house and stomp all over his dad's lawn. This point might be debatable, since my husband didn't find the stupid humor nearly as funny as I did.

And finally, the acting was good, particularly Shia LaBeouf as Sam Witwicky, the teenage guy who gets caught up in the war between the Autobots and the Decepticons because his grandpa discovered the Autospark and Megatron when he explored the North Pole. He did a great job making his character relatable and likeable, nerdy but cool, cute but not like he was trying to be. Megan Fox, who plays the hot girl (I don't even remember what her character's name was supposed to be) was convincing as the hot girl, but her character could have been improved by casting someone in the role who had more than one facial expression. Oh, and I was confused about who the brainy hot chick at the CIA was, particularly why she had such a crazy accent.

Hmm...maybe there are more plot glitches than I initially thought. It didn't really take away from the enjoyment of the movie thought, so it's ok.

The real stars of the movie, though, were the Autobots themselves. They're funny, they're good-looking (all the good robots are hot sports cars or sleek shiny trucks), and they really care about humans. The bad Transformers were cool, too, but you lacked the emotional connection with them. So when one of the Autobots gets hurt, and another looks like he might have to die, you get concerned. You love these robots and the way that they can effortlessly transform between one shape and another. You love that they're willing to give up their own future so that the human race can survive. Even though the movie was long--over 2 hours--I never got bored watching the transformations from machine to robot. It was extremely cool, and a lot of fun.

Rating: 4 stars out of 5

New 7 Wonders of the World, Revealed

Well, in case you all missed it, this past Saturday was July 7, 2007, an auspicious day for gamblers and people getting married. It was also the day that the New 7 Wonders committee announced the results of the worldwide vote: what are the 7 wonders of the world?

As you may recall, there used to be 7 wonders of the world: the great pyramids of Giza, the hanging gardens of Babylon, the temple of Artemis in Ephesus, the Colossus at Rhodes, the lighthouse at Alexandria, the statue of Zeus in Olympia, and the mausoleum of Maussollos at Halicarnassus. Very cool. Only one is still standing--the pyramids. If you remember, I blogged about this back in February.

At any rate, they've announced the winners. Are you ready? Here they are.....

In no particular order, the new 7 wonders of the world are:

1. The Great Wall of China
2. Petra in Jordan
3. Christ the Redeemer in Brazil
4. Machu Picchu in Peru
5. Chichén Itzá in Mexico
6. The Colosseum in Rome
7. The Taj Mahal in India

I'm happy with 4 of the 7--If you remember my original standards for what wonders are (they are an impressive architectural achievement and they stood the test of time), the Great Wall, Petra, Machu Picchu, and Chichén Itzá easily qualify. Petra has the added bonus of showing up in an Indiana Jones movie. However, the other 3 aren't really wonders. The Colosseum is ok; even though it might not be the most impressive achievement, it has stood the test of time, and is an interesting slice from history almost 2 millennia ago. But Christ the Redeemer and the Taj Mahal are just ridiculous. Neither of them is really old enough to be considered--the Taj Mahal was built in the mid-1600s and the Christ the Redeemer statue was completed in 1931. 1931!!

I'm really pretty mad, though, that Stonehenge didn't make the final 7, and I'm kinda pissed that the Easter Island statues didn't make it. I also find it extremely stupid that the Great Pyramids didn't make the list. Of course, the press releases on July 7 said something about how these 7 join the Great Pyramids as wonders, but that seems completely ridiculous. If I were Egypt, I would be really, really angry about this. It seems like some lame consolation prize for something that shouldn't have really had to be voted on in the first place.

The posters on Slashdot also have some interesting complaints about the list, namely that it's just a publicity stunt. Of course, they also make a lot of comments about Civilization, which are amusing.

The one thing that I think is really good about the list is that it is fairly global in its scope. There are 3 representatives from Asia (and they span the range of the continent), 2 from South America, 1 from North America, and 1 from Europe. Africa is left off, unless you count the pyramids, but then again, Egypt and the pyramids are culturally quite different from the rest of Africa. But considering that most of the original list was confined to the Middle East and the Mediterranean region, this is a vast improvement. I think for a list that wants to capture what the 21st century world thinks are wonders, this is a good, if not perfect, start.

