I have rarely seen a title as dorky or lame as Cool World. But I thought, it could be a joke. It could be good. But don't let the title fool you, Cool World is really just dorky and lame. And amazingly, impressivly, surprisingly "Random"! Without even the faintest of strings holding the project together, this threadbare movie falls apart like a tee-shirt from Wal-Mart.
The boring introduction credits foreshadow this, but the first scenes don't. The first arc is actually pretty good, even if it's a little dark and sad. But it seems like the movie will have substance. Then you enter the "Cool World" which, if you consider that this movie was made four years after Who Framed Roger Rabbit, looks really flat. But don't do that because you may notice a lot of things which appear to be knocked off of that superior film. The visual effects are bad enough for me to believe that it was done on purpose as some sort of commentary on the ability of Hollywood to make a mimetic movie. But if it is trying to say anything, if it has any purpose, it doesn't come though. It is drowned in its own poor production. Everything in this movie is contrived and feels it. Especially the ending.
The visual style is a as apparently random as the plot; it is a little nice to see so many styles interacting at the same time, but it was not done very well and just feels cluttered. Especially with the random cartoons chasing around in the foreground.
This was Rough Draft Studio's rough draft movie. It has little in common with The Simpson's Movie, Ferngully, or Bevis and Butthead. There may have been something behind this movie, but it doesn't shine though and is lost in the baseless plot devices.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Maus: A Survivor's Tale by Art Spiegelman (1973-1991)
The third "comic book" (/graphic novel/sequential art display) which I have the pleasure of reviewing is as brilliant as the first two. Though in very different ways. The first was a textbook (which is awesome) called Understanding Comics, the next was the fictional Watchmen. Now the bibliographic Maus: A Survivors Tale. About the holocaust. Of all of them, my least favorite is the more traditional, but brilliant, fictional story Watchmen. Which says something about the powers and abilities of the graphic novel medium. It is not just a childish medium.
There is another story going on in Maus that is not talked about as often and that is the story of Art's relationship with his aging father. This story is so intimate and human as to be impossible to ignore, yet it is not discussed like the holocaust is. But it is this layer, as much as anything, that keeps me reading. Vladek is infuriating. But then, so is Art Spiegelman himself at times. Mala is enigmatic. Sometimes, it seems as though she is being an awful person, but most of the time, I believe she is being falsely accused. The author never reveals his stance on Mala and never takes a side.
Biographies and historical or nonfictional stories are interesting because characters are instantly deep and somehow it almost always comes across. And usually better than any fictional story has managed. Even the best fictions don't quite carry the weight that real people, described in a biography, have. It is true here. You will feel like you get to know Vladek and Artie and Françoise and will probably start discussing their psychology. There is no imagination in creating these characters, for they are real.
What is there to say about the holocaust aspect of this book? Maus is a very "Powerful" story because it has to be. And it is very readable because it is. I begin adopting the accents of the characters in the story as I read, which is always fun. This book could be the best one you ever read about the holocaust. On a level with Ann Frank's diary, but also definitely in a different category.
There is another story going on in Maus that is not talked about as often and that is the story of Art's relationship with his aging father. This story is so intimate and human as to be impossible to ignore, yet it is not discussed like the holocaust is. But it is this layer, as much as anything, that keeps me reading. Vladek is infuriating. But then, so is Art Spiegelman himself at times. Mala is enigmatic. Sometimes, it seems as though she is being an awful person, but most of the time, I believe she is being falsely accused. The author never reveals his stance on Mala and never takes a side.
Biographies and historical or nonfictional stories are interesting because characters are instantly deep and somehow it almost always comes across. And usually better than any fictional story has managed. Even the best fictions don't quite carry the weight that real people, described in a biography, have. It is true here. You will feel like you get to know Vladek and Artie and Françoise and will probably start discussing their psychology. There is no imagination in creating these characters, for they are real.
