Tweet
So I'm back from the cinema again. A friend and I originally intended to see Dorian Gray (despite the fact that The Picture of Dorian Gray is my favourite book and it shall no doubt have been utterly butchered in its translation to the big screen) but it wasn't on at either of the Cineworlds in the West End so we went to see Final Destination 3D instead.
Now, for those unfamiliar with the franchise, each film essentially begins with a big disaster sequence, which is in fact a premonition had by one of the characters. Their subsequent freak out leads several people who should have expired in said disaster to avoid their impending doom, although Death then stalks throughout the rest of the plot, offing them in the order they should have died in increasingly implausible and ridiculous ways. Its fundamental message is that you just can't cheat Death...though one would wonder why on earth one of them would have the premonition, and then the subsequent visions which hold clues to how each of the survivors will die, if they were just going to die anyway. Does the Grim Reaper get a bit bored with his/her endlessly mundane task, and seek ways to spice things up a bit? I'm surprised - humans can usually think of enough inventive and creative ways to kill each other, without Death having to step in and start squashing people with plate glass or garotting them with a shower cord.
Anyway. The film wasn't entirely bad, even if it was entirely formulaic, but it did feel a tad too much like an extended health & safety video. The moral of the story is...always store your tools safely, don't leave containers of flammable liquid open and near anything which could cause them to topple, look both ways before you cross the street, and basically watch what you're doing. There. Now you don't need to see it, and I've probably ruined business for all of those godawful companies that get you compensation when you've done something idiotic at work.
Saturday, 12 September 2009
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
Becoming A Writer
Tweet
I finally finished reading Dorothea Brande's seminal text on creative writing last night. Becoming A Writer was first published in the 1930s, yet the wisdom contained within is still just as relevant today. Most writing texts concern themselves with the mechanics of writing - grammar, character, dialogue, setting etc. While these elements are clearly important, being able to implement them can only occur in the first place if you've managed to establish a set routine, and flicked that switch in your brain that allows you to write whenever, wherever. Essentially, this book is intended to help flick that switch. Brande is more concerned with the personality problems of the fledgling writer than the technical errors and it is these which she seeks to help the writer to overcome.
The language is a little old-fashioned and her insistence that the author is always referred to as 'he' is a tad annoying but considering the age of the text, it's still an immensely readable, useful book that prompts the writer into doing exactly what they do best - write.
The language is a little old-fashioned and her insistence that the author is always referred to as 'he' is a tad annoying but considering the age of the text, it's still an immensely readable, useful book that prompts the writer into doing exactly what they do best - write.
Labels:
becoming a writer,
book,
creative writing,
dorothea brande,
review,
reviews,
writing
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Fearless
Tweet
I have never been a big fan of spiders. I wouldn't say that I was ever arachnophobic, especially since I can quite happily catch an errant eight-legged visitor to my flat using a glass and a coaster, before depositing them safely outside, but I just don't really like them. So it was with a mixture of dismay and fascination that I met a Chilean Rose spider at an animal handling session at Wingham Wildlife Park in Kent on Monday. The handler started us off with a pair of cute baby lemurs, before progressing to a young raccoon, then a baby alligator, and finally a royal python, before bringing out the finale.

At first, I decided not to handle her (she's called Rosie). However, I remembered that I have a reputation as being fearless to defend, and so thrust my phone at my mother with the instructions to take a photo, before sticking out my hands. I can honestly say it was bizarre, but not a bad experience. She was so light that I could barely feel her sitting on my palm, and the fact that she was furry simply let me look at her as a fuzzy creature instead of a spider.
I don't think I'll ever actually like spiders but now I think I'm a lot less worried by them.

At first, I decided not to handle her (she's called Rosie). However, I remembered that I have a reputation as being fearless to defend, and so thrust my phone at my mother with the instructions to take a photo, before sticking out my hands. I can honestly say it was bizarre, but not a bad experience. She was so light that I could barely feel her sitting on my palm, and the fact that she was furry simply let me look at her as a fuzzy creature instead of a spider.
I don't think I'll ever actually like spiders but now I think I'm a lot less worried by them.
Thursday, 13 August 2009
Inspirational Flashes
Tweet
A single shoe sits in the gutter, sheltering beneath the bumper of a battered VW Polo. The cracked red leather is spotted with splashes of dried mud. A dead spider floats on the stagnant water that pools in the shoe.
Whose shoe is it? Why is it in the gutter? How long has it been there? What happened to the owner, or even the spider?
It's moments like these that remind me why I write.
Whose shoe is it? Why is it in the gutter? How long has it been there? What happened to the owner, or even the spider?
It's moments like these that remind me why I write.
