Film: District 9

I've tried to watch this film several times, but always been variously interrupted by takeaways arriving, needing to leave as it was not my house, my mother pitching a fit about wanting to watch something easy and so on. So I've seen the documentary-style beginning quite a few times and always thought it was a really interesting idea. I think it's pretty difficult to make alien plots original these days, but this is by far the most outside-of-the-box approach I've seen. For more details on the plot, there's the IMDb page and TV Tropes (which, as always, is far more entertaining).

What I Liked:
As mentioned above, the approach to aliens is truly off-the-wall and unique - if you went into this film knowing absolutely nothing about it, you would not know what the bloody hell was going on for a long time; but not because it's confusing, just because it's like nothing you've ever seen before. That said, the film does an excellent job of using something decidedly not-ordinary to comment on Big Issues that are upsettingly ordinary - none of the metaphorical aspects are too heavy-handed, but very perceptive and clever. Though it's a small thing (and repeatedly lampshaded in the film), I really appreciated the action being set in Johannesburg, rather than your standard New York or London. Also, I've never really been a big fan of mockumentaries, but I really enjoyed the way this was filmed - the documentary elements were used brilliantly towards the beginning of the film, but you don't notice when they start being phased out to make way for more traditional film-making - again, very subtle and very clever.

What I Didn't Like:

I'm not really sure whether I actually considered this a good or bad thing, but the film-makers, clever, introspective and subtle though they were, were certainly not above your standard action movie shoot-'em-up. What I definitely DID object to was watching the main character PEEL HIS OWN FINGERNAILS OFF. That was very much a:

moment.

****

(My laptop is allowing gifs again! I'm sure you're all thrilled.)

Update #2

 Steel Magnolias

So for the first half of this film, I was very much like "...what?" But I had been warned that would happen. It was all big hair, Deep Saaaaath Draaaawls and, shall we say, just a touch right-wing. But you have to stick with these things. The laughs were partly in that kind of I'm-mildly-horrified-by-these-people kind of way, but Shirley Maclaine's character was a superb lovable bitch, and Sally Field is just the Queen of Everything. Also, I love Dolly Parton. There. I said it.

It did get a little bit too schmaltzy at the end, and whilst I saw where Julia Roberts's character was coming from, I still found her frustrating for most of the film. But whatever schmaltziness crept into the end of the film was overruled by Sally Field's "I just want to hit something!" monologue. What. A. Woman. 

***

The Art of Getting By

Yet another mildly disappointing foray into the world of indie cinema. When I saw the trailers for this, I thought it was going to be a touching, charming, The Perks of Being a Wallflower-esque tale of the difficulties of being a teenager who doesn't live in a John Hughes movie. And whilst it did have an interesting leading character, some good background from both of the 'mother' characters, and a nice touch with the years-worth-of-homework-in-three-weeks thing, ultimately my thoughts were:

Because to be honest, through most of the film I was silently screaming at the main character to just get a bloody grip. I mean come on, kid, stop pouting and get over yourself. 

**

One Day

I have to say, this film was better than I remembered it being - the one-liners are very well crafted, and there's just a general air of wittiness to the whole story. The characters are what make this, film and book; the angrily political, Northern, takes-no-shit would-be writer is a character so well put together not even Anne Hathaway's wincingly bad Yorkshire accent can ruin her. The male lead (Jim Sturgess) manages to successfully rattle though roguishly charming, total asswipe, long-suffering husband and normal person with a constant childish adorability - which is character development at it's very best.

What kind of lets the story down is actually the story itself. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, it just doesn't have the pazazz (well how would you spell it?) and originality of the characters. Also - and this is my main issue - the ending Really Pisses Me Off. I don't have a problem with bittersweet endings, but I am not happy to be sat enjoying a pleasant, easy-watching film when suddenly a desperate-to-be-interesting plot twist comes barrelling out of nowhere (literally) and then the film ends, leaving you with this "...what the BLOODY HELL just happened?" feeling. 