What is there to say about the holocaust aspect of this book? Maus is a very "Powerful" story because it has to be. And it is very readable because it is. I begin adopting the accents of the characters in the story as I read, which is always fun. This book could be the best one you ever read about the holocaust. On a level with Ann Frank's diary, but also definitely in a different category.
Being John Malkovich (1999 movie)
What a fantastically "Strange" movie Being John Malkovich is. Like Escanaba in da Moonlight or Drop Dead Fred but only in the level of fantastic and strange. But, because they are all fantastic and strange (and funny in their own ways) they are all very, very different. I find Being John Malkovich to be topping the level of strange possible to still be a rather good movie, but there are those who find it to have run over and be a bad movie.
One thing to know, going into it, is that the main three characters are all bastards. Straight up, weirdo bastards. Another thing to know is that it quickly departs from reality in physical ways, but not necessarily philosophical ways. The movie operates on several layers: primary plot, background plot, nature of self, aspects of obsession, and more (probably). For me, the most prevalent message is the one on obsession, which is loud throughout. It is what the movie opens and closes with, though the obsession has changed. The posters, however, seem to imply that the talk on the self is more intriguing.
Either way, the surrealistic sense of humor is my favorite part. It is a little dark, in an insidious way, but it is good if you can laugh at such things.
One thing to know, going into it, is that the main three characters are all bastards. Straight up, weirdo bastards. Another thing to know is that it quickly departs from reality in physical ways, but not necessarily philosophical ways. The movie operates on several layers: primary plot, background plot, nature of self, aspects of obsession, and more (probably). For me, the most prevalent message is the one on obsession, which is loud throughout. It is what the movie opens and closes with, though the obsession has changed. The posters, however, seem to imply that the talk on the self is more intriguing.
Either way, the surrealistic sense of humor is my favorite part. It is a little dark, in an insidious way, but it is good if you can laugh at such things.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Master of Dragons (and the Dragonvarld Trilogy) by Margaret Weis (2007)
Master of Dragons, the final book in the Dragonvarld Trilogy by Margaret Weis, is a whole lot better than The Dragon's Son, the second book. Not that this means anything. The second book was positively wretched. The First book was OK and that is just about what the third is: "OK". Not good, but not really bad. It kept me reading, which is a success; I even enjoyed some of the characters, who managed to make themselves so obnoxious in the middle of the trilogy. But I didn't feel like I gained anything from it. If there was anything sub-textual in the Dragonvarld Trilogy it is a libertarian message on the evils of government and the splendor of anarchy.
It is not a truly memorable book, but it is distinctly fantasy and thusly enjoyable as such things go. The magic which the dragons use is fun, I will admit, and I enjoyed the descriptions of their communication. But the dragon society doesn't make complete sense, and that is where the story would fall apart if it hadn't been sewn together with a very apparent seem. It does not have the intricate weave that great fantasy (and literature in general) exhibits. The best character, the dragon Draconas (what a name!) falters in this final installment, but he is the only rational voice through most of the saga. Which creates a high level of frustration.
The ending is acceptable, though utterly predictable and somewhat disappointing. But what else would happen? Weis pays much more attention to creating games than books.
It is not a truly memorable book, but it is distinctly fantasy and thusly enjoyable as such things go. The magic which the dragons use is fun, I will admit, and I enjoyed the descriptions of their communication. But the dragon society doesn't make complete sense, and that is where the story would fall apart if it hadn't been sewn together with a very apparent seem. It does not have the intricate weave that great fantasy (and literature in general) exhibits. The best character, the dragon Draconas (what a name!) falters in this final installment, but he is the only rational voice through most of the saga. Which creates a high level of frustration.
