Thursday 22 July 2010
Miss Daisy Black: Nevroses
The album's title means 'Neuroses' and I believe it's pronounced 'nev-ros' or 'nev-roz'.
Yes, another French artist. I don't personally discount something because of its country of origin. I would have missed out on some very good music, films and food if I did.
This album has an interesting and new sound, although I personally prefer its upbeat tracks, in particular the opener 'Le Dernier Mot' (The Last Word).
Tuesday 20 July 2010
Diablo Swing Orchestra: The Butcher's Ballroom
This album is just a lot of fun to listen to and I can only imagine how exhilarating it must have been to play. For a shot of energetic, almost ecstatic gypsy jazz rock, give this unique album a listen.
Monday 19 July 2010
Steven Dunston: Hymns About Her
Some of the most relaxing, soothing music I've heard in a while. This album of acoustic piano/vocal is ideal for listening to on a lazy summer's day, even if it is a rather rainy one here in England.
Saturday 17 July 2010
Unreliable Narrators
WARNING: This post contains possible spoilers for the following books: Frankenstein, The Woman in White and The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. Proceed with caution.
"Since you have preserved my narration... I would not that a mutilated one should go down to posterity." - Victor Frankenstein of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
There are a number of texts which touch on the idea of unreliable narrators. They could be biased, they may not have all the information, they may be recounting events which they never witnessed, and are therefore only speculating. In some cases, narrators have a completely different view on events, as in the case of Mark Haddon's The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, in which the narrator is autistic and reports on the events around him quite differently, with very specific details on things which other narrators would likely pass by. There is also the possibility of the work itself being tampered with if, for instance, the frame of the story is that of a diary or a series of letters, they could have been altered by another character within the story. When studying Wilkie Collins' The Woman in White, my English teacher encouraged us to question the validity of Marian's recount through diary extracts as, at the end of her entries, the villain, Count Fosco, writes in her diary. We were led to suspect that her diary had been altered, possibly with entire passages removed by Fosco in order to protect him from being exposed for the crimes he committed.
When characters recount events in which much dialogue takes place, I have always been sceptical as to whether or not the narrator would really be able to take in all the information at the time and report it back perfectly, word for word. If I were to write down a conversation that took place several hours before, I probably wouldn't use quotations and instead use flimsy phrases like 'he said it was a bad idea' because I would be unable to remember his exact wording. Then again, people in real life rarely have the ability to speak so eloquently and with such rich subtext as many novels will have you believe, so some suspension of disbelief is required. Referring back to The Woman in White, Marian's recounts through her diary entries are somewhat justified in having the dialogue flawlessly replicated by her natural gift of a photographic memory, but many other texts seem to imply that characters just remember exactly how every event happened. Apparently they were that impacting and memorable. Or perhaps I'm going prematurely senile.
When reading Mary Shelley's Frankenstein I started to wonder, as the story progressed, how reliable this narration was, as these events were being recounted by more and more narrators. To clarify, at one point in the story, the monster is telling Frankenstein his tale, which Frankenstein dictated to Walton, who was writing the tale in the form of a letter to his sister. Then later, during the monster's tale, he begins retelling the tale of Felix and Safie. I reached the point where it just started to seem ridiculous. I couldn't know at this point if any of the narrative would be accurate as I was reading it, because it had been through three different narrators before it got to Walton's letter, which I was supposedly reading. My suspension of disbelief was strained at best. Then I read a passage in the last chapter in which Walton explains how Frankenstein amended his account, to fix any mistakes, to ensure that the correct story would go down in history. Despite it not being a particularly pressing concern, this did make it seem more believable. Luckily Shelley is a good enough writer that it didn't bother me enough for me to be distracted all through the novel.
So next time you're reading a book, think about what it is that you're actually reading. How reliable to you think your narrator is? Is it a first-person narrative, in the form of a recount, or a third-person narrative, from the point of view of a seemingly omnipotent observer? Perhaps it is told from a random onlooker's perspective, and we only see their interpretation of the events. Or maybe the narrator really is that good at remembering the tiniest detail of every person they encounter. Mind you, some characters seem striking enough to leave enough of an impression that you could never forget that subtle birthmark just above his full, shapely lips, surrounded by just a touch of stubble on his strong, chiselled jaw.
But don't take my word for it, I just escaped from a mental asylum. And I'm a compulsive liar.