***

Writing: How To Deal With Rejection

So a couple of months ago I entered this competition for Young Writers, run by this new publishing company, specifically for young adult readers. I've seen writing competitions here and there pretty often, but this is the only one I've ever entered, basically because I'm usually too young/write for the wrong audience. This competition, however, was for young readers, from young writers, and was in many other ways quite suspiciously perfect. I submitted an old(ish) story, but revamped the first few chapters to try and mature the tone. I read somewhere that they'd only had about 350 entries, and narrowed it down to 20 for the next stage. That's like a 1 in 17 chance (...hopefully...), which I wouldn't fancy in a bet, but for publishing - where odds are more typically in the quadruple-figure area - it's like gold dust. Now I'm not arrogant enough to think I would win, but I did think I had a chance at getting through to the next stage, and that would have been such a brilliant boost.

Yeah, I got rejected.

The frustrating thing is that this is not even new to me. I sent off a load of submissions for my first novel (which was, in retrospect, fairly shite) when I was about fifteen, and amassed twenty-odd rejections. Then I went away and wrote another (less shite, though in fairness still not exactly a masterpiece - the one I submitted for the competition) story, which I sent off to loads of agents. I got another small mountain of rejections, but then an agent asked to see the rest of my manuscript.

Then they didn't email me back for nine months, which I translated as a 'no'. For the record, I am quite certain that the only thing worse than a rejection is being ignored entirely. So I think I've been rejected about forty times, maybe more, and you'd think I'd be used to it by now. And you know, actually, you do start to get used to it - when you're sending off the first wave of submissions the first few 'No thank you's are like physical punches in the gut. Then as they start to pile up, it gets to a point where looking at one of those big A4 envelopes being pushed through the letterbox just gives you this slight twinge of 'Ah, bugger' and then you move on with your day. But it's been well over a year since I got my last rejection, and since this was a bit less of a gamble than I was used to, it didn't feel so much like a punch on the nose as having seven kinds of shit knocked out of my ego.

But after all this time I have learnt how to deal with rejection, and it pretty much goes like this:
1. Buy (and subsequently eat) a tub of Ben and Jerry's
2. Watch The Full Monty (or other feel-good film of your choosing)
3. Feel sorry for yourself (time period subjective, but recommended maximum two hours - otherwise you start pissing others off)
4. Burn a copy of Fifty Shades of Grey (optional)
5. Write a whiney blog post about your first world problems
6. Have a flick through your rejection letters and tell yourself that one day, when your book is topping the bestseller lists, you will send these back to the agents with FUCK YOU written in big, red letters
7. Keep writing

Ultimately, the last one is hardest and most important. But I remember reading somewhere a quote that went along the lines of "The moment you become a writer is when you put the first story on the shelf, and start writing the second." And I think that's really good advice.

At least, I'm sure I'll think that once I've hit step 6.

Uglies series - Scott Westerfeld

Right, so I know I haven't reviewed a book in over a month, and I know I'm supposed to be a Literature student, and I know that's terrible blah blah blah. But I have actually read four books in the intervening time - now alright, so the Uglies series isn't exactly Dostoyevsky (you know, I spelt that right first time. I should definitely get points for that), but I have been working full time, and the resulting self pity eats up my time. Anywho....

Uglies
One of the things I liked the most about this series, but this book in particular, was the character of Tally, who is one of the most convincing teenage heroines I've read in a YA fantasy book. There are three really interesting blogs on Bookish Blather about how Tally is actually much more of a 'feminist' heroine than The Hunger Games' Katniss Everdeen, despite generally kicking less ass. Anyway, the pacing was also really good - it kept you interested without throwing too much at you too fast, and I think the idea (see the TV Tropes or goodreads page for full details) is fascinating, particularly with the current societal attitude towards femininity in relation to beauty, and falsity.

Sorry, that went a bit pretentious. I'm going to have one more moment of snobbery, then get a little perspective - just bear with me. I couldn't point to specific examples of why, but the friendship between Tally and Shay was just missing something. Also, what is it with YA fantasy protagonists and whining?

***/*

Pretties - goodreads
I  found the friendship element better in this book, and I also found the whole trading-in-for-a-new-love-interest thing a lot less irritating than it usually is (in fact, this series plays the love-triangle theme with less oh-for-Christ's-sakes than most of the other YA series which feel the need to chuck one in). I also thought the Cutters were a skilful navigation of a very touchy subject in a fantasy context - similarly to the theme of the series generally.