New 7 Wonders has now taken it upon itself to find the 7 natural wonders of the world by a similar process. I think they should have stopped with this. Continuing to find other lists just makes the revision of the "wonders of the world" list less of a big deal, and gives the skeptics on Slashdot more credibility. Maybe this is just a publicity stunt.

Broken toes and other stuff

Before I get to the really important stuff, I'd like to let all my readers know how I'm going to handle Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I don't want to spoil things for anyone who really wants to find out about the book on their own, but I will be posting on it.

So, I'm not going to post what I think about the book for a week. That should give all the really gung-ho fans a chance to read it and find out the ending on their own. I will also make it very clear what I'm posting about, and not put any spoilers in the first few paragraphs, so that if you do want to avoid spoilers, you should be able to.

I hope this seems fair. I want to talk about the book, but I don't want to spoil it for any of you, either.

Now, on to more important things, namely, my husband's toe. On Sunday night, he was playing catch with a football with some of his relatives, all while not wearing shoes. He ran for a catch and collided with his uncle, smashing his toe into his uncle's shoe. This hurt his toe quite a bit, as could be expected. There was a lot of discussion that night about whether it was broken, or just jammed.

The next day, the toe started bruising pretty nicely. My husband would sit and look at it, pull the toe from left to right to see which hurt more, and generally just be fascinated by this toe. I really think it was good that he hurt his toe, rather than me hurting mine. I'd be irritated by how much it hurt; he thinks it's really cool that he might have broken it.

Today, the bruising is even more pronounced. He decided he wanted to take pictures of it for posterity, so I acted as photographer and took pictures in several different locations to get the best light on the bruises. After much discussion, we decided that this was the picture that best shows the bruising and the swelling:


In case you can't tell, it's the left toe that's hurt. My husband wasn't very happy, though, because none of the pictures really showed the injured toe as he hoped they would. He went into Photoshop to try to monkey with the shading, to make the bruises more pronounced. But that would have taken a lot of time and effort (and let's face it, it's a picture of a toe, not the Mona Lisa). So instead, he just used effect filters on the pictures to see what would happen. This fractal version of his toe is the best he came up with:


It's oddly fascinating, yet I can't look away. If we get better pictures later, I'll post them :) I'm sure you're all waiting anxiously for them, right?

Movies again!

Netflix means that I have a constant stream of movies coming in and out of my house...some are good, some are great, and some are just awful...

Speaking of just awful movies, Nacho Libre takes the cake for the worst movie I've seen in a long while. My husband and I started watching it, sat through 15 minutes, and couldn't handle it anymore. If you're idea of a good time is watching Jack Black do a bad Mexican accent and give a lot of intended-to-be-significant glances at things, this movie is for you. But if you're someone who needs a plot, interesting characters, and a movie that moves faster than a snail's pace, you should look elsewhere. Maybe I missed out by not seeing it through to the end, but I doubt it.

Rating: 0 stars out of 5

Syriana is a movie about oil, big business, and world economies. Several story lines twine together throughout the movie, detailing different aspects of the oil story--a young Pakistani worker, a CIA operative, an emir and his two sons who both want to be his heir, a financial analyst, a lawyer investigating an oil company merger. I enjoy this sort of structure in movies--I like seeing how stories that initially don't seem to connect come together in the end. Syriana was less fulfilling than other movies with a similar structure because everything didn't come together in the end. But that was the point of the movie--the lack of a definitive conclusion, and the confusion of what exactly was going on, did a great job of showing how complex the issues were, and how none of the players involved really knew everything that going on either. I thought the way the sound was done was very effective--there was a marked lack of background noise, which added a level of seriousness and made the silent moments even deeper. Overall, it was interesting and very well done, but required too much focus for me to easily enjoy it.

Rating: 3.5 stars out of 5

I remember seeing The Red Violin a few years ago, and I think I liked it then. Rewatching it, I wasn't quite as impressed as I remember. The movie tells the story of this one violin and shows several 20-minute segments on each of its owners. You have the brilliant kid, the sex-crazed virtuoso, the Chinese woman living under Mao. Each of these stories is interesting, but you don't ever get to know any of the characters well enough to really care about them. I do think the structure is cool, though. There's a lot of jumping back and forth, and it quickly becomes clear that this movie is the story of the violin, more than any one character. But while that's a cool concept, it's hard to really feel emotional about the way all of the characters seem to. The last half hour of the movie shows a present-day auction for the violin, with Samuel L. Jackson as an assessor for an auction house. He figures out that this violin is the historical "Red Violin," as well as what makes the varnish red. This part of the movie was much less interesting to me, and I thought that the ending was questionable in its believability.