The ending is acceptable, though utterly predictable and somewhat disappointing. But what else would happen? Weis pays much more attention to creating games than books.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Conan the Barbarian (1982 movie)
Conan the Barbarian is no more nor less than a D&D game filmed. Which is fine, but it still "Reeks of Laziness" to me. Don't expect anything to be adequately explained but do expect Conan to randomly attack various mammals. Overall, the movie makes less than sense and I have to wonder how and why Conan gets to be the good guy besides that the creators hate hippies. Even though it is a "High Adventure Fantasy" (whatever people mean by that), it should have some plot, right? The best stories I know of are Fantasy; is it my favorite genre. I feel that projects such as Conan cheapen it greatly.
This is a movie to watch and make fun of. Incoherent grunting, weird narrator who quits half way though, pathetic attempts and drama and suspense. The movie would be hilarious to parody with a roid monster in the Conan role and introducing more random Hulk Smash moments (of which there are surprisingly few), random pointless flexing, and feats of impossible strength. Essentially making it into what I feared it would be.
This is a movie to watch and make fun of. Incoherent grunting, weird narrator who quits half way though, pathetic attempts and drama and suspense. The movie would be hilarious to parody with a roid monster in the Conan role and introducing more random Hulk Smash moments (of which there are surprisingly few), random pointless flexing, and feats of impossible strength. Essentially making it into what I feared it would be.
Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971 movie, rewatched)
I do rather like Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, but I think it is primarily for the music. It is "Fun", but it is little else and I think I can see why Roald Dahl, the writer of the book (and some of the screenplay, apparently) didn't like this rendition.
It is actually relatively devoid of substance and the morals, which Dahl usually has a few of. What is there is a little watered down. Willie Wonka is sorta a prick (really arrogant) and he doesn't learn that ever. You don't think of it, really, unless you are looking for it and watching critically, which I was. The movie is a dentist's worst nightmare, which the newer one does say something about.
Still, the movie is fun and humorous. Gene Wilder is always entertaining and doesn't disappoint. I will say that this is my preferred version, though I may be biased from childhood.
PS: I have always thought it ironic that this movie, which has more to do with Charlie was called "Willie Wonka" while the newer one, which shows the growth of Willie Wonka is called "Charlie". I suppose it has something to do with marketing tie-ins with the original movie which the newer one didn't indulge in. The book's title is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
It is actually relatively devoid of substance and the morals, which Dahl usually has a few of. What is there is a little watered down. Willie Wonka is sorta a prick (really arrogant) and he doesn't learn that ever. You don't think of it, really, unless you are looking for it and watching critically, which I was. The movie is a dentist's worst nightmare, which the newer one does say something about.
Still, the movie is fun and humorous. Gene Wilder is always entertaining and doesn't disappoint. I will say that this is my preferred version, though I may be biased from childhood.
PS: I have always thought it ironic that this movie, which has more to do with Charlie was called "Willie Wonka" while the newer one, which shows the growth of Willie Wonka is called "Charlie". I suppose it has something to do with marketing tie-ins with the original movie which the newer one didn't indulge in. The book's title is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Monday, August 9, 2010
Doubt (2008 movie)
Doubt is "A Movie with Layers". One is an entertainment story, a mystery, what is happening in the Church and is it appropriate. It is also a character study, a contest between egos and a question as to how far someone will go, even if they are guided only by intuition. It is also a fable. And, of course, it is also an allegory of the re-arrangement and liberalization of the Catholic Church after the Vatican II council of 1962.
All at the same time. It is well done enough to foster great amounts of discussion on all three fronts. And it will. Watch Doubt with at least three people and watch it carefully for it is one of the most intelligent movies I have seen in a very long time.
To know more about it, it must be watched. I wont ruin it here.
But it is also very intriguing that it is dedicated to "Sister James"...
Analysis (Ok, I can ruin a bit here):
The Priest, Father Brendan Flynn, represents liberal change and as such is stuck with liberal stereotypes: lenient, potential child molester. Sister Aloysius Beauvier represents consistency (stagnation) and is suck with conservative stereotypes: strict disciplinarian without a sense of humor and overly confident. She pursues a course to remove Flynn from her school and church because she does, despite appearances, care for her students a great deal. And she cares for the greater good.
