BBW

Read a banned book today!

Does it say something about me that I found the "children's" poster most appealing?

I Have Found God

You read right. I am an atheist no more.

My heart has been melted. My mind has thrown up its metaphorical hands in the face of undeniable evidence, and the letter that started it all.

I am on my knees now, bowing and worshipping at the altar of His Noodly Appendage.

Ghosties In Court

Check this out.

"There is no evidence," says the lawsuit, "that there are ghosts or apparitions in the premises or, if there are, that the ghosts or apparitions interfere with the defendants' quiet enjoyment and use of the premises."

A court document recognises that haunting could be real. Man, legalese and a ghost story rolled into one... What's not to love? :D

Enough Is Enough

While reading BBC's 30th anniversary tribute to Fawlty Towers, I came across this sentence:

"...although, initially, critics considered that the second series failed to capture the greatness of the sublime first run, the passing of time has allowed a reassessment which now places all dozen episodes on a plain."

And I'm thinking, not plain, you idiot, that's not a compliment. What you mean to say is plateu.

Saurabh tried to warn me, but I didn't believe him: I am now officially insufferable.

Punnerisms

A doctor made it his regular habit to stop off at a bar for a hazelnut daiquiri on his way home, and the bartender would always have the drink waiting at precisely 5:03 pm.

One afternoon, as the end of the workday approached, the bartender was dismayed to find out he was out of hazelnuts. Thinking quickly, he threw together a daiquiri made with hickory nuts and set it on the bar. The doctor came in at his regular time, took one sip of the drink and exclaimed, "This isn't a hazelnut daiquiri!"

"No," replied the bartender, "It's a hickory daiquiri, doc."

***

It is well known throughout Central Europe that members of William Tell's family were early devotees of league bowling. They had sponsors and everything. According to historians, though, those records have been lost, so nobody knows for whom the Tells bowled.

***

A group of chess enthusiasts checked into a hotel and were standing in the lobby discussing their recent tournament victories. After about an hour, the manager came out of the officeand asked them to disperse. "But why?" They asked.

"Because," he said. "I can't stand chess nuts boasting in an open foyer."

***

There's a nudist colony for communists. Two old men are sitting on the front porch. One turns to the other and says, "I say, old boy, have you read Marx?" And the other says, "Yes...I believe it's these wicker chairs."

Fry or Dale?

I was just listening to Jim Dale's and Stephen Fry's respective versions of Goblet of Fire. Complete novice though I am to audiobooks (this is the first time I've ever listened to one - er, two), I can easily tell that Fry's is the better version.

Fry is at an advantage because he's reading the UK edition of the books - trust me, it does sound very strange when an utterly countrified British voice spouts Americanisms like "I always thought he was a weird kid".

But the major difference between the two is that Stephen Fry reads the book as if he's reading a book, while Jim Dale does it as if it was theatre, acting out all the different voices (most of which sound exactly the same, if you ask me). Not only does this sound very fake, it also forces Dale to put long pauses between the lines of dialogue and the "he said" or "she said" that follows it.

So anyone out there with the inclination and the dough to get the audio books is certainly better off getting the UK version. Well... just my $0.02 worth.

The Art of Peter Max

I spent quite a few sublime hours of my Vegas trip last year looking at amazing art. I was stupid enough to not note down any of the artists' names for future reference, but in my defence, I was too mesmerised (by the art as well as the casino interiors themselves) to think of anything that mundane.


Caesar's Palace (Interior)

9 months on, I only remember one useful motif that can aid me in my search for those lost (to me) artists showcased in Vegas: the Umbrella Man. I remember we were in the Caesar's Palace (one of the casinos) shopping complexes when we came across a gallery showcasing bright, vibrant, spectacular paintings by a guy whose name I did not note down.