Labels:
creative writing,
inspiration,
writing
Friday, 7 August 2009
In cyberspace, no one can hear you scream
Tweet
Twitter went down for a while yesterday. Apparently, it suffered a "denial-of-service attack". Essentially, too many people were directed to the site at the same time, which stopped those actually wanting to use the site from logging on. I can honestly say that as much as I enjoy using Twitter to pass the time, the very fact that it was offline for a few hours didn't bother me in the slightest. I wish that I had so little on my mind that I could be devastated at the loss of a social networking site. There is even a trending topic on Twitter today, #whentwitterwasdown. I couldn't resist adding my own thoughts - "I simply got on with my life. I just didn't tell anyone about it."
Reading the answers of others, they range from people being unaware that Twitter was down, to people assuming they must have a problem with their Internet, to people simply not caring, to people feeling isolated or lonely that they could no longer connect through the Internet. I can relate to the first and third groups, as there is plenty that can be done that doesn't involve Twitter. Work, for example. One user tweeted that she hadn't realised Twitter was down because she was spending time with friends in the real world. Another tweeted that she spent the time catching up on reading blogs. Someone else started combing Amazon for bargains.
As for the second group, I find it slightly worrying that users place so much faith in the power of a social networking site that they believe that the Internet itself must be having problems, rather than accepting an individual site may be plagued by technical gremlins. It reminds me of the time Google went down, and people began predicting that Google being offline would be the death of the net.
As for the fourth group...I truly hope that those who tweeted about suffering withdrawal symptoms are being sarcastic or facetious. I find it slightly worrying that people have become so addicted to being able to constantly tell people every little thing that pops into their heads. It's like digital Tourettes. Twitettes, perhaps? So you couldn't publicise the minutiae of your life for a couple of hours...big deal! What did you do before Twitter came along? You probably picked up the phone and talked to someone that you actually know, out there in the real world. Yes, I know the world is big, and scary, and often a harsh environment, but it's real. It's concrete. It actually exists. You can have proper relationships with people, and actually enjoy the company of a real human being.
I know some people use Twitter as part of their work and naturally, its absence must have been frustrating, but no more than if you'd had a power cut and couldn't get online in the first place. Technology will always have its ups and downs and you have to learn to roll with the punches. Use the time you'd normally spend on Twitter doing something else. Maybe you'll find a more productive way to do something. Learn to see the world slightly differently, instead of through Twitter-shaped spectacles.
In cyberspace, no one can hear you scream. Unless, of course, you feel compelled to tweet the fact that you're screaming, in which case it's akin to running into a room filled with people and shouting "I am screaming!" before running back out again.
Reading the answers of others, they range from people being unaware that Twitter was down, to people assuming they must have a problem with their Internet, to people simply not caring, to people feeling isolated or lonely that they could no longer connect through the Internet. I can relate to the first and third groups, as there is plenty that can be done that doesn't involve Twitter. Work, for example. One user tweeted that she hadn't realised Twitter was down because she was spending time with friends in the real world. Another tweeted that she spent the time catching up on reading blogs. Someone else started combing Amazon for bargains.
As for the second group, I find it slightly worrying that users place so much faith in the power of a social networking site that they believe that the Internet itself must be having problems, rather than accepting an individual site may be plagued by technical gremlins. It reminds me of the time Google went down, and people began predicting that Google being offline would be the death of the net.
As for the fourth group...I truly hope that those who tweeted about suffering withdrawal symptoms are being sarcastic or facetious. I find it slightly worrying that people have become so addicted to being able to constantly tell people every little thing that pops into their heads. It's like digital Tourettes. Twitettes, perhaps? So you couldn't publicise the minutiae of your life for a couple of hours...big deal! What did you do before Twitter came along? You probably picked up the phone and talked to someone that you actually know, out there in the real world. Yes, I know the world is big, and scary, and often a harsh environment, but it's real. It's concrete. It actually exists. You can have proper relationships with people, and actually enjoy the company of a real human being.
I know some people use Twitter as part of their work and naturally, its absence must have been frustrating, but no more than if you'd had a power cut and couldn't get online in the first place. Technology will always have its ups and downs and you have to learn to roll with the punches. Use the time you'd normally spend on Twitter doing something else. Maybe you'll find a more productive way to do something. Learn to see the world slightly differently, instead of through Twitter-shaped spectacles.
In cyberspace, no one can hear you scream. Unless, of course, you feel compelled to tweet the fact that you're screaming, in which case it's akin to running into a room filled with people and shouting "I am screaming!" before running back out again.
Labels:
social networking,
technology,
twitter
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Public Enemies
Tweet
So I went to see Public Enemies last night. I had high hopes; after all, I've yet to see a Johnny Depp film I didn't enjoy (in my universe, the two Pirates sequels don't exist). Oh, Hollywood, how you continue to let me down. Was it not enough that you buried the Indiana Jones franchise last year? You didn't twist the knife with all the "hilarious" family sequences in Transformers 2?