She's just really closed minded as to what that could be.
The movie is left open ended on all of its layers besides to say that: doubt is probably a good thing to have sometimes. It opens and closes with that. I hazard no guess as to wether Father Flynn molested anyone. I am also not sure it is such a bad thing in the case that the movie presents. I also will hazard no guess as to wether the film makes have a bias toward church structure. Are they in favor of a liberal church or not? The only allegorical resolution they offer is to say that, well, it does happen. The movie was created with the benefit of hindsight. Is it good? Well... I think so, but I'm a liberal, hippy, tree-hugging and dirt worshiping wacko who's studied enough psychology to know that everyone from insects to humans learn better though positive re-enforcement, not punishment.
All at the same time. It is well done enough to foster great amounts of discussion on all three fronts. And it will. Watch Doubt with at least three people and watch it carefully for it is one of the most intelligent movies I have seen in a very long time.
To know more about it, it must be watched. I wont ruin it here.
But it is also very intriguing that it is dedicated to "Sister James"...
Analysis (Ok, I can ruin a bit here):
The Priest, Father Brendan Flynn, represents liberal change and as such is stuck with liberal stereotypes: lenient, potential child molester. Sister Aloysius Beauvier represents consistency (stagnation) and is suck with conservative stereotypes: strict disciplinarian without a sense of humor and overly confident. She pursues a course to remove Flynn from her school and church because she does, despite appearances, care for her students a great deal. And she cares for the greater good.
She's just really closed minded as to what that could be.
The movie is left open ended on all of its layers besides to say that: doubt is probably a good thing to have sometimes. It opens and closes with that. I hazard no guess as to wether Father Flynn molested anyone. I am also not sure it is such a bad thing in the case that the movie presents. I also will hazard no guess as to wether the film makes have a bias toward church structure. Are they in favor of a liberal church or not? The only allegorical resolution they offer is to say that, well, it does happen. The movie was created with the benefit of hindsight. Is it good? Well... I think so, but I'm a liberal, hippy, tree-hugging and dirt worshiping wacko who's studied enough psychology to know that everyone from insects to humans learn better though positive re-enforcement, not punishment.
Toy Story 3 (2010 movie)
The first trilogy create by the lauded Pixar: Toy Story. The third installment is a welcome addition, a logical conclusion, and "A Very Good Finale". It fits into the cannon and in no way is unbecoming. Even if that means there are aspects that are rather heart wrenching.
Toy Story 3 actually gives me hope for Pixar. Before this, I didn't think they (or Disney) had the heart to deal with difficult subject matter. To have dark moments. But Toy Story 3 has more material for older audiences than it does for younger ones.
That being said, we laughed at the movie as "the worst thing to happen in Suburbia". Andy and Woody dealing with separation issues even though the true split happened a good five to ten years ago. In some ways, it is the same subject of the first movie.
The gloss on top of the substance of the movie is undeniable. Pixar is as good as Disney every was at polishing production values to a glint. Everything runs so smoothly. Measuring Tom Hanks, Tim Allen and co against other voice acting roles I have heard lately, though, finds them lacking. There is nothing particularly wrong, but they are not as wondrous as Philip Seymour Hoffman as Max Jerry Horovitz (Mary and Max) shames them, as does the remarkably funny Steve Carrell as Gru (Despicable Me).
Comparing this movie to Dreamworks recent master piece, How to Train Your Dragon, is fun. I love both movie. Toy Story 3 is a little more moving, dramatically, but both movies have substance. How to Train Your Dragon is funnier, but Toy Story 3, by virtue of being a well-crafted trilogy, has characters with twice the depth.
The ending was exactly what it should be. I certainly hope they don't make another full-length movie: that'll be milking it. Having a short before Cars 2 could be a nice epilogue, and they might be able to make a few, but more than that will be milking a great thing. I hope Disney doesn't overkill this wonderful story.