What I did find slightly annoying was that it seemed to back up on the message of Uglies. I know that's kind of deliberate, I just didn't feel like we'd got very far. Also, the whole Andrew Simpson Smith caveman bit was kind of out-of-left-field (at the time I thought it might become relevant, and therefore less random, as the series went on, but...it didn't).

***

Specials - goodreads
I preferred this to Pretties, I think, because it pulled back some of the excitement from the first book. Of course, apocalyptic storylines will do that. The romantic subplot in this is also much more underplayed, which showed how much better the stories work focusing just on Tally. She also whines less in this book, which was a welcome relief.

I thought the navigation of the Cutters was much less subtle than in Pretties, and the brainwashing thing was starting to get a bit repetitive by now. Again, that was sort of the point, but there was a lot more trekking through the wild, a lot more angst, a lot more internal dialogue that you're reading thinking 'Oh you stupid twerp' etc...

***

Extras - goodreads

This book wreaked of dammit-why-did-I-finish-that-really-successful-series-I-wrote regrets, but for all that was actually not bad - or at least, as good as the second and third books. I appreciated the fact that this wasn't set in Futuristic America, mainly because apparently it's now very weird to set a book of this nature somewhere other than Futuristic America. Again, I thought the idea was great - an interestingly bizarre way to analyse current popular obsessions and phases. I liked the more ensemble cast of characters, rather than the one-man-show of the first three books.

I did, however, find the character of Frizz - who was supposed to be the romantic interest - a massive sap. Eye-rollingly so, all the way through the book - he had no purpose whatsoever other than to make life more difficult for everybody else. I also thought the section of the plot with the Sly Girls was really interesting, and I wished it had been explored more, rather than diving straight back into the end-of-the-world thing.

***

Don't I come off as up myself when I'm talking about books? Even when it's young adult dystopian mush, apparently.

Film: Take This Waltz

I try to be artsy and studenty, I really do. I love independent cinemas - I love their quirkiness, I love that they all seem to have an attached bar, I love their events and I love that I feel like I'm making more of a difference. But every time I watch an indie movie, I always come out feeling like this:

And Take This Waltz was a perfect example of that. I get that it was trying to be subtly overwhelming and an accurate reflection of life and blah blah blah, but I just - very simply - didn't enjoy it. The IMDb page for you - this film doesn't have a TV Tropes page, which - frankly - would have told me all I needed to know...

I mean it wasn't actively bad - I liked the realism edges it had, and I really liked the alcoholic sister-in-law character (Sarah Silverman). But frankly, I would much rather have watched a film about her than the story which actually unfolded.

The main character - whose name I hadn't picked up on until two-thirds of the way through the film, and have since forgotten - was just really, bloody irritating. The plot doesn't work unless you sympathise with her, and frankly I just wanted to give her a slap - at least it would shake some of the sappiness out of her. The guy she has an affair with is equally irritating, not having any definable character outside of mysterious-and-sexy-stranger, whereas I actually liked the husband who got thoroughly shat upon. All the sort of coupley-quirks between the protagonist and her husband might have been supposed to be cute, but personally I just found it weird and uncomfortable - as I think is a pretty normal reaction to being outside of the couple with the quirks. Maybe that was deliberate, but I still didn't like it.

*

Basically, the whole film just frustrated me...I thought the characters were bland, the plot slow and irritating, the ending very much a "...whut?" sequence and...yeah, no. Indie, artsy and clever it may have been, but I didn't get it and I won't be watching it again.

Film: Christopher Nolan's Batman Trilogy

So, Batman is quite a big deal in my house. I've watched a lot of Batman. I'm just gonna leave that there.

Batman adaptations have been camp, cheesy, flat-out ludicrous and strange, but Christopher Nolan took the franchise in a darker, edgier, in some ways I think more loyal direction. Aspects of the comics (of which I am IN NO WAY an expert) are camp as Christmas, certainly, but I can remember being genuinely frightenend by some of the images I saw in them when I was a kid. Anyway, I recently re-watched the first couple of films, in preparation for watching the new release, and thought I'd do a Mega-Post for the trilogy.