Rating: 3.5 stars out of 5

If you're looking for a feel-good sports movie, Invincible is not it. This movie tells the story about the Philadelphia Eagles in the 70s, when coach Dick Vermeil held an open tryout to inspire interest in the lousy team. Mark Wahlberg plays Vince Papale, the only guy to make it onto the team through these tryouts. The story is predictable without being heartwarming--you just don't care about the characters. Greg Kinnear does a decent job as Vermeil, but Mark Wahlberg just doesn't seem to have the acting chops to make us feel anything for his character. Vermeil keeps talking about how Papale's the kind of guy who's the soul of a team, but you just never see that sort of passion in him. The other big problem is that Wahlberg is not the right size for a football player. Yeah, we see that he has muscles, but he's just too small. Every time he goes to block anyone, you wonder how it's possible. The cinematography is cool--all the scenes in south Philly are shot in darker sepia tones, while the NFL scenes are in blinding light and color. Pretty cool, but not enough to save the movie.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5

Bathing Baboons

If you haven't at least seen one episode of the BBC's Planet Earth miniseries, rent it. Now. Or Tivo it. Even if you're not one for animal shows, the photography is so spectacular, especially when viewed in HD, that it honestly will take your breath away.

It also makes for a great drinking game. Watch the series in HD with a bunch of people, and every time anyone says, "This photography is amazing!" or something like it, everybody drinks. If we had played the first time I watched it, I would have ended up passed out.

And if you are someone who enjoys animal shows, this series is even more amazing. There are lots of shots of cute little animals--ducklings, polar bear cubs, tiny antelopes--which is to be expected, but there are also a lot of weird animals that you didn't know existed, like the ginormous salamanders that live in cold upland rivers. Or the mayflies that live in African lakes, and when they mate, it makes the lake look like it's on fire.

The camera crews really took the time to get shots of rare animals, like the snow leopards in the Himalayas. And even better, they took the time to gets shots of rarely seen events, like piranhas feeding or the hyenas chasing down an antelope. These extended scenes add depth to the series, and make it more than just a bunch of very pretty pictures.

Me, I watch it for the monkeys. I think monkeys are some of the funniest animals ever, and this series definitely doesn't disappoint. In the freshwater episode, there are some great shots of monkeys that go swimming, and in the mountain episode, there's a section on these monkeys that live on cliffs. But my favorite monkey shot (so far...I'm only through disk 1) has come from the pilot episode "From Pole to Pole" that gives a general overview of the earth. There is an extended sequence on how water changes part of the Kalahari Desert in Africa into a fertile oasis, and how all these animals migrate there. Even baboons:



A word of caution--if you're going to watch it, try to get the BBC version, narrated by David Attenborough. Sigourney Weaver narrates the version that aired on US TV, and while her voice is pleasant enough, there were additions to the script that make it more irritating. She keeps saying things like, "This is the first time this has been caught on film." True as that might be, when said 10 times in 40 minutes, it gets old quickly.

I Would Suck at Customer Service

To begin with, this is not a post about the older generation and their struggle with computers. I mean, it sort of is, but I'm not writing this to crab about them. I completely understand how frustrating it must be to learn a completely new technology, especially when people 1/4 your age keep talking about things like mp3s, widgets, and blogs, and you have no idea what any of those words means. And I'm sure in 50 years, I'll have kids (or even grandkids) that will run technological circles around me, even though I'm sort of with it right now.

No, this is a post about how much I would suck at working customer service for a computer company. My grandpa called last night with two computer problems. The first was that his email program didn't work. Now, I know how his computer is set up, and it's set up so that the email icon on the desktop goes right to Gmail. So I asked if he could get on the internet. Nope, that didn't work either.

"What do you see?"

"Well, there's this tiny box with a red "x" and three options: file, search, and view."