Caesar's Palace Forum Shops

A recurring motif in a number of these paintings was the Umbrella Man, a usually headless figure in an old-fashioned hat (hat, but no head, heh), holding an umbrella. In one painting, an Umbrella Man with a head turned away from us watches a woman in a black evening gown dance in the sunshine that comes after a rain, stepping in puddles onthe ground. The man's umbrella is furled up into a stick, and clutched in one hand. This one was my favourite. Beautiful, beautiful work.

I remembered the Umbrella Man today for some reason, and looked for the artist on the internet. His name, it turns out, is Peter Max, and he is considered one of the iconic painters of America.


The Peter Max Gallery in Caesar's Palace Forum Shops

One of the gallery people told me and Saurabh that the painter was a very, very famous American artist (making me feel quite stupid), and very sweetly took the time to show us a painting in a small display room, even though we obviously didn't look like people who would shell out $50,000 for it. It was an Umbrella Man painting on acrylic that Saurabh particularly liked, one of the headless ones, this time 'facing' a sunset done in brilliant reds and oranges(not the one below). In the display room, the gallery guy turned the lights down, and then slowly up again... and the colours in the painting changed and grew and did amazing things that left our jaws hanging.

Just... wow.


One of the Umbrella Man paintings

Quiz

Darling, it seems that you belong in Gone with the Wind; the proper place for a romantic. You belong in a tumultous world of changes and opportunities, where your independence paves the road for your survival. It is trying being both a cynic and a dreamer, no?


Which Classic Novel do You Belong In?
brought to you by Quizilla

Repeal The Bloody Freedom Of Speech

You just see hate-mail in a whole new light when your significant other gets rubbished along with you.

Wish I just had spam in my comments instead.


(There. That's my profound thought for the day.)

A-whiling a-way some a-time

Tell me something. The word "awhile" is correctly used in this sentence:

"I want to sleep awhile."

but wrongly used in this sentence:

"I want to sleep for awhile."

- right? Because in the second sentence you'd use "a while", which is two separate words.

Dictionary.com says:

Usage Note: Awhile, an adverb, is never preceded by a preposition such as for, but the two-word form a while may be preceded by a preposition. In writing, each of the following is acceptable: stay awhile; stay for a while; stay a while (but not stay for awhile).

But I've been coming across the second-sentence-type usage more and more often lately, so I'm beginning to think that maybe it's becoming acceptable usage - or perhaps it always was in the US? (It's always been American writers using the word in that way.)

ETA: Mirriam-Webster Online says:

Usage: Although considered a solecism by many commentators, awhile, like several other adverbs of time and place, is often used as the object of a preposition .

Oh, crap. I still think "for awhile" is wrong.

Call me an impossible purist*, but I hate it when this happens. I'm all for the elasticity of the English language, but the line between growth and mutilation is quite thick, thank you very much.

Same bloody thing happened to "enormity", which used to mean "wickedness" but with perpetual misuse has now come to mean "bigness", too - so that often, I can't tell which meaning of the word the author intends.

And nobody else seems to care about this. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one trying to plug all the leaks in the language.

[/rant]

*The other day I was looking for Eminem's "Lose Yourself" on Limewire. I could see a file up there with the highest number of sources (66)... but the file was called "Loose Yourself". I didn't download it. The actual words going through my head were: I don't need that song badly enough to take it from people who can't be bothered to spell it right.

Abstinence Education or Sex Education?

People, abstinence education is a stupid idea that causes harm. Plus, it's really stupid. I mean, the Church thought of it. Surprise, surprise.

Welcome To Earth, circa 2005

Fact of Life No. 1: Teenagers will have sex.
Fact of Life No. 2: STDs exist.

So what are you going to do? Tell them to use protection, or tell them not to do it - and if they do it anyway and get sick, well they deserve it for going against the word of God, don't they!

Bah.

Just Say NO
... in which I discuss the reasons textbooks give teenagers to say no to sex.