Batman Begins - IMDb and TV Tropes
I think I was basically a child the last time I watched this, so it was nice to watch it and actually understand what was happening. I really appreciated the way they took their time with the exposition and back story, rather than having Bruce Wayne become Batman inside ten minutes, so they could get on with the punch-ups and explosions. I also was impressed by the very literal use of actual bats - it was really effective, and gave them opportunities for some truly cracking Batman-descending-through-a-swarm-of-bats shots. I love a good snarky comment, and both Alfred and Lucius Fox are golden for them - in fact, I love everything about those two characters. (Fun fact: the little kid who pops up now and again throughout the film, is actually Joffrey from Game of Thrones, looking astonishingly cute and adorable for such an evil little shit.)

The only thing that kind of annoyed me was the confusing, non-liner narrative at the beginning - which jumped all over the place more than it really needed to. Also, the totally illogical sequence wherein Bruce Wayne refuses to execute a murderer, but in order to avoid it blows up a mansion full of ninjas - a little moronic.

****

The Dark Knight - IMDb and TV Tropes
It's going to be hard to not turn this into a drooly, adoring speech about the Joker, so I'll just say I think that character is one of the most extraordinary, genuinely frightening villains ever created, and the bar has been set very high by previous adaptations - but The Dark Knight still wins. I've got a slightly sick interest in moral dilemmas within stories, but they only work when they're done well - but The Dark Knight takes the whole Sadistic Choice thing to a whole new level. The pacemaking in this film is superb - it's really one-part superhero movie, and four-parts thriller - I've never known another film take you along for the ride the way this does. Also, someone among the collective screenwriters has some sort of doctorate in Epic Lines - the "Some men just want to watch the world burn" anecdote is inspired.

I have now literally spent about twenty minutes trying to think of something I didn't like about this film, but all I've got is Batman's voice. It's a little bit panto.

*****

The Dark Knight Rises - IMDb and TV Tropes
I think I've decided that this film was my least favourite of the three, but I still thought it was excellent. I particularly appreciated that they took their time bringing Batman back - unlike the standard Superhero Sequel, wherein the hero has one Profound Encounter and whips the mask back out in the first five minutes, it takes ages for Bruce Wayne to turn back into Batman. As an extension of that, I was also pleasantly surprised that they went for realism over Hollywoodism in Batman's first fight scene - he doesn't just get beaten, he gets annihilated in a straight punch-up; no explosions or gadgetry, he just gets the crap kicked out of him because he's simply not as good as he used to be. The intricacy of the plot was very clever - much more reminiscent of what made Inception so brilliant; so confusing it's genius.

That said, though Batman's voice has always been annoying, this time it was easily outdone by Bane - it was like Sean Connery in a Darth Vader mask. There were fewer laughs in this film too - I mean, the laughs in The Dark Knight were mainly slightly-horrified, but this film was taking itself too seriously. I also thought the middle section went on for way too long, and was (and I am aware of the irony as I say this) a bit too far-fetched.

****

Film: Inglourious Basterds

Quentin Tarantino really freaks me out. Not his films (necessarily), the guy himself just unnerves me whenever I see him in interviews. I can't really explain it, but this slightly negative association meant that the first Tarantino film I saw - Kill Bill - I thought was utterly shite. Sorry, many many internet people who love it, but I thought it was just boring and much more style over substance. So I was only really watching Inglourious Basterds to say I had, but in the end I actually did enjoy it. IMDb and TV Tropes, for you.

That said, it was still obnoxiously self-indulgent - every single scene was a goodly five or ten minutes longer than it needed to be, and tension-building became a sort of watch-tapping, get-on-with-it. I also am no massive fan of the inevitable Tarantino violence-orgy, though was quite pleased that he'd restrained himself a bit more - there was a surprising amount of quiet, dramatic scenes in comparison to scalping/clubbing-to-death/shoot-'em-up scenes. I also couldn't help a bit of an eye-roll (SPOILER) at the fact the only significant character out of a huge ensemble left standing at the end of the movie is the takes-no-shit American.

That said, I was surprised to find that I liked plenty of other things about the film and its story.  I found it inexplicably brilliant that historical accuracy was entirely abandoned for a magnificent moment of canon subversion - I well and truly Did Not See That Coming. There were a lot of pretty decent one-liners, and I'm not sure if it was the writing of Colonel Landa or Christoph Waltz's portrayal of him that made that character so evilly brilliant, but he was. I was also surprised that at no point during the film was I entirely sure whether the whole thing was being played for laughs, or if it was serious - there's a cleverness in confusing people like that.

