Tony Judt as a late blooming Orwell.
According to Edge.org, Edge.org is the smartest website out there.
Handy dandy tool for finding independent alternatives to Starbucks and the like.
I’m actually pretty excited about the new John Carter movie.
From a business point of view, it seems like an absolutely insane decision to spend a rumored $200 million on it. Is there that much pent up demand for early twentieth century planetary romances?
I’ve been reading a decent bit of Edgar Rice Burroughs lately. Not the Tarzan stories. But his hollow earth stories and his Mars novels – I’m all about those.
So, I read this first book (upon which, presumably, the movie is based) A Princess of Mars and am halfway through its sequel, Gods of Mars.
As noted, they are considered, genre-wise, as planetary romances. Essentially, they are science fiction novels that are a little loosey goosey with the science and big on finding excuses for strapping men and hideous monsters to fight with swords for the honor of scantily clad women. So really, it’s just begging to have a movie based on it.
Just some old articles about the coolest bookstore in the Tampa Bay area.
Last year, Inkwood Books celebrated its twentieth anniversary.
I saw The Gaming Table performed at the Folger Shakespeare Library on Friday. I went into the Restoration comedy (which are usually bawdy, funny works) with high hopes that weren’t disappointed.
The Gaming Table is actually less dirty than other Restoration comedies you might have seen. Perhaps the filthiest remark was a woman talking about needing to examine a ‘worm’ while ‘on her back.’ And if you can’t figure out what the means, you should ask your parents if you’re old enough to be online yet.
When watching an older piece, it’s always interesting to see how the social restrictions of the time are incorporated – the Hayes Code of the early eighteenth century, if you will.
One of the leads was a widow, and while it was dropped in passing and never brought up again, in light of what I just referred to as that period’s ‘Hayes Code,’ it was an important item to drop. Not in terms of the plot, but in terms of keeping a PG-13 rating, so to speak. While very deliberately never explicitly said, one can’t help but feel that the female lead is sexually intimate with some of her admirers. By making her a widow, while the hint it scandalous, a widow will not suffer the same ostracization within society as a never married woman might for her flirtations. No one expects a widow to be a virgin. In fact, because women were actually considered more sexually voracious and libidinous than men, a widow, who, by definition, knows what she’s missing, is almost expected to be lusty. That’s why the lusty widow is such a common comic trope.
Leaving aside my historical observations, the play was funny and very well acted across the fairly large main cast and all the characters were pleasantly three dimensional. Four stars.
Some fine folks put together lists of the Top 25 Best Fantasy Books and then further created lists of standalone fantasy and fantasy series.
I love reading through these kinds of lists and finding books to delve into for the future.
But…
How in the hell is The Lord of the Rings not number one? I understand that these particular lists skew fairly contemporary, but come on! Seriously! This isn’t up for freaking debate. Tolkien is the greatest fantasy writer period. Full stop.
And by the way, numbers 2 and 3 (I’ll leave you to sort out the order) are C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia and Ursula K. LeGuin’s Earthsea novels.
Not cool, guys. Not cool. Too much testosterone. Not enough credit to Tolkien’s elegiac remembrances of a lost, pre-industrial English countryside, Lewis’ devote allegories, nor LeGuin’s gentle feminism.
Peter Hodgson’s Liberal Theology: A Radical Vision was something I felt that I just had to read after seeing a copy in the bookstore at the National
Cathedral. It was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for – a liberal, socially progressive view of christology. And kind of short. That was important, too.
The book is a reminder of just how non-radical a liberal vision of christian theology actually is, once you start to think about it. It only seems radical because of the way it has been hijacked by the right (religion as having been hijacked by the right – such a cliched statement as this point, but it’s just so damn accurate).
Around half way through the book, the author, Peter Hodgson, made a point that very much struck me as what the right is missing: tragedy.
Bear with me here.
Yes, you hear a lot of doom and gloom (especially now, as the economy improves, the right is very focused on a ‘it’s midnight in America’ message) and a lot of talk of sin, declining values, damnation. All that good stuff.
But not about ‘tragedy’ as Miguel de Unamuno wrote about. About tragedy as an essential part of the human condition.
If you’re not a fan of theology, you can replace concepts like ‘original sin’ with ‘the tragic aspect of the human condition.’
By accepting tragedy as something essential in our existence on this too, too solid earth, then you are more aware of human suffering as not just a product of sin, not just as something to be worked through en route to grace, but as something deserving on compassion not just in the hereafter but in the here and now.
And that’s missing from the conservative view.
Hodgson is also, clearly, a HUGE fan of Hegel. Much of his theology seems to derive from readings of Hegel. Almost makes me want to go back and take another crack at reading my old buddy Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (GW to his homies). Almost. ‘Cause he’s really freaking difficult and boring. He makes Kant and Heidegger’s ouevre read the kids’ picture books in dentists’ offices.