Reason No. 1: If a boy wants to have sex with you before marriage, he doesn't respect you.
... which might be true in many cases, mostly among teenagers, but the statement makes no distinctions whatsoever. Do they think teens are dumb? The effectiveness of this reason is nil for any teen who watches TV, because she sees gorgeous, consenting adults having very fulfilling sex all the time with no compromise in mutual respect - something that's actually true in Real Life (TM), except for the gorgeous part, I suppose.

Reason No. 2: You could get pregnant.
Not if you use birth control.

Reason No. 3: Most people regret having sex early, and wish they'd waited.
Look hard at what's left unsaid in the above statement: they wish they'd waited - not waited until marriage; the proportion of girls who regret having sex is far greater than boys because of the disparity of social pressures and expectations, to say nothing of religious ones.

Reason No. 4: Teens who have sex are prone to depression.
Again, it's supposed to be understood that it's mostly girls who are depressed - but the reason for that isn't sex as much as it is society's censure for them having sex.

Reason No. 5: Self control, not birth control! Use your will, not the pill!
Excuse me, these are slogans, not reasons.

Reason No. 6: You could get STDs.
True. You can only ever reduce the chances by using protection, not eliminate them. Good one! Too bad, though, that sex education stresses this message, too, so the net result here is null.

Doesn't the state education system have a legal (moral would be too much to expect) responsibility to at least not be misleading?

Things That Get Screwed Up

(a) If you only tell teens not to have sex - and they do anyway - who's going to give them the knowledge that will protect them from STDs, or even pregnancy?

(b) Reread the reasons teens are given to say no, above. Anything strike you? That's right: abstinence education preaches almost exclusively to girls. Don't believe me? Take a look at some major abstinence education websites, and tell me it's not true. Take a look at Virginity Pledges. The girls' pledge is to never have sex, period; the boys' pledge is to "never push the boundaries of a girl who doesn't want to have sex". Huh. This is not only hypocritical, but also revealing as to the true attitudes of only-abstinence-ists (and the Church) towards women. Women are sinful. Men couldn't possibly be.

Katrina

Ever since Katrina happened, I've been disgusted over the politicking of this major tragedy. Seriously. You're blaming George Bush because he hasn't managed to clear up the whole situation already? What are you, a hyperactive two-year-old who can't wait two minutes for anything?

The saintliest guy with the most superbly advanced crisis-management skills would not be perfectly efficient, because inefficiency is a law of life. This is not to say that the man is, in fact, doing all he can (he took a bloody vacation in the middle of all this!) - but he is no more inept than anybody else who might have been in his shoes, so let's just stop focusing on him and get on with the relief efforts, eh?

But then I came across this today (the original article can be found here), and it stuns me that it is not merely inefficiency at work here... it is inhumanity, too, when it comes to government officials. The irony is, the official govt line is that they're asking everyone who is not involved in aid efforts to leave New Orleans.

There comes a time when ineptitude is criminal... this is not it. This is plain old criminal being criminal.

Quiz

Which HP Mary Sue Are YOU?

Just wasted two hours making the quiz. So take it.

In case you're wondering what my result is:



Dumbledore's daughter and Snape's One Twoo Wuvv

You are hauntingly beautiful in a familiar way, and have a gift for Healing. You're good enough at potions to have Snape intrigued. You have been brought up as an orphan, and have never known love. Your hair shimmers like autumn leaves, even though autumn leaves do not shimmer. Dumbledore himself does not know of your existance, and you will go to Hogwarts seeking your father, but will find love with a greasy git instead.

You will be the cause of Snape's loyalty to the good cause. You will love everyone you see, including Voldemort, which will cause him to spontaneously combust, thus making you the true saviour of the Wizarding World. Then you will decide that you have had enough excitement in life, drop your original intentions and start making multiple Snapey babies.


Which HP Mary Sue Are You? (WITH PICTURES)
brought to you by Quizilla

Spam & Spork

As if it wasn't enough on email, now it's started showing up on my blog comments! I'm turning on word verification. Damn spammers. I think they deserve to have a whole circle of Hell all to themselves.