***

In short, Inglourious Basterds has made up for the damage done by Kill Bill. (Though I still think Tarantino is creepy).

Film: The Amazing Spider-Man

It's going to be really hard to talk about The Amazing Spider-Man without comparing it to the Sam Raimi trilogy (of which I think 1 is fine, 2 is better and 3 is just one big fat raspberry), but from my perspective, I don't think that's really going to do the new film much harm. Also, for a proper comparison, this blog does a brilliant breakdown that I almost entirely agree with. Superhero movies are, by nature, treading a dangerous line of cliches, and it's usually very easy to pick the best (Avengers Assemble) from the worst (Hulk). For information: IMDb, for hilarious perceptiveness: TV Tropes.

Before I get into the story aspects, I've got to put it out there that Andrew Garfield - due partly to being just an excellent specimen of human being - is twice the Spider-Man Tobey Maguire was. I think Maguire is a good actor, but he just wasn't right for my idea of Spider-Man; too wet, too dopey and without any sex appeal to speak of (and the guy's wearing a spandex body suit).

But, to the point. I really liked the extra element of humour in the new Spider-Man - I never read the comics, but I used to watch the animated TV show as a kid, and Spider-Man's quippy one-liners were sadly lacking in previous efforts.

Now I've tried for a good ten minutes to think of a word other than 'realistic' to describe what I thought of the plot, but I got nothing. When I say it's 'more realistic' than other superhero movies, I'm trying to explain that I thought the characters were more perceptive, Peter Parker was more flawed and the details of character and story were all surprisingly three-dimensional for a story so not-rooted in realism.

I also have to spare a thought for Emma Stone. I've expressed my love for her before, but seriously guys, Emma Stone is wicked. In terms of her character, I (and my eardrums) seriously appreciated that she took the character of Gwen Stacey beyond the Kirsten Dunst school of 'Be Thrown Around And Scream A Lot'. I tell you what though, I'd really like to see a superhero film in which the girl was the superhero, and boy was the stay-at-homer. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single girls-superhero film in which the boys weren't also superheroes - can you? (That's not rhetorical - seriously, can you?)

That said, it wasn't perfect. I didn't like the not-infrequent cases of Protagonist Does Something Profoundly Dense To Move The Plot Along - the scene in which Peter gets bitten by the spider was shouting-at-the-screen levels of idiotic.

There were also some classic superhero/action movie cliches, the most eye-rolling example being the 'Before I Die Speech'. That 'Here Are Lots Of Deep And Heartwarming Moments And Now That I've Said Everything Important In A Not-Very-Subtle Poorly-Voice Please Excuse Me While I Die' which gets very:

****

Middlemarch - George Eliot

Finally, something that actually makes me look like a literature student! Okay to be fair, I only read this because a friend challenged me to read it in less time than him, and my competitive streak can be pretty fierce when aggravated. Five days later (I win), I think it's got to be on my favourites list.

TV Tropes and goodreads both seem to agree with me.

The strength of the characters are what the entire book hinges on, and oh my, what characters. Each and every one is engaging, nuanced and extraordinarily real. It's never just as simple as good guy/bad guy; each individual character has their flaws and their redeeming qualities, and none can be written off as anything even approaching a stereotype.

Stories with lots of criss-crossing narratives can either be brilliant or irritating; brilliant for their cleverness, or irritating for the 'But I don't CARE what's happening to him, go back to her!' Again, George Eliot expertly handles a massive cast of characters and a story in which nothing uber-dramatic ever actually happens, to keep you intrigued almost all the time.

Endings are probably something I shouldn't comment on, since they are - by nature - hugely subjective, but I thought Eliot did such a smooth job of wrapping up all of the mini-stories, it had to be mentioned.

Buuuuut, there is definitely an attitude of 'why use five words when five hundred will work?' And whilst I understand that Eliot was trying to extensively explore character etc etc, she didn't half go off on tangents. You'd just be settling into the groove of the scene, then there'd be an EPIC explanation of how this character felt this way, which has historically been felt in situations such as XYZ, and this is similar in circumstance to how that would feel......and it goes on for about four pages, until when she gets back to the juicy stuff, you've kind of forgotten what was happening.