Now, I'd never heard of anything like this. A tiny box? If his internet isn't working, he should get some "cannot connect" error, or if the page isn't working, maybe "404 file not found." But a tiny box with three options? I had no idea.

And this is exactly why I would fail at computer customer service. I'm completely familiar with computers, but thinking about the problems that others might have in a creative way eludes me. And I'm not good at breaking things down into steps, so I say things like, "Click on the start icon and select programs/firefox" when what I really need to say is, "Ok, look in the bottom left of your screen. Do you see a button that says start? Good. Left click once on that, and you should see a menu pop up. You do? That's great. Now, you'll see the word "programs, and if you hang over that with your mouse, another menu will pop up. You see that? Ok, good. Now move your mouse into that menu and click...."

Anyways, you get the idea.

I told my grandpa I would call him back. After I tried to replicate my grandpa's error on my computer and failed (and got irritable), my husband said, "Maybe I should take over from here."

It was amazing. He figured out that somehow, my grandpa's internet window had gotten minimized to the point where he could only see the three menu options at the top and the red "x." I'm glad he figured that out. I was going to have my grandpa call his cable internet company and yell at them because his service was out. But I would really have felt all that bad if he had yelled at them without justification, because if they're anything like my cable internet company they probably deserve it anyways.

The next problem was that my grandpa's label making software had disappeared. Showing the patience of a saint, my husband had my grandpa read off all the programs on his desktop, as well as all the programs in his start menu. Nothing. Neither of us has any idea what happened to this program, but fortunately, grandpa still had his install disk and was able to reinstall the software. Obviously, the software didn't disappear, but where it went, who knows. And since neither my husband nor I knows exactly what's on my grandpa's computer, and since he doesn't speak computer, figuring out where it could have gone would be impossible.

I really think that for anyone who works with older friends/neighbors/relatives on their computer, particularly over the phone, using "remote desktop" software is a lifesaver. This is software that essentially allows you to look over the shoulder of the person you're talking to--their desktop becomes your desktop. As Paul Boutin writes in this article for Slate, this can really save a relationship between a computer-savvy grandson and his computer-newb grandpa.

So, to my two brothers who are having fun in Europe this summer--it's not really fair of you to set up grandpa's computer and then leave me to answer all the customer service calls. I'm no good at it, and I have no idea what to tell him. Thanks a lot, guys :)

To my husband, I definitely think that fixing computers over the phone without being able to see what you're fixing qualifies as a miracle. And since you've done it more than once, that's your requisite two miracles. And you're only 27! I expect the Vatican will be calling any day now.

And to anyone who does this for a living, I salute you. I have the utmost respect for what you do, especially those of you who are able to answer ridiculous questions without losing your patience, or laughing out loud at the person on the other end. I could never do what you do without absolutely losing my mind.

Next batch of movies...

More movies!

I wasn't sure what to expect from The Constant Gardener; I knew that Rachel Weisz won the Oscar for best supporting actress for her role, but that was about it. Both my husband and I ended up thinking that it was pretty good, but neither of us loved it. I thought the camera work was interesting--a nice parallel between the Quayle's webcam and the actual cinematography of the film--but the home-footage nature of much of it (albeit an imitation of home-shot movies that far surpasses all of them in quality) made it difficult to love. The shift in colors between the scenes in Africa and the scenes in Europe was also notable, particularly because of the marked lack of green in most of the shots of Africa. Quite fitting with the metaphor of Justin Quayle as the gardener, trying to create a perfect, orderly world, and finding it impossible in Africa. Although the movie was billed as a love story, that wasn't what it was really about--it was about something much larger than the two main characters, something that forces the viewer to look at those that society thinks of as disposable and holds us accountable.