On a vastly more fun note, anyone read the sporking of J. Fenimore Cooper by Mark Twain?

Excerpt:

There are nineteen rules governing literary art in domain of romantic fiction -- some say twenty-two. In "Deerslayer," Cooper violated eighteen of them. These eighteen require:

1. That a tale shall accomplish something and arrive somewhere. But the "Deerslayer" tale accomplishes nothing and arrives in air.
...
3. They require that the personages in a tale shall be alive, except in the case of corpses, and that always the reader shall be able to tell the corpses from the others. But this detail has often been overlooked in the "Deerslayer" tale.
...
7. They require that when a personage talks like an illustrated, gilt-edged, tree-calf, hand-tooled, seven- dollar Friendship's Offering in the beginning of a paragraph, he shall not talk like a negro minstrel in the end of it. But this rule is flung down and danced upon in the "Deerslayer" tale.

Tell me this guy would not have been completely at home on the internet. Blogging. Ooh, the thought.

HBP Reconsidered

I admit it: I rushed into reviewing the book last month. Caught in the throes of utter fangirl euphoria over new canon, I was of course inclined to be gushy gushy gushy - and I was. Allow me a second chance; this time, hopefully, my review will be an actual review, well-considered and properly analytical.

The Writing

... is superb. For the first time after PoA, JKR's prose is polished until it's shiny, twisted into interesting little shapes and edited until not a word is wasted.

I also think "Spinners End" is one of the best chapters we've had so far (oh, how I wish she'd chucked "The Other Minister" in the bin, where it belongs, and run with this as the first chapter). It's right up there with "The Riddle House" and "Owl Post" (first chapter of PoA) and "The Boy Who Lived".

Boy, Have They Grown!

The best thing about HBP was its handling of the main characters. Harry and Draco and even Ginny truly came of age: how much did you love Harry's interactions with Rufus Scrimgeour? I am astounded by how far he has come - from a kid who was awed speechless by the presence of OMG-the-Minister-for-Magic! - to this, where in the Minister's presence, he stands up for himself, for his beliefs, and for Dumbledore. It was such a neat reversal - Harry is now in a more powerful position than Dumbledore, and his noble streak got a chance to shine when he used that power in defence of Stan Shunpike and Dumbledore himself.

We got to see Dumbledore, too, to our heart's content (even if his behaviour was off-kilter sometimes - just why did he reprimand the Dursleys at that moment? Why did he ask their permission to let Harry return once more? Did he think they'd suddenly throw Harry out after his 6th year? If so, why?)... And even the Wizarding World seems less the shiny toyland it was in Book 1, and more like Alfonso Cuaron's vision of a lived-in, chaotic, almost tattered, very realistic place.

I was less thrilled about Ron and Hermione and the rest. For one thing, they hardly get any "screen time", and when they do, they're not doing any growing - contrary to what JKR thinks. They only figure in the Quidditch and Romance subplots, anyway, so the only new information about Ron and Hermione from this book was a side of their character I didn't know existed - that Hermione would rather try to make Ron jealous to get him to notice her than tell him straight that she likes him (which isn't technically new), and that Ron is capable of greater heights of immaturity than I suspected.

I was very disappointed that we saw so little of Neville and Seamus and Luna and Colin Creevey and all the rest, especially after what seemed like a wonderful start in Harry widening his circle of acquaintance in OotP. In HBP, it shrinks right back to Ron and Hermione... with a little Ginny added in sometimes. It was such a waste of a fine setup.

The Weakest Link

Breaks my heart, it does, to say this.

But this installment is undoubtedly the weakest book in the series so far. The plot holes are just too huge: just what was Voldemort doing the whole year? Why is he squandering one of his two (or three, if you count Snape) Death Eaters by assigning him a menial role in Snape's house? (And if you think he's spying for Voldemort - do you think Wormtail can outwit Snape? Is Voldemort dumb enough to think he can?)