Toy Story 3 actually gives me hope for Pixar. Before this, I didn't think they (or Disney) had the heart to deal with difficult subject matter. To have dark moments. But Toy Story 3 has more material for older audiences than it does for younger ones.
That being said, we laughed at the movie as "the worst thing to happen in Suburbia". Andy and Woody dealing with separation issues even though the true split happened a good five to ten years ago. In some ways, it is the same subject of the first movie.
The gloss on top of the substance of the movie is undeniable. Pixar is as good as Disney every was at polishing production values to a glint. Everything runs so smoothly. Measuring Tom Hanks, Tim Allen and co against other voice acting roles I have heard lately, though, finds them lacking. There is nothing particularly wrong, but they are not as wondrous as Philip Seymour Hoffman as Max Jerry Horovitz (Mary and Max) shames them, as does the remarkably funny Steve Carrell as Gru (Despicable Me).
Comparing this movie to Dreamworks recent master piece, How to Train Your Dragon, is fun. I love both movie. Toy Story 3 is a little more moving, dramatically, but both movies have substance. How to Train Your Dragon is funnier, but Toy Story 3, by virtue of being a well-crafted trilogy, has characters with twice the depth.
The ending was exactly what it should be. I certainly hope they don't make another full-length movie: that'll be milking it. Having a short before Cars 2 could be a nice epilogue, and they might be able to make a few, but more than that will be milking a great thing. I hope Disney doesn't overkill this wonderful story.
Friday, August 6, 2010
The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap (2005 Game Boy Advance Game)
As is the problem for me with most Zelda games, the most annoying thing about The Minish Cap is that nearly every puzzle is based on what you are allowed to do at that moment. Need to blow something up? Well, you're bombs fall though the floor here, so figure something out. Ohh look! There's something across a chasm! Jump over and get it? No. Can't jump here, for whatever reason. Can hop off the edge, yes, but I am not allowed to jump. The things that you can get around and over and the things you can't as a miniscule person are sometimes fascinating!
It frustrated the piss out of me. I think I just must come to terms: there are not good fantasy games in the video game industry. They abound as books, are up and coming as movies, are utterly ignored in video games.
Except Zelda. Which is a poor offering. And has been since the days of the Super Nintendo in the mid '90s. Back then, Final Fantasy (which is far better fantasy, but I don't like the turn-based thing. It ruins the mood) came up with the idea that you can push the meandering, horbgorbling ("to wander around aimlessly") populous if they get in your way. It was a great idea that kept you from getting trapped in corners or waiting for someone to eventually stumble out of your way that has been abandoned in the last decade.
Your hat talks way, way, way too much. And ruins the puzzles. Moving around is slow. And boring. There are games which may have been fun (such as trading figurines) if you didn't have to repeat the same numbing combination of movements over and over and over. There's too much switching out weapons and repeating stupid puzzles. Block puzzles are based on your ability to push some stones, but not others. The division between pushable and non-pushable blocks is inexplicable.
My least favorite part of this game, however, was the programmers favorite trick: the duplicating. It's just annoying. Cute and clever at first, but it quickly (very quickly) gets "Annoying. And Frustrating".
It frustrated the piss out of me. I think I just must come to terms: there are not good fantasy games in the video game industry. They abound as books, are up and coming as movies, are utterly ignored in video games.
Except Zelda. Which is a poor offering. And has been since the days of the Super Nintendo in the mid '90s. Back then, Final Fantasy (which is far better fantasy, but I don't like the turn-based thing. It ruins the mood) came up with the idea that you can push the meandering, horbgorbling ("to wander around aimlessly") populous if they get in your way. It was a great idea that kept you from getting trapped in corners or waiting for someone to eventually stumble out of your way that has been abandoned in the last decade.
Your hat talks way, way, way too much. And ruins the puzzles. Moving around is slow. And boring. There are games which may have been fun (such as trading figurines) if you didn't have to repeat the same numbing combination of movements over and over and over. There's too much switching out weapons and repeating stupid puzzles. Block puzzles are based on your ability to push some stones, but not others. The division between pushable and non-pushable blocks is inexplicable.