Rating: 4 stars out of 5

There were things about The Piano Teacher that I thought were really well done. Isabelle Huppert's performance as Erika, an emotionally distant piano teacher, is amazing. I think she smiles once during the whole movie, and you keep waiting for her to do it again. She does a fantastic job at showing how the tension is building inside her, with the bare minimum of facial expression. I also really appreciated how director Michael Haneke added to the building tension in the movie with his long, slow shots of Erika walking, a door closing, or Erika or Walter (her pupil/love interest played by Benoît Magimel) simply looking at something. It's slowly paced, but always building as a steady crescendo. I also loved the way Erika talks about music, as if it's something personal and significant to everyday life--for her, it absolutely is. But the darker aspects of the movie, particularly the drawn-out (although not visually graphic) sex scenes, were a bit too disturbing for my taste. I realize that they were key in developing Erika's character, but I got the same idea from the understated, yet also horrible scene with her pupil Anna. The shift in focus in the movie from music performance in the first half to sex in the second does draw an interesting parallel between the two, though.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5

Glory Road was almost exactly what I thought it would be. Forget that. It was exactly what I thought it would be. Some of the Southern accents were a bit corny, but the story of Don Haskin (played by Josh Lucas) as a no-name basketball coach in the 60s who takes a bunch of black basketball players to the NCAA championships is a fun, easy-to-digest, heartwarming rags-to-riches story. But therein lies my criticism of the movie as well. It goes down too easy. The viewer sees these black basketball players and wants them to win, because that's what the movie tells us to do. And so when people in the movie act racist, we are outraged, because they're hurting "our" team. But it also makes us think that we aren't like that anymore. The movie ends happily, all the players on the team go on to glorious futures, and everything is ok. (I'm sorry if I spoiled the ending, but c'mon--it's a movie produced by Disney. Surely you could see it coming?) And in writing the ending this way, the movie makes racism in America something of the past, which it so clearly is not. Not every movie has to be Crash, but whitewashing things isn't the way to go either.

Rating: 4 stars out of 5

I didn't read any reviews of The Interpreter before renting it, so I went in completely unbiased. And I really liked it. I was constantly kept guessing by Nicole Kidman's character, who is an interpreter at the U.N. who overhears something she shouldn't. Because it's Nicole Kidman, I trusted her, but Sean Penn's character, who is a secret service agent assigned to protect foreign dignitaries, did not--he kept trying to figure out what she was lying about. For me, this was enough of a hook to keep me interested in the rest of the plot. And Sydney Pollack does a good job of making the viewer flip-flop in what she thinks several times throughout the film. And details keep falling into place at a nice pace throughout the film, which kept me engaged. As far as the cinematography, several scenes were very well-done, the double chase/tailing scene in particular. Also, it was exciting to see the actual inside of the U.N. being used for many key scenes in the movie. I thought the ending scene was weak, although it was a lot less lame than it could have been if Pollack had gone for the stereotypical ending. When I looked up reviews of the film after I watched it, I was really surprised to see that people were so harsh on it--I thought it was very good.

Rating: 4 stars out of 5

How Rotten Tomatoes Gets It Wrong

Happy Fourth of July! In honor of our nation's independence, and the sci-fi/action movies that always get released on the 4th (who's going to see Transformers today?), here is today's post:

I like the Rotten Tomatoes website. I think it's a very helpful way to get an initial impression of whether it's worth seeing a movie or not, and the concise excerpts of what the critics are saying is a helpful one-stop-shopping place for the buzz on almost any film.

I do, however, have a bone to pick with them. I think their Top 100 Sci-Fi Movies list is absolute crap. I'll get into why it's so bad in a bit. But first, I should point out that that this is a list of the top-reviewed movies. That is important to keep in mind when viewing the list. They're allegedly not taking into account a movie's influence on the rest of the genre, whether or not the movie is ground-breaking, or its place in sci-fi movie history. They're just looking at the quality of the reviews of individual movies.

Ok, fair enough. But then, if you look at the sidebar explaining "How It Works", you see that there's a complicated process involving mathematical formulas and voting. Voting? Suddenly, the list is no longer about just which movies were best reviewed, but which movies critics thought belonged on this top 100 list.

Since the transparency and objectivity in the list is gone because of the addition of voting, I'm free to critique it all I want. Heh heh.

The biggest bone to pick with the list is the inclusion of movies like Ghostbusters, Men in Black, GalaxyQuest, and Space Balls above movies that have really shaped the genre. These are comedies, wearing a sci-fi costume. Their jokes are all dependant on movies that have gone before them. They wouldn't exist if it weren't for the original movies of Star Trek, Star Wars, etc. Sure, they may be good comedies, but ground-breaking sci-fi films they are NOT. There is no way that GalaxyQuest deserves to be #13 on the list, above truly innovative films such as Bladerunner.