"Since you have preserved my narration... I would not that a mutilated one should go down to posterity." - Victor Frankenstein of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
There are a number of texts which touch on the idea of unreliable narrators. They could be biased, they may not have all the information, they may be recounting events which they never witnessed, and are therefore only speculating. In some cases, narrators have a completely different view on events, as in the case of Mark Haddon's The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, in which the narrator is autistic and reports on the events around him quite differently, with very specific details on things which other narrators would likely pass by. There is also the possibility of the work itself being tampered with if, for instance, the frame of the story is that of a diary or a series of letters, they could have been altered by another character within the story. When studying Wilkie Collins' The Woman in White, my English teacher encouraged us to question the validity of Marian's recount through diary extracts as, at the end of her entries, the villain, Count Fosco, writes in her diary. We were led to suspect that her diary had been altered, possibly with entire passages removed by Fosco in order to protect him from being exposed for the crimes he committed.
When characters recount events in which much dialogue takes place, I have always been sceptical as to whether or not the narrator would really be able to take in all the information at the time and report it back perfectly, word for word. If I were to write down a conversation that took place several hours before, I probably wouldn't use quotations and instead use flimsy phrases like 'he said it was a bad idea' because I would be unable to remember his exact wording. Then again, people in real life rarely have the ability to speak so eloquently and with such rich subtext as many novels will have you believe, so some suspension of disbelief is required. Referring back to The Woman in White, Marian's recounts through her diary entries are somewhat justified in having the dialogue flawlessly replicated by her natural gift of a photographic memory, but many other texts seem to imply that characters just remember exactly how every event happened. Apparently they were that impacting and memorable. Or perhaps I'm going prematurely senile.
When reading Mary Shelley's Frankenstein I started to wonder, as the story progressed, how reliable this narration was, as these events were being recounted by more and more narrators. To clarify, at one point in the story, the monster is telling Frankenstein his tale, which Frankenstein dictated to Walton, who was writing the tale in the form of a letter to his sister. Then later, during the monster's tale, he begins retelling the tale of Felix and Safie. I reached the point where it just started to seem ridiculous. I couldn't know at this point if any of the narrative would be accurate as I was reading it, because it had been through three different narrators before it got to Walton's letter, which I was supposedly reading. My suspension of disbelief was strained at best. Then I read a passage in the last chapter in which Walton explains how Frankenstein amended his account, to fix any mistakes, to ensure that the correct story would go down in history. Despite it not being a particularly pressing concern, this did make it seem more believable. Luckily Shelley is a good enough writer that it didn't bother me enough for me to be distracted all through the novel.
So next time you're reading a book, think about what it is that you're actually reading. How reliable to you think your narrator is? Is it a first-person narrative, in the form of a recount, or a third-person narrative, from the point of view of a seemingly omnipotent observer? Perhaps it is told from a random onlooker's perspective, and we only see their interpretation of the events. Or maybe the narrator really is that good at remembering the tiniest detail of every person they encounter. Mind you, some characters seem striking enough to leave enough of an impression that you could never forget that subtle birthmark just above his full, shapely lips, surrounded by just a touch of stubble on his strong, chiselled jaw.
But don't take my word for it, I just escaped from a mental asylum. And I'm a compulsive liar.
Tuesday 8 June 2010
The Strive For Perfection
As I know my readers aren't exactly numerous, I think it is safe to say that you all know that I enjoy drawing as well as writing. Recently I have been trying to adjust my style, and it made me wonder: will I ever be pleased with my artwork? With my writing? Will anyone ever be truly satisfied with their own work? Whatever it is that I do, whatever kind of work I produce, however wonderful I think it is at the time, you can guarantee that a year, a month, even a day later, I will gag at the sight of it. I don't think it's a bad thing: the constant strive for perfection is mostly what keeps me going. If I have no other ideas on what life's meaning is, then I can guess that it is trying to get as close to perfection as possible, even if it isn't attainable.
About a year ago I claimed I was satisfied and comfortable with my art style. I was half right: I was definitely comfortable with it, but several months later I decided I needed a change, then later still I wanted to change it again, and again, and only this week I gave it another tweak to try and push it in a new direction. Then today I was looking at some artwork and realised yet another thing I could do to improve my style ('improve' being used rather loosely). Despite all this, I am actually taking it as a good thing that I understand that I will never be fully happy with my work, and that it hasn't discouraged me from continuing.
Another thing that got me thinking was that when I posted a sample of my new style on DeviantArt, I said "This is not definite... the style I currently use isn't particularly expressive and I'm having less fun drawing in that style... Be very honest with your opinions. If you don't like it, do let me know... if enough people prefer the old one I might go back". It made me wonder whether I was really drawing for me anymore. I always used to draw just for me and close friends, as I only saw it as a hobby, and I was never particularly well-known on DeviantArt. But recently I have been getting more attention there and I am becoming more conscious about what other people will like about my work, whether or not they will enjoy it, whether or not they will appreciate it, or 'get it', whether or not they will find my comics funny. If I really think about it, I do still want to draw for myself: I don't see myself drawing for a living, so I think for now I will continue on the road I am setting out for myself and see where it leads from there. Maybe in the future it will be more than a hobby, I just don't know, but for now, I draw for me, so I'm going to stick with what makes me happy.