My least favorite part of this game, however, was the programmers favorite trick: the duplicating. It's just annoying. Cute and clever at first, but it quickly (very quickly) gets "Annoying. And Frustrating".
Mary & Max (2009 movie)
Mary and Max is in so many ways brilliant. The movie is mostly narrated, in a drab english accent, with occasional dialog breaking it up. To get a good idea of the story-telling style, take a look at the visual style:
That pretty well sums it up. Particularly if you know what "Aspies" stands for.
It stands for "Asperger's Syndrome". A 'mild form of Autism'.
This movie speaks more intelligently about "mental disorders" than most psychology classes. The film makes understand that they aren't really "disorders". Many people who "suffer" from them don't mind that suffering. I, myself, can relate. I am an ADHD; but I don't feel that the last D should stand for "disorder". It can be quite a beneficial mental pattern if you want it to be. It doesn't have to be a problem if you don't let it. If you don't make excuses.
If you don't think of it as an "it". It isn't a disease like a virus or bacteria, where there is an actual bug. It is simply a pattern. ADD, Asperger's, 'Normal', they are all just patterns which are shared, more or less, by a few people.
Now that the rant is out of the way:
The movie has some very clever jokes and a good sense of humor among the darkness and intentional drabness of the style. It is not an uplifting movie, really, but it is very, very good and very, "very valuable".
It stands for "Asperger's Syndrome". A 'mild form of Autism'.
This movie speaks more intelligently about "mental disorders" than most psychology classes. The film makes understand that they aren't really "disorders". Many people who "suffer" from them don't mind that suffering. I, myself, can relate. I am an ADHD; but I don't feel that the last D should stand for "disorder". It can be quite a beneficial mental pattern if you want it to be. It doesn't have to be a problem if you don't let it. If you don't make excuses.
If you don't think of it as an "it". It isn't a disease like a virus or bacteria, where there is an actual bug. It is simply a pattern. ADD, Asperger's, 'Normal', they are all just patterns which are shared, more or less, by a few people.
Now that the rant is out of the way:
The movie has some very clever jokes and a good sense of humor among the darkness and intentional drabness of the style. It is not an uplifting movie, really, but it is very, very good and very, "very valuable".
Black, White and Jewish by Rebecca Walker (2000)
Black, White and Jewish is an autobiography of Rebecca Walker. A girl who grew up with a significant amount of confusion as to her role in society, which is what the book is about.
It is a very dense book. I finished most of it in two days only because I spent ten hours on a bus in two days. Otherwise, I would still be reading it. It did not make me want to read more than about ten pages at a time because it was dry and a little depressing and really heavy. "Stark". That is not to say that it is a bad book: it is not. It is a rather enlightening book. Not only about racial bullshit that exists in all areas, stratas, and cliques of society, but about parenting.
Suggestion: don't force your children to move back and forth across the country and never make significant ties in their childhood because you aren't mature enough to deal with your ex beyond "sharing" custody.
Suggestion two: do not assume that your children don't know what they are experiencing. Talk to them as equals and dispense your wisdom and advice; you can do both at once.
Suggestion three: do not assume that your child can figure out the world with out your support, guidance, wisdom, and attention. They can get themselves in a heap-o-trouble.
Rebecca was fortunate enough to escape her troubles, but she is clear enough that she easily mightn't have. She is also very clear on all the troubles that she did have growing up.
I would have appreciated hearing about some of the good things in her life. The things that went well. But they are few and far between and colored rather darkly. Negativity can only get one so far. People learn great lessons from good things as well.
Still, I'm glad I read it. But I'm more glad that I am done.