Which brings me to my next point--why is Bladerunner #36 on the list? In my opinion, this is one of the most highly innovative sci-fi films of all time, building the imagery for countless sci-fi films to come. And not only that, but why isn't the 1992 rerelease on the list? Both the original and the remake of Invasions of the Body Snatchers were on the list since both mattered so much; since the original and redone Bladerunner had a similar effect, why not them too? I guess what's really irritating about this example in particular is that Minority Report, another movie based on a Philip K. Dick novel, is ranked #5. The imagery in Minority Report wouldn't have been possible if Bladerunner hadn't already done the same thing twenty years earlier.
(Plus, I don't like Tom Cruise.)

I was also irritated by how harshly they judged The Return of the Jedi. Yes, it's the weakest of the original three Star Wars films, but is it really worse than The Matrix Reloaded? Hardly. And rating Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan below Star Trek: First Contact doesn't make any sense, especially since most ST fans agree that Wrath is the best movie in the franchise. Also, no offense to fans of the movie, but does Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind really deserve the #2 spot on the list? The explanation of the film even admits that the science fiction aspects of the film are more incidental than anything. If that is the case, then give the spot on the list to a movie where the sci-fi focus is what makes the movie great.

I was happy with how much attention was paid to classic sci-fi films, such as The Day the Earth Stood Still and Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I was also pleased to see that Metropolis made the top 3--an acknowledgement that knowing your roots is important. And Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back were both in the top 10, which is also good.

The top-rated film of the list is E.T. I'm not angry about this, although if it were up to me, Bladerunner would probably have the spot, just because of how influential it was in shaping future ideas of what science fiction was. E.T. just seems too soft, too warm-hearted, and not particularly influential on sci-fi films that followed. I think Close Encounters of the Third Kind would have been a much better choice.

Anyways, rant off. Let me know what you think I've gotten wrong :)

My Ultimate Musical Achievement

I'm a musical person. I started piano lessons at age 5. I began playing French horn in grade school. Along the way, I had a lot of fun, and had several achievements that I'm actually kind of proud of. For example, as a sophomore in high school, I managed to beat out several seniors for first chair French horn. And my senior year, I played at a masterclass for German horn player Hermann Baumann.

I'm not saying this stuff to brag. Honestly, it happened a while ago, and I haven't played much recently. And even when I practiced, I was never good enough to play professionally, or even major in music at a top music school. I just want to give you some perspective so that when I tell you what I consider my ultimate musical achievement to be, you'll understand the scope of things.

It happened this past Saturday evening, at my husband's brother and sister-in-law's house.

We were playing Guitar Hero II on the Xbox.

And here it is, my ultimate achievement: I finally beat Wolfmother's "Woman" on hard.

My husband and I don't have an Xbox. The only time we play is with his brother and sister-in-law. But they live really close to us, and so we're over there pretty often. Both of us can hold our own in the "medium" level, and so we decided to kick it up a notch and try hard.

Hard is a lot harder. Not only do the notes go by faster, but you have to use all 5 buttons instead of just 4. 5 buttons, 4 fingers...you do the math. But even on hard, I could pass all the songs in the first two brackets after a few tries. Except for "Woman." And it wasn't just me who got stuck--we all got stuck. No one could progress past this one stupid song.

One of my husband's co-workers said, "Oh yeah. That's the hard part. Save up star power to get through the hammer-on sections." Good idea, but it wasn't enough. We just weren't good enough.

They got a second guitar, and for a while, the multiplayer option diverted our attention--dueling on "Woman" was ok, because even if you both suck, you can't fail the song. Every once in a while, we'd come back to the solo song, and the result would be the same. Failure.

Finally, my husband's sister-in-law had had enough and started practicing. She worked on this song a lot. She learned to hate it. But in the end, it paid off. She passed the song last week. But she passed it on her band--the band she had set up so that she could track her own progress. A great idea in theory, but it means that the song was only passed in her band. In our communal band--Def Monkeys--we were still stuck.

So last Friday, I buckled down and worked on it. I practiced. I isolated the section I was missing all of the notes and I ran through it on a slower speed. My fingers hurt. And then, I did it. I made it through the terribly hard section, and was so excited I almost blew it near the end.