So many of the plot threads that have been introduced in the past were left untouched, to be dealt with in the next book, presumably. Why, oh why, could some questions not have been resolved in this book, if, indeed, Book 6 and Book 7 are like two halves of the same book? Leaving all questions of importance out makes the whole book seem contrived, a mere vessel to allow Harry to go through his sixth year - and kill off the guy with the long grey (er, white) beard.

Where was Dumbledore's Army, at the very least in Harry's thoughts? Flighty though teenagers may be, the DA meant something important to Harry. Speaking of which, Sirius really did pull a whopping disappearing act, didn't he? It's all well and good for Harry to show inner strength and recover easily from not having Sirius around any more... but the fact is, Sirius wasn't around much in the last two books either, but Harry thought about him all the time.

Why was Percy's character never developed past the OotP stage? Why were the twins so... absent from everything? That's hardly like them. Why, if Dumbledore's word is good as gold again, is Dolores Umbridge still in the Ministry? ... And if there are good answers to these questions, why aren't we given them? These were huge, enormous characters and themes in the past books. Why have they simply sunk into obscurity?

The Missing X-factor

JKR's strength used to be her characters, and her plot. How beautifully things come together in PS and CoS and especially PoA! Even Book 4 and 5 have their internal consistency when it comes to things that matter. Things happen in those books, things that could not have taken place at any other time, or in any other circumstances. The events led from one to another with a certain inevitability, while simultaneously managing to be surprising in innovative ways.

But the whole of book 6 - all that happened here - could so easily have happened ay any other time, in almost any other book. The HBP subplot, the Draco subplot, Dumbledore's death, the romances, Rufus Scrimgeour - all of these could easily have been woven into OotP. Sure, that would make OotP a lot longer than it already is... but "the book is too long" is no reason to split it into two, especially if what you're saving for the second book has neither thematic unity nor a consistency of plot.

It is a very big deal that we don't know what Voldemort is up to all year. It's also a big deal that we don't know what the Order is up to, either. We know what some members are doing - but do we see the results of any of their actions?

The same questions apply to the Snape issue. What has he been doing? If he is loyal to Dumbledore, what concrete information has he passed on to the Order? If he is loyal to Voldemort, what useful information has Snape given him? Since we don't see any results of Snape's actions, the question of his loyalties becomes almost an arbitrary one. JKR could go either way, and we wouldn't be able to question or confirm the rightness of it based on the information we have now. And that's a bad thing: when a betrayal - or a supposed betrayal - of this magnitude takes place, there has to be a set-up. The outcome of our dilemma has to be surprising, but ultimately inevitable, given what we have been told so far about this character.

Now, I believe that Snape is a good guy, simply because neither his students nor Harry have ever come to any harm (not counting 'psychological abuse', because JKR clearly doesn't see it as such) when he's around. He's also protected Harry and the others many times, saving their lives - after the Shrieking Shack in PoA, and his warning to the Order in OotP about Harry's intentions to go to the Department of Mysteries come to mind.

But the thing is, JKR has forced us to veer away from such logic before: In OotP, why didn't Dumbledore just send a message to Harry through, say, Sirius, to not believe fully in his visions, because they could be planted? In GoF, why didn't Crouch!Moody just turn Harry's quill into a portkey instead of going through the whole Triwizard hoopla?

So the Snape question becomes completely arbitrary - and that's plain bad writing, bad plotting.

It's this missing X-factor, the internal consistency of a complex plot that was JKR's strength, that drags this book down to the position of "least favourite HP book" in my list.

But you know what? JKR has created such a wonderful story, such amazing characters and such an inviting world that she's earned my indulgence. The fangirl in me still celebrates this book, and gushes endlessly about it.



--------------------
Dumbledore's man through and through.