About a year ago I claimed I was satisfied and comfortable with my art style. I was half right: I was definitely comfortable with it, but several months later I decided I needed a change, then later still I wanted to change it again, and again, and only this week I gave it another tweak to try and push it in a new direction. Then today I was looking at some artwork and realised yet another thing I could do to improve my style ('improve' being used rather loosely). Despite all this, I am actually taking it as a good thing that I understand that I will never be fully happy with my work, and that it hasn't discouraged me from continuing.
Another thing that got me thinking was that when I posted a sample of my new style on DeviantArt, I said "This is not definite... the style I currently use isn't particularly expressive and I'm having less fun drawing in that style... Be very honest with your opinions. If you don't like it, do let me know... if enough people prefer the old one I might go back". It made me wonder whether I was really drawing for me anymore. I always used to draw just for me and close friends, as I only saw it as a hobby, and I was never particularly well-known on DeviantArt. But recently I have been getting more attention there and I am becoming more conscious about what other people will like about my work, whether or not they will enjoy it, whether or not they will appreciate it, or 'get it', whether or not they will find my comics funny. If I really think about it, I do still want to draw for myself: I don't see myself drawing for a living, so I think for now I will continue on the road I am setting out for myself and see where it leads from there. Maybe in the future it will be more than a hobby, I just don't know, but for now, I draw for me, so I'm going to stick with what makes me happy.
Thursday 3 June 2010
The Film That Could Have Been
WARNING: This post contains spoilers for The Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (film).
Yes, I watched the Prince of Persia film to see what it would be like. I was well aware of the fact that there was a good chance that it would be bad, but I decided to give it a chance, after all, they were given some fairly good material. Unfortunately, the film wasn't really bad so much as it was disappointing. They had an opportunity to make something really great and instead they made something passable. It just wasn't anything special, and I think it really had the potential to be.
Think about it. Had this film incorporated the original source material more appropriately they would have essentially had a Persian zombie movie with time-travel and free-running with the saucy prince and the sexy Maharajah's daughter fighting side-by-side and shooting sarcastic quips at one another. If that isn't a recipe for an awesome film then I don't know what is. Honestly, it was practically served to filmmakers on a silver platter. Unfortunately, they completely removed the zombies (technically 'sand demons' but they are essentially zombies), severely downplayed the time-travelling aspect (they rewound time roughly four times throughout the entire film), and took away the leading lady's bow. Plus they kept spouting lines about destiny roughly every five minutes, even giving the main character (previously a nameless prince) the very unsubtle name Dastan (destin, anyone?). I won't even get into how much they loved to title-drop.
It's true that games aren't particularly renowned for their excellent stories, so it makes sense that they would alter the plot, add some characters here and there, etc. but I would have thought it would be obvious to keep in the sand demons, as that is, apart from being the entire premise of the game's storyline, just undeniably cool. Not to mention it's one of those things that gives you free reign to have the hero waste a lot of baddies without any kind of moral issue: they are monsters, they aren't human, they will eat your face if you don't kill them first and technically they are already dead. Plus they could get away with a lot of impressive violence because they only bleed sand. A sinfully wasted opportunity, people.
One thing I will say I liked is that, although the actor wasn't really right for the part in my opinion, at least the character was still written as being fairly close to the character from the game: arrogant, obsessed with proving himself, convinced that he is always right, and the leading lady was written with the same sarcastic, feisty attitude she had in the game, although for some reason her name was changed to Tamina. What was wrong with the name Farah? She's obviously meant to be the same character, so why change her name? Who knows, or cares? So let's move on.
Overall I think the film would have been okay as a standalone film, supposing the Prince of Persia games didn't exist and this was the first take on the idea, but for a film that claims to be based on the Sands of Time game, I just don't see it. It has the characters (somewhat) and it has the mystical dagger, but that's about it. They changed the story of the prince trying to reach the hourglass to turn back time and undo essentially causing the apocalypse, to the story of the prince being framed for killing his father, then fleeing his home while trying to stop his traitorous uncle from going back in time to undo saving his father's life so that he would never have sons, so the uncle could assume the throne... is it just me or is this sounding like the Lion King with swords, time-travelling and wall-running? So that's just it: it could have been an excellent film, but instead it was a poorly-executed impersonation of the lion king. With magical swords. D- See me.