It is a very dense book. I finished most of it in two days only because I spent ten hours on a bus in two days. Otherwise, I would still be reading it. It did not make me want to read more than about ten pages at a time because it was dry and a little depressing and really heavy. "Stark". That is not to say that it is a bad book: it is not. It is a rather enlightening book. Not only about racial bullshit that exists in all areas, stratas, and cliques of society, but about parenting.
Suggestion: don't force your children to move back and forth across the country and never make significant ties in their childhood because you aren't mature enough to deal with your ex beyond "sharing" custody.
Suggestion two: do not assume that your children don't know what they are experiencing. Talk to them as equals and dispense your wisdom and advice; you can do both at once.
Suggestion three: do not assume that your child can figure out the world with out your support, guidance, wisdom, and attention. They can get themselves in a heap-o-trouble.
Rebecca was fortunate enough to escape her troubles, but she is clear enough that she easily mightn't have. She is also very clear on all the troubles that she did have growing up.
I would have appreciated hearing about some of the good things in her life. The things that went well. But they are few and far between and colored rather darkly. Negativity can only get one so far. People learn great lessons from good things as well.
Still, I'm glad I read it. But I'm more glad that I am done.
Sleepless in Seattle (1993 movie, rewatched)
Sleepless in Seattle is a funny movie, like most movies Nora Ephron has made. There are many little scenes which make the movie worth watching for their simple comedy. The plot, also, is 'comical', but not in the good way. The overall plot is not the main attraction. It's just kinda there to tie all the humorous scenes together. Still, one thing I can say in favor of the plot is that it is a fairly radical departure from the general 'chick-flick formula'. For that I am grateful.
But it is really odd-ball. "Quirky", is a good word I suppose.
But it is really odd-ball. "Quirky", is a good word I suppose.
Next by Michael Crichton
When I was in elementary school, Michael Crichton was my favorite author. In 6th grade, I read Congo in 13 days to keep up with the time in the book. I loved Sphere and Jurassic Park, of course, and was outraged when Arby Benton, my favorite character, was cut from the movie of The Lost World. But the last book of his I read was Timeline. I liked it, actually it's one of my favorites now, but I stopped reading his work so often.
And now I picked up Next. It has the same scientific basis, but it is far less thrilling than his old science-fiction stories. But it wasn't meant to be. It isn't really much of a "science fiction" in that much of what it discusses is not only possible, but has been done (some of it is still science fiction). And it wasn't trying to be thrilling so much as... "Provoking". This book gets a little depressing because I could see a lot of the events and things happening in this book happening in reality. Some of it wouldn't be so horrible, but some of it, like considering the cells in someone's body the property of a corporation, would be awful. But it's not all that different from the separation of land and mineral rights which has happened, to the detriment of all, in the real world.
The book gets off to a really slow start. There are too many characters, too many worthless sub-plots that go nowhere and are dropped, too many interruptions by fictitionilized news stories and excerpts. It is interesting, and a style worth considering, but it doesn't make the book very enjoyable to read. Once it gets going, it is gripping. Just don't give up by page 50 or 60 (or 70) because it hasn't gotten going yet.
And now I picked up Next. It has the same scientific basis, but it is far less thrilling than his old science-fiction stories. But it wasn't meant to be. It isn't really much of a "science fiction" in that much of what it discusses is not only possible, but has been done (some of it is still science fiction). And it wasn't trying to be thrilling so much as... "Provoking". This book gets a little depressing because I could see a lot of the events and things happening in this book happening in reality. Some of it wouldn't be so horrible, but some of it, like considering the cells in someone's body the property of a corporation, would be awful. But it's not all that different from the separation of land and mineral rights which has happened, to the detriment of all, in the real world.
The book gets off to a really slow start. There are too many characters, too many worthless sub-plots that go nowhere and are dropped, too many interruptions by fictitionilized news stories and excerpts. It is interesting, and a style worth considering, but it doesn't make the book very enjoyable to read. Once it gets going, it is gripping. Just don't give up by page 50 or 60 (or 70) because it hasn't gotten going yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)