But I didn't. I made it through. And I was thrilled :)

For all of you who are thinking, "I've beaten the game on expert. What are you whining about?" Well, good for you. You really do rock!

But on Friday night, so did I. Although I don't think I'll even be able to bring myself to play or listen to "Woman" again.

The human element in fantasy literature

A month or two ago, my friend K. recommended a book to me called The Name of the Wind by a newly published author named Patrick Rothfuss. She lent me a copy of the book, and I then proceeded to read it cover to cover in the next 48 hours. It's a 662 page book.

In short, I loved it. And for a while, I've been trying to figure out why I liked it so much, as well as what made it original.

Because on the surface, it doesn't seem particularly original. It's the first of a trilogy (Tolkien and others), the protagonist--Kvothe--heads off to a university to learn magic that involves knowing the true names of things (Le Guin), and Kvothe has awesome abilities that set him apart from the other students at the school (Rowling, Pullman, Nix, too many to name).

Yes, many of these things are what fantasy fans love to read about, but this book is much more creative than genre fantasy. Rothfuss doesn't just recycle plot devices and stock imagery. He changes it, makes it his own, and adds humanity to it.

That's where I think Rothfuss's real strength lies. His hero, Kvothe, is a hero who more than anything, is human. He makes mistakes. He does really stupid stuff. And he gets punished for doing that stupid stuff. Also, when we first meet him, he is a broken older man, who is living in a small town barely making a living as an innkeeper. When the innkeeper tells us his story, and how he started out as this extremely gifted boy, it's hard to believe that such a hero could end up as he is now. In short, Kvothe isn't the perfect wizard who always knows what to do and always comes through for those who need him. He's a human who makes mistakes, who also happens to have magical powers.

This is what sets Rothfuss apart from other fantasy authors. Take Lord of the Rings, for example. Gandalf makes a mistake...sort of...by leading the fellowship through the Mines of Moria. But it wasn't because of a character flaw on his part; he didn't do it because he was selfish or jealous. He did it because he thought it was the only way, and simply didn't know any better.

Harry Potter is another good example of why Rothfuss' novel stands out. Rowling has done great things with Harry, particularly in books 5 and 6 where she shows how Harry can be petulant, self-involved, and whiny. She has done a good job of making Harry a real kid first, and a super wizard second. But the problem with Harry, particularly within Hogwarts, is that he rarely gets into any sort of lasting trouble. Fly a magic car to school? No problem! Use a potentially fatal spell against a classmate? He'll get over it. Take a particularly nasty teacher out to the Forbidden Forest to be stampeded by centaurs? Well, she didn't die, did she? In book after book, Harry, Ron, and Hermione break rule upon rule, and they always get away with it. The worst that's ever happened to Harry (within the realm of Hogwarts) is that he had to miss the Quidditch championships, but expelling him or inflicting a more lasting punishment on him seems out of the question. Yes, things outside of Hogwarts have happened when Harry has broken the rules (the end of book 5 is particularly notable), but within Hogwarts, Harry is the golden boy who can do no wrong.

Kvothe gets no such breaks. A mistake at the beginning of his term at the university--one that he was directly responsible for because of his impatience and need for revenge--has long-lasting consequences that really impede his development as a wizard. He's always in need of money, unlike Harry who has all the gold he could ever want in the bank. And his desire to show off and be the best always seems to get him into trouble. He's irritating at times, enough that you want to smack him on the head and say, "What were you thinking?"

But the other thing that Rothfuss does extremely well is tell the story through Kvothe's eyes, and as a result, all his choices and decisions seem perfectly logical. And so instead of sitting off to the side, chastising Kvothe in advance for his bad choices, you are right there with him, agreeing that whatever it is he's doing is the only possible thing under the circumstances. Only later do you want to ask, "What were you thinking?" but by then it's too late, because you and he together have already made the choice that caused so much trouble.

Many fantasy authors, it seems, think that by including dragons, wizards, and magic, they can cover up a host of other faults, particularly lack of character development and an uninteresting plot. Rothfuss has no such illusions. For The Name of the Wind, the characters and the plot are what make the book great and extremely original; the magical elements are the subtle seasoning that adds the perfect finishing touches to the novel.