Yes, I watched the Prince of Persia film to see what it would be like. I was well aware of the fact that there was a good chance that it would be bad, but I decided to give it a chance, after all, they were given some fairly good material. Unfortunately, the film wasn't really bad so much as it was disappointing. They had an opportunity to make something really great and instead they made something passable. It just wasn't anything special, and I think it really had the potential to be.
Think about it. Had this film incorporated the original source material more appropriately they would have essentially had a Persian zombie movie with time-travel and free-running with the saucy prince and the sexy Maharajah's daughter fighting side-by-side and shooting sarcastic quips at one another. If that isn't a recipe for an awesome film then I don't know what is. Honestly, it was practically served to filmmakers on a silver platter. Unfortunately, they completely removed the zombies (technically 'sand demons' but they are essentially zombies), severely downplayed the time-travelling aspect (they rewound time roughly four times throughout the entire film), and took away the leading lady's bow. Plus they kept spouting lines about destiny roughly every five minutes, even giving the main character (previously a nameless prince) the very unsubtle name Dastan (destin, anyone?). I won't even get into how much they loved to title-drop.
It's true that games aren't particularly renowned for their excellent stories, so it makes sense that they would alter the plot, add some characters here and there, etc. but I would have thought it would be obvious to keep in the sand demons, as that is, apart from being the entire premise of the game's storyline, just undeniably cool. Not to mention it's one of those things that gives you free reign to have the hero waste a lot of baddies without any kind of moral issue: they are monsters, they aren't human, they will eat your face if you don't kill them first and technically they are already dead. Plus they could get away with a lot of impressive violence because they only bleed sand. A sinfully wasted opportunity, people.
One thing I will say I liked is that, although the actor wasn't really right for the part in my opinion, at least the character was still written as being fairly close to the character from the game: arrogant, obsessed with proving himself, convinced that he is always right, and the leading lady was written with the same sarcastic, feisty attitude she had in the game, although for some reason her name was changed to Tamina. What was wrong with the name Farah? She's obviously meant to be the same character, so why change her name? Who knows, or cares? So let's move on.
Overall I think the film would have been okay as a standalone film, supposing the Prince of Persia games didn't exist and this was the first take on the idea, but for a film that claims to be based on the Sands of Time game, I just don't see it. It has the characters (somewhat) and it has the mystical dagger, but that's about it. They changed the story of the prince trying to reach the hourglass to turn back time and undo essentially causing the apocalypse, to the story of the prince being framed for killing his father, then fleeing his home while trying to stop his traitorous uncle from going back in time to undo saving his father's life so that he would never have sons, so the uncle could assume the throne... is it just me or is this sounding like the Lion King with swords, time-travelling and wall-running? So that's just it: it could have been an excellent film, but instead it was a poorly-executed impersonation of the lion king. With magical swords. D- See me.
Thursday 13 May 2010
Everyone Already Did Everything
When thinking of storylines, characters, possible plots for episodes and things of that nature, I'm sometimes frequently constantly met with the road block: it's been done. How many times have you thought of an idea, only to be immediately reminded that 'The Simpsons did it' or 'Friends did it'? Well, it happens to me a lot.
The truth is, anything you can think of has been done, even if we aren't aware of it. Whatever original idea I may have come up with, I can bet that someone, somewhere, in some far corner of the planet, has already thought of it. It doesn't necessarily mean I'm unoriginal, it just means that most everything has already been executed in at least one form of media.
Having come to terms with this fact, I don't let the 'it's been done' roadblock get in my way anymore. So what if an idea has already been done? You can always put a fresh spin on it. Even if that fresh spin has already been done, it will still be different in some way if you let it be. Don't let the fact that your idea isn't as original as you thought it was compromise your creativity.
If all else fails, you can always use an idea that has been used so many times, people would never expect anyone to touch it with a ten-foot pole, and claim that you are using it ironically.
The truth is, anything you can think of has been done, even if we aren't aware of it. Whatever original idea I may have come up with, I can bet that someone, somewhere, in some far corner of the planet, has already thought of it. It doesn't necessarily mean I'm unoriginal, it just means that most everything has already been executed in at least one form of media.
Having come to terms with this fact, I don't let the 'it's been done' roadblock get in my way anymore. So what if an idea has already been done? You can always put a fresh spin on it. Even if that fresh spin has already been done, it will still be different in some way if you let it be. Don't let the fact that your idea isn't as original as you thought it was compromise your creativity.
If all else fails, you can always use an idea that has been used so many times, people would never expect anyone to touch it with a ten-foot pole, and claim that you are using it ironically.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
