"There are more books about books then about any other subject; we do nothing but write glosses on one another" is a quote used in the essay about essays, and I find this funny as hell. Overall I thought the work was taking things too seriously. I don't like the attempt to define the essay, I feel like they're trying to box me in.
Yes, he does in fact cover the formlessness of the essay, and how the essay has remained independent from other forms of literature by rejecting their rules, but he's still trying to define it and put the essay in a box. At least that's how I feel.
I did, however, like how he talked about how the knowledge and truth in the essay were very personal things. How the thruth arrived at by the essayist is His/Her truth and no one elses. to me the essay is a very personal thing and shouldn't try to pander to what people like (though I have a problem doing that, i like to make people laugh.)
Really I just didn't get how an Essay about the formlessness and chaos that is the essay could be so stuffy and dry and boring.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Brevity
I almost feel that if you manage to write a thousand page novel it will be published just because of the effort involved. Therefor the shorter the work, the harder is must be to get published. The pieces of read from the brevity magazine seem to suppord this. Each one seems to accomplish a lot in the page or so of writing. since I perfer writing very short pieces, these authors are my compition, and that scares me.
The piece that most stood out to me is icky papy died because of the way it just leaves you hanging. You spend the entire time wanting to hear more about this scumbag of a relative but the Author doesn't ever tell you, but still in the end you feel satisfied by the piece because you feel like some big issues have been resolved. Lots of big issues were tackled by the author, I liked it a lot.
I also Liked A Bear in Telaviv though I'm still not sure whether it was an actual bear or a chow. I liked how it communicated the idea that only the unusual is frightening.
The piece that most stood out to me is icky papy died because of the way it just leaves you hanging. You spend the entire time wanting to hear more about this scumbag of a relative but the Author doesn't ever tell you, but still in the end you feel satisfied by the piece because you feel like some big issues have been resolved. Lots of big issues were tackled by the author, I liked it a lot.
I also Liked A Bear in Telaviv though I'm still not sure whether it was an actual bear or a chow. I liked how it communicated the idea that only the unusual is frightening.
The orchid Thief
If ever there was a main character I could relate to, Laroche is it. I find it interesting that the nonfiction piece focuses the readers attention mainly on someone other than the narrator, but it seems to work in this. The narrator is more of a side character in the story, and I am ok with that because frankly I find the narrator uninteresting and dull. Laroche is where interesting things go on.
But then again, Laroche is almost a side character as well. Frequently whole chapters will go by with nary a mention of him or his adventures. So really this almost seems like a documentary focused on Orchids, Florida, and the wierd people that have anything to do with the other two subjects.
I didn't really like the long long interludes about the history of orchids, the history or florida, and all the other things the author talked about. My main interest was definately Laroche, I wanted to hear more about him and every time the author left me hanging to talk about Florida Property Scams I felt betrayed.
But at the same time I found some of them very interesting. The interlude about Orchid Hunters Throughout history was riviting and sidesplitting for me. I loved hearing about those badass flower pickers.
As I said, I found the Author boring as a character, but maybe that's what she wanted, so I can forgive her for that. What I can't forgive is her spending years researching orchids and looking forward to seeing a ghost orchid then just giving up. I found the ending very dissapointing for that reason.
But then again, Laroche is almost a side character as well. Frequently whole chapters will go by with nary a mention of him or his adventures. So really this almost seems like a documentary focused on Orchids, Florida, and the wierd people that have anything to do with the other two subjects.
I didn't really like the long long interludes about the history of orchids, the history or florida, and all the other things the author talked about. My main interest was definately Laroche, I wanted to hear more about him and every time the author left me hanging to talk about Florida Property Scams I felt betrayed.
But at the same time I found some of them very interesting. The interlude about Orchid Hunters Throughout history was riviting and sidesplitting for me. I loved hearing about those badass flower pickers.
As I said, I found the Author boring as a character, but maybe that's what she wanted, so I can forgive her for that. What I can't forgive is her spending years researching orchids and looking forward to seeing a ghost orchid then just giving up. I found the ending very dissapointing for that reason.
Thin Blue Line
This movie reminds me why I don't watch the news. I can't afford to be this angry that often, because I'd end up having a brain anurism or something. I suppose ignoring the news because it makes you too angry is a bad thing, closing your eyes to injustice and all that, but I just can't stand listing and watching while people act so god damned stupid. Then at the end when it turns out that the innocent man is still in prison despite the tape recording of the guilty man confessing...I almost kicked in the television.
As for the technique used in the film. I found it to be only so-so. Maybe I've just grown accustomed to this style, but it seems like a copy of most documentaries regarding court cases or mysteries. Perhaps the one's I've seen are copies of this one though. I don't know.
One thing I did like what the lack of the narrator/anouncer figure. There was no one asking questions, just people answering the questions the viewer is asking themself. I think it would be really hard to do a film like this without having someone to voiceover and fill in the blanks. I hate it when they have a deep voiced person in the back ground talking about whats going on like it's a movie.
The ambiguity of who actually commited the crime is pretty interesting, though by about half way through the movie the viewer pretty much knows who the real culprit is. If, in the end, it had really turned out to be the man in the white shirt despite everything, i think that would have been interesting, but we have to deal with the facts in works of nonfiction, so overall I think they did a fantastic job of keeping my interest.
As for the technique used in the film. I found it to be only so-so. Maybe I've just grown accustomed to this style, but it seems like a copy of most documentaries regarding court cases or mysteries. Perhaps the one's I've seen are copies of this one though. I don't know.
One thing I did like what the lack of the narrator/anouncer figure. There was no one asking questions, just people answering the questions the viewer is asking themself. I think it would be really hard to do a film like this without having someone to voiceover and fill in the blanks. I hate it when they have a deep voiced person in the back ground talking about whats going on like it's a movie.
The ambiguity of who actually commited the crime is pretty interesting, though by about half way through the movie the viewer pretty much knows who the real culprit is. If, in the end, it had really turned out to be the man in the white shirt despite everything, i think that would have been interesting, but we have to deal with the facts in works of nonfiction, so overall I think they did a fantastic job of keeping my interest.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)