Kudos to them for the casting of Depp as bank robber John Dillinger. I don't know much about the man in real life, but Depp portrayed him as a charming Robin Hood type, robbing banks but never their customers, ever mindful of his adoring public. Unlike his somewhat violent and thuggish associates, Dillinger would prefer to use the fear engendered by his various machine guns and pistols, as opposed to the bullets they fire.
But exactly what was Michael Mann thinking in casting Christian "I haven't opened my mouth properly to speak since 1999" Bale as Melvin Purvis? I used to simply adore Bale back in his American Psycho days, but since then, he's lost some of his sheen. The fact he seems to play the same character over and over doesn't help, and in this case, it feels like he's reprising his 3:10 to Yuma role, in which he was out-classed and out-acted by Russell Crowe (there's a sentence I never thought I'd find myself typing). In that film, he played the reluctant lawman escorting Crowe to prison, while in this film, he plays a reluctant agent in the fledgling FBI attempting to get Dillinger into prison. In both cases, his co-stars outshone him in every way, portraying their criminal characters as lovable rogues. Bale, on the other hand, portrays his with all the charisma of a mouldy Stilton.
My other two problems were the clunky narrative (please, leave the 'skipping about with little exposition to explain what's going on' to Quentin Tarantino) and the constant shaky cam. It does not make a film feel more realistic - if I were running in real life, my brain would automatically compensate for the fact that the world around me would appear to be jumping about. In a film, this doesn't happen, so instead it simply looks like you dropped a film camera into the monkey enclosure at London Zoo and asked them to tape something.
And it's so long. My right knee actually seized solid with the herculean effort of sitting still for all that time. I mightn't have minded if I'd enjoyed it, but all I could think was "Nice to see Depp taking on a proper role, instead of his 'Woohoo, look at me, I'm CRAZY!' casting of late, but pity about everyone else"...
Kudos to them for the casting of Depp as bank robber John Dillinger. I don't know much about the man in real life, but Depp portrayed him as a charming Robin Hood type, robbing banks but never their customers, ever mindful of his adoring public. Unlike his somewhat violent and thuggish associates, Dillinger would prefer to use the fear engendered by his various machine guns and pistols, as opposed to the bullets they fire.
But exactly what was Michael Mann thinking in casting Christian "I haven't opened my mouth properly to speak since 1999" Bale as Melvin Purvis? I used to simply adore Bale back in his American Psycho days, but since then, he's lost some of his sheen. The fact he seems to play the same character over and over doesn't help, and in this case, it feels like he's reprising his 3:10 to Yuma role, in which he was out-classed and out-acted by Russell Crowe (there's a sentence I never thought I'd find myself typing). In that film, he played the reluctant lawman escorting Crowe to prison, while in this film, he plays a reluctant agent in the fledgling FBI attempting to get Dillinger into prison. In both cases, his co-stars outshone him in every way, portraying their criminal characters as lovable rogues. Bale, on the other hand, portrays his with all the charisma of a mouldy Stilton.
My other two problems were the clunky narrative (please, leave the 'skipping about with little exposition to explain what's going on' to Quentin Tarantino) and the constant shaky cam. It does not make a film feel more realistic - if I were running in real life, my brain would automatically compensate for the fact that the world around me would appear to be jumping about. In a film, this doesn't happen, so instead it simply looks like you dropped a film camera into the monkey enclosure at London Zoo and asked them to tape something.
And it's so long. My right knee actually seized solid with the herculean effort of sitting still for all that time. I mightn't have minded if I'd enjoyed it, but all I could think was "Nice to see Depp taking on a proper role, instead of his 'Woohoo, look at me, I'm CRAZY!' casting of late, but pity about everyone else"...
Labels:
christian bale,
films,
johnny depp,
michael mann,
movies,
public enemies,
reviews
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
One Word
Tweet
A couple of months ago, Demi Moore posted a link to a website called One Word. As the title would suggest, you're given one word and sixty seconds to write something. The aim, much like the very good Write Or Die, is to simply get you writing without much thought about what it is that you're writing. After all, that blank page is often the killer for creativity - that blank page can seem like a mountain too high to climb, and the words simply refuse to come.
So today's word was "lazy". Below is my sixty second splurge on the word.
Lazy. Not doing anything. Not able to do anything, not willing? No motivation or just no desire? Or is laziness true happiness? The ability to let that which does not matter truly slide? The ability to put aside the stuff we think we need to do in order to do the things we actually want to do? Is it a shirking of responsibility, or taking control of our own destinies?
So today's word was "lazy". Below is my sixty second splurge on the word.
Lazy. Not doing anything. Not able to do anything, not willing? No motivation or just no desire? Or is laziness true happiness? The ability to let that which does not matter truly slide? The ability to put aside the stuff we think we need to do in order to do the things we actually want to do? Is it a shirking of responsibility, or taking control of our own destinies?
Labels:
creative writing,
links,
one word,
website,
write or die,
writing