****

Fifty Shades of Rage

So I thought I'd express my opinion on this book in a method more articulate than the BLIND RAGE I've employed thus far.

Here are your TV Tropes and goodreads pages - incidentally, the average rating on goodreads is cause for deep, deep concern. I TRUSTED YOU PEOPLE.

On the off-chance you're unaware, Fifty Shades of Grey was a Twilight fanfic, in which the author swapped the main characters' names and replaced vampires with sex. Then she got a book deal.

And the thing is, I don't dislike this book (or really, the concept behind this book) with that kind of 'oh, haha, yeah isn't it terrible!' attitude. I hate it with the kind of passion I typically reserve for misogynists, the Daily Mail and the word 'spiritual'.

But right, I'm always telling people off for judging a book without giving it a fair chance, so I got my hands on a free (that's important) Kindle version and gave it a shot. In the section I actually read properly, the obnoxiously drippy protagonist meets a gorgeous but arrogant businessman who - after spending maybe an hour with her - finds out where she works, and shows up supposedly by coincidence. Right, fair enough, we're all a bit guilty of Facebook stalking; some have branched into minor actual stalking, to only a little judgement. Shortly afterwards, she drunk dials him (who hasn't done that?) to tell him to leave her alone (perfectly sensible), at which point he tracks her mobile phone (...creepy), turns up at the bar she's at (crossing the line), takes her home, undresses her and replaces her pukey clothes with expensive alternatives (straight-up scary). The next day he shows her a room in his house full of torture equipment. Repeat: man you met three days ago tracks your location, takes your incapacitated self to his home and strips you, then shows you various and sundry methods of hurting people. The Appropriate Reaction involves running, screaming and a restraining order. But this particular protagonist instead decides to have sex with him. WELL THAT'S LOGICAL. At this point I was so full of rage my hands were shaking, so I kind of twitch-skimmed through the rest of the book - which was essentially increasingly weird (I'm not sure they'd actually qualify as kinky) sex scenes - with the occasional episode of stalking, quasi-abuse and whining. Basically, after about an hour of reading I felt like this:


I could go on about the plagiarism issues, the antifeminism/worryingly unhealthy representation of relationships or disturbing qualities of both protagonists, but those have all been discussed with more control and less blind anger than me at various other internet sources.

And it's not like I want the author to go die; I think it's good that she spent her free time writing and not, like, actually watching porn, and it's great for her that her project got published. What pisses me off is that The Writers Coffee House entirely abandoned their responsibility to literature (not to mention their dignity) by publishing it, it has dragged the reputation of e-books through the dirt, and People In General made it the fastest-selling paperback of all time. Read that again. This is THE FASTEST SELLING PAPERBACK OF ALL TIME. Aside from massacres and poverty, that is without question the most depressing statistic I have ever come across.

Reading the protagonist's train of thought is a bit like how I imagine having your brains fed through a meatgrinder would feel. For instance, did you keep a diary when you were about 13? Do you ever read it back and wonder how you ever reached maturity (or at least learned how to fake it)? Fifty Shades of Grey is like a porny version of that, except published. *mind boggles*

A particularly thorough goodreads reviewer compiled a list of actual quotes from the fastest selling paperback of all time. I swear to you, these are real:

"My mouth goes dry looking at him... he’s so freaking hot."

"He’s my very own Christian Grey flavor popsicle."

"My inner goddess has woken and is paying attention."

"Not taking his eyes off mine, he scrunches my panties in his hand, holds them up to his nose, and inhales deeply."

"He reaches between my legs and pulls on the blue string... what! And... gently pulls my tampon out and tosses it into the nearby toilet."

I mean...

When I was on holiday, everywhere I looked, I saw women by the poolside reading this book and it was really difficult to resist the urge to shout, "I KNOW YOU'RE READING PORN! You should at least have the decency to look ashamed for reading that in public! YOU ARE WHAT IS WRONG WITH READERS EVERYWHERE!"

Now that was an overreaction, but I abide by the sentiment.