Paris: The Highlights (Part 2)

Eiffel, or The Bloody Daylight Never Ends

The one thing Saurabh and I did agree on, architecturally speaking, was Le Tour Eiffel. (Yes, I'm going to be prissy and use French articles when naming French things.) The tower bursts spectacularly into view when you approach it from Trocadero Metro station. Definitely the high point of the trip.

We'd heard that Le Tour Eiffel by night was dazzling, and we thought: what better place to see it from than the top of Le Arc De Triomphe (which is itself magnificent)? So we huffed and puffed and climbed the interminable staircase up the damned arch, knowing we would have only a few minutes at the top because it was 10:45 pm already and the place closed at 11 pm. We reached the top. There were no lights. Because there was still daylight. Because the sun in Paris sets at 10:30 pm.

Our gala "le Tour Eiffel a la soir" (I just invented all that French) experience was consequently hampered.

But the motto of the Saurabh-Nandini team is never-say-die, and we went back the next night at midnight to Trocadero once more. Le Eiffel was truly dazzling. The more interesting experience that night, however, was a close encounter with a pickpocket, who tried to engage us in friendly conversation, unaware that I had been warned about characters like him by my trusty Lonely Planet guide to Paris, and unaware that I had had my eye on him for a couple of minutes by now and had seen him "bump into" somebody already (I only saw him bumping into someone, not actually picking their pocket... but he did look very suspicious). Not that I had anything to fear - I had no money whatsoever in my purse. I did stand very, very close to Saurabh, though, shielding his wallet pocket (PDA squeamishness be damned, we were in Paris).

The pickpocket went off to chat with someone else soon enough, and Saurabh and I just stood there, taking in le view magnifique, hands clamped securely on valuables.

(To Be Continued... dum dum dum daaaaam!)

Why Florean Fortescue Was Kidnapped

Or, Lord Voldemort Prefers Pistachio And Vanilla

by AgiVega on The Sugar Quill.

Paris: The Highlights (Part 1)

I've been intending to do this for ages, and what better time than a Friday night, when, as usual, I'm sitting here unwilling to work, unable to amuse myself? So here goes.

Vive La France, Or, Veevay Lay Freeoinsz

The first thing the you need to know when visiting France is that you're not visiting France. You're going to "Fraauonsz". Similar calisthenics of the tongue and throat are also required if you wish to say you're visiting Paris. First, shape your entire mouth as if you're about to speak French (Fraauonszay), because it's futile to attempt to say the word with your tongue geared for English. Now say "Pah", then clear your throat as disgustingly as you can, then say "Rhee", and clear your throat again, i.e. pah-hkhxrxhr-rhee-khrx.

Whenever you see a name, a sign, a word in Fraauonsz, try, as far as possible, to pronounce it not the way it's written. This means, of course, that you will essentially be hitting random syllables, and this knowledge will give you a sense of complacent relief: might as well run with anything if you're never going to get it. Before long you'll be saying "sakkre khara" for Sacre Coeur (Kannada in-joke; literally, "sugar spice"), and you'll be having fun. Also, this approach to French pronounciation allows you to feel profound jubilation when, in the throes of cosmic coincidence, you get something right.

Architecture Wars

Which do you prefer, architecturally speaking: Le Basilique Du Sacre Coeur (here are some other views) or the Notre Dame, which looks like this from the side and this from the back, this from the front?

I firmly believe that the answer indicates your basic nature as a human being. Are you the type that likes everything neat and orderly and *together*, or are you a freewheeling, hodgepodge, last-minute sort of person with Bohemian inclinations?

Saurabh and I spent an inordinate amount of time simply having the following conversation:

Me: Notre Dame is so damn interesting. Best building, hands down.
Saurabh: Tchah, Sacre Coeur is so amazing. You're a horrible judge of buildings.
Me: No I'm not.
Saurabh: Yes you are.
Me: No I'm not.
Saurabh: Yes you are. (Ad infinitum)

... to be continued.