So to summarise; porn Twilight becomes bestselling paperback ever, there's no justice in the world and if it wasn't for last night's Olympics opening ceremony I would have lost all faith in humanity.

Done.

Neverwhere - Neil Gaiman

For a geek, I've come into surprisingly minimal contact with Neil Gaiman, and wasn't that compelled by what I knew of - I thought Stardust (book) was weird, Coraline (film or book) has never appealed to me and his Doctor Who episode was deeply disappointing. That said, I thought the idea behind Neverwhere was so interesting that it was worth trying anyway, and it made me finally understand what all the Neil Gaiman fuss is about.

It's been a good couple of weeks since I finished it, so my memories of it are a touch rustier than I would like, though I tried to refresh them with a goodreads and TV Tropes fest.

The kind of imagination that just pulls a load of creativity from nothing is absolute genius, but I have a soft spot for that other kind of imagination; the one that takes completely ordinary and mundane things and elevates them to a level of Awesome. The more boring and everyday the root, the better the result. The entire concept of London Below is basically Neil Gaiman doing this with a London Tube map.

I love me a good twist, and I particularly love a good ooh-there's-a-traitor-but-who-amongst-the-Motley-Group-is-it? I may simply be losing my touch with predicting twists, but I was completely thrown off Twist Number One by a cleverly-executed red herring, and Twist Number Two came so far out of left field, I hadn't even considered it.

I have a soft spot for Mr-Normal-Everyman-accidentally-lands-in-craziness stories; I once watched a documentary where a very astute person said that all the best tales are about an Ordinary person thrown into an Extraordinary situation, or an Extraordinary person dumped somewhere Ordinary. Neverwhere is a perfect example of the former.

But on to the stuff I didn't like... Psychic dreams. *blows raspberry* Neil Gaiman's subtlety is otherwise way beyond this, but there are a lot of teasers in which various characters have a dream that heavily hints at what may happen later on in the book.

This is kind of clutching at straws, but I prefer bad guys who are evil for a reason, rather than just evil because they are evil. That said, there is a new level of bone-chilling-ness about this particular straight-up evil.

****

(Side-note: this is a thoroughly charming review of Neverwhere which I completely agreed with: http://impossibletosay.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/neil-gaimans-neverwhere-the-reality-of-imagination/)

Film: Easy A

American high school movies are like Doctor Who episodes; you watch them because you feel you should, but every now and again, one of them comes along that is so awesome, it makes you realise how painfully average all the others have been. Easy A is one of those high school movies.
For your delectation, here is the IMDb page, and the TV Tropes page.

(Disclaimer: mainly I liked/loved/had a massive girl crush on Emma Stone, but that's not really relevant to the story. Possibly worth bearing in mind though.)

Again, the brilliance of this film lies in the fact that it shamelessly takes the piss out of all the other cheesy high school romances with searing wit. John Hughes, Judy Blume and Mark Twain are all sacrificed on the alter of Funny, and it's the combination of shrewd observation and clever satire that makes this film brilliant.

The main character, Olive Penderghast, aside from having a vampire-romance-novel name, is a perfect example of a Teenage Everygirl. Loads of stories try to achieve this, so that the reader can 'connect' to their protagonist, but painfully few actually succeed. So often the Everygirl is secretly lusted after by all the beautiful men (not a feeling most real-life Teenage Everygirls are probably familiar with), are actually really popular and just don't know it, or are so perfectly Girl-Next-Door-esque that you actually just want to punch her. But Olive genuinely isn't very cool (see the "I've Got A Pocketful of Sunshine" sequence), and we like her all the more because of it.

The actual romance scenes, disappointingly, managed to be every bit as cheesy as the stories the film was taking the piss out of. In particular, any scene with Woodchuck Todd is eye-rollingly predictable. I think it's really hard to have your audience support a romance without making it cringe-inducingly corny, and I was a bit gutted that this film didn't manage it.

****

Initially I wanted to start my film reviews with some burningly intelligent, intense, indie flick that would make you think I was clever. But then I had a bad day, and I thought Easy A would cheer me up. But you know, it definitely worked.

Shades of Grey - Jasper Fforde

First thing's first; if you initially read the post title as Fifty Shades of Grey, then I want you to go sit on the naughty step, and think about what you've done.

I admit, I timed my reading of this book badly; I asked my parents to buy it for my birthday, which led to the horror of my dad Googling it, awkwardly knocking on my bedroom door and asking, "...do you mean the porn one?" So thank you, Fifty Shades of Grey, for that moment.

Anyway, to business. I have linked you up to the goodreads page of JASPER FFORDE'S (fifty-less) Shades of Grey, because it probably provides the most comprehensive summary of the story, and the TV Tropes page, for the lulz. (I promise to never use that phrase again. Even cyberly, I can't pull it off.)

Fforde immediately broke what I had believed to be one of the Cardinal Rules of writing - never, ever start a novel with a long, nonsensical explanation. I didn't have a bloody clue what was going on for the first two chapters, which just threw in phrase after phrase of Stuff I Did Not Understand. This was really annoying, until I realised that the cleverness lies in the fact that - after only a few chapters - you realise that you actually get it now. Nevertheless, it's a risk I don't think unestablished authors should take - if I hadn't known Jasper Fforde by reputation, and had picked Shades of Grey off Waterstone's shelf, I would've read the first paragraph and probably lobbed it straight back.

Fforde's one of those writers who's imagination is so ridiculously abundant, you can spend paragraphs at a time thinking 'that's just showing off'. He goes into minute detail to describe things we don't really care about (i.e. a breakdown of the features in a fictional magazine) for little purpose other than to demonstrate that he has Thought It Through. Having noticed it, I will be heavily predisposed to Think It Through from now on - Shades of Grey was a masterclass in creating a new (or different) world.

I also loved the female protagonist, Jane. Even though at the beginning you should probably hate her, you don't, partly because you're seeing through the eyes of Eddie Russett (who feels anything but hatred for her), but also partly because she's just awesome. Jane is what Katniss Everdeen would have been if she hadn't spent so much time whining.

Finally, for plus points; the sheer wittiness. Granted, I think the ability to make funnies that often is probably God-given as much as it is rehearsed, but dammit I can try.

Buuuut, one of the things that repeatedly pissed me off was every single characters' repeated failure to React Appropriately to the possibility of death. I mean, I've never been in a near-death situation, but I would imagine that my reaction would be stronger than mild annoyance, and my parents' reaction would definitely not be amusement. The tone Fforde takes in these bits is more appropriate to a comedy, but less appropriate to....like, life.

There was a character, Tommo, who I really wasn't sure whether I was supposed to like or not. Now, don't get me wrong, I love characters who aren't really on anyone's side - they're usually funny, interesting, unpredictable, and the most three-dimensional. However, I think this only really works well when you like the character, and I never really decided whether I liked Tommo or not.

 ****

Also, the ending. From a reader's perspective, it seriously pissed me off, but from a writer's perspective I thought it was brilliant. Funny that, isn't it? But generally, it was like Fforde managed to find a balance between George Orwell and Douglas Adams, which - let's be honest - is kind of genius in itself.

The Plan

"In the beginning The Blog was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move." - only slightly modified Douglas Adams

I'm an aspiring writer. Sorry.

I know that the blogs of aspiring writers are ten a penny on this lovely thing we call the internet, because we're all trying to build a platform and hone our skills and blah di blah. That's kind of what this is, except I have a slightly more specific purpose in mind. (Cough. Sort of.)

All authors, agents, publishers and literary people in general seem to start their neverending streams of advice with one word: read. If you want to be a writer; read. Read good books, read bad books, read cheesy books, read weepy books, read difficult books, read boring books, read anything and everything you can get your hands on, so that you can refine what - to your mind - makes The Perfect Book. Personally, I've expanded this advice to include films too, as screen-writing is another thing I've filed under 'Things That Would Make Really Nice Careers But Will Probably Never Happen' - due to my film geekery.

So. My plan for The Blog is to keep a record of  the books I read and the films I watch, and make a note of what I think works, and what doesn't work. You can expect a lot of Random Capitalisation, more than a few angry rants, the occasional made up word and probably embarrassingly few book-posts compared to film-posts.

Right. Well. I think that's everything.

Let's do this, shall we?

(Update 2014: Yeah...this did not work. See http://theonlythingiknowanythingabout.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/oh-my-god-blog-post-what.html for the New Plan.)