books glorious books
Feb. 25th, 2004 06:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nigeltdeHow curious to read Lieutenant Hornblower and find that it is entirely written from Bush's perspective, especially as Mr. Midshipman H. and, it appears, H. and the 'Hotspur' are from Hornblower's perspective. Sidekick POV is something I think I've only ever read before in comics and fanfiction.
I have to say, while I'm enjoying the books, and I'm learning a lot about his character, I do like the movies better. Partly because I miss Archie, Matthews, Styles and Pellew, which is a bit naughty of me, I expect. I miss the humour in the movies, too, especially Ioan Gruffudd's fantastic and hilarious facial expressions, and I miss the Duchess's expanded role. Also I think because I keep comparing it to the O'Brian novels which are funnier (although drunken Bush and Hornblower's wedding cracked me up), more exciting, and more interestingly populated and characterised. I can't quite put my finger on it; Forester's writing is not difficult to read, or exceptionally slow or plodding, but it's mostly only my fondness for Hornblower and Bush that keep me reading atm, and I think that if I had read the books first, I would not have enjoyed them so much. Perhaps I am just overdosing. It is silly to not enjoy a book for what it is not.
Meanwhile, I'm also halfway through The Shining (thanks lainy!) and now I need to see the Kubrick movie again so I can bring some backstory to it. Also, I was delighted to find the Gormenghast trilogy in one volume the other day so I grabbed that and can't wait to read it. Also, the Alexander funny yesterday piqued my interest so I grabbed The Persian Boy from the library. It's by Mary Renault, who is apparently the O'Brian equivalent in matters of Alexander the Great, so I look forward to reading that, too.
----
ION Bush seems determined to prove as strongly and consistently as possible that he is, in fact, too stupid to breathe. It is ridiculous and disgraceful that he should try, in this day and age, to use the Constitution, a document laying down the fundamental laws of a country founded on principles of equality and non-interference by the government, to discriminate against large section of the population. What is funny is that The Terminator is scared it's going to bring on the armageddon. This is also funny.
Gavin Newsom, the Mayor of San Fran, is an absolute champion in what seems to be a sea of absolute dunderheads.
ETA: And I know I'm not the first not the best person to say this but what the hell is all this crap about the "sanctity" of marriage?
sanc·ti·ty
1. Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness.
2. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
3. Something considered sacred.
Does this sound like marriage to ANYONE? Maybe if two angels got married; but then, seeing has they have no real gender, that might be a bit too gay. Is it possible for to two human beings to live together for (ostensibly) forever, with all the financial etc pressures that marriage brings, and NOT be a little unholy towards each other at times? If it is so sacred, why does it so often end in tears and worse? I think that it must be because it's so often a cock-up that people see it, the institution, as something in need of protection. It's endangered, and they don't want it to go extinct. But seeing as they can't exactly build nature parks, shouldn't they want MORE people to get married? This "sanctity" cannot be derived from religion. Church and state are separated; more importantly, a whole bunch of people who get married don't give a crap about religion. The good book cannot be used as justification to keep marriage to heteros only. It baffles me.
I have to say, while I'm enjoying the books, and I'm learning a lot about his character, I do like the movies better. Partly because I miss Archie, Matthews, Styles and Pellew, which is a bit naughty of me, I expect. I miss the humour in the movies, too, especially Ioan Gruffudd's fantastic and hilarious facial expressions, and I miss the Duchess's expanded role. Also I think because I keep comparing it to the O'Brian novels which are funnier (although drunken Bush and Hornblower's wedding cracked me up), more exciting, and more interestingly populated and characterised. I can't quite put my finger on it; Forester's writing is not difficult to read, or exceptionally slow or plodding, but it's mostly only my fondness for Hornblower and Bush that keep me reading atm, and I think that if I had read the books first, I would not have enjoyed them so much. Perhaps I am just overdosing. It is silly to not enjoy a book for what it is not.
Meanwhile, I'm also halfway through The Shining (thanks lainy!) and now I need to see the Kubrick movie again so I can bring some backstory to it. Also, I was delighted to find the Gormenghast trilogy in one volume the other day so I grabbed that and can't wait to read it. Also, the Alexander funny yesterday piqued my interest so I grabbed The Persian Boy from the library. It's by Mary Renault, who is apparently the O'Brian equivalent in matters of Alexander the Great, so I look forward to reading that, too.
----
ION Bush seems determined to prove as strongly and consistently as possible that he is, in fact, too stupid to breathe. It is ridiculous and disgraceful that he should try, in this day and age, to use the Constitution, a document laying down the fundamental laws of a country founded on principles of equality and non-interference by the government, to discriminate against large section of the population. What is funny is that The Terminator is scared it's going to bring on the armageddon. This is also funny.
Gavin Newsom, the Mayor of San Fran, is an absolute champion in what seems to be a sea of absolute dunderheads.
ETA: And I know I'm not the first not the best person to say this but what the hell is all this crap about the "sanctity" of marriage?
sanc·ti·ty
1. Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness.
2. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
3. Something considered sacred.
Does this sound like marriage to ANYONE? Maybe if two angels got married; but then, seeing has they have no real gender, that might be a bit too gay. Is it possible for to two human beings to live together for (ostensibly) forever, with all the financial etc pressures that marriage brings, and NOT be a little unholy towards each other at times? If it is so sacred, why does it so often end in tears and worse? I think that it must be because it's so often a cock-up that people see it, the institution, as something in need of protection. It's endangered, and they don't want it to go extinct. But seeing as they can't exactly build nature parks, shouldn't they want MORE people to get married? This "sanctity" cannot be derived from religion. Church and state are separated; more importantly, a whole bunch of people who get married don't give a crap about religion. The good book cannot be used as justification to keep marriage to heteros only. It baffles me.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 06:49 pm (UTC)Aren't the Sherlock Holmes stories all written from Watson's point of view? I can't remember. I kind of like sidekick pov. Not being in the spotlight, but still being part of the action is kind of more interesting, I think. Could be one of the reasons I like the Pagan series so much. *muses*
but then, seeing has they have no real gender, that might be a bit too gay
Teehee! You kill me *g*
Personally, I've never believed in the concept of marriage. Whilst I understand why people may view the idea of pledging themselves to another (legally and religiously) as something sacred, to me its never been more than a farce. You shouldn't need a document to bind someone you love to you. They should stay and be faithful to you because they love you back, not because a little piece of paper tells them to. Plus I sort of view marriage as seeking permission or acceptance for your relationship (from society, God, whoever), in a matter which I personally view as absolutely no one else's business than yours and your partners. Perhaps if people weren't so disillusioned by the concept of marriage, they wouldn't fail so miserably when it came to the actual thing.
But I guess I'm just cynical that way ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 09:51 pm (UTC)What you say about marriage strikes home for me and it is certainly one of the reasons I can't ever see myself marrying. But there are a billion reasons why people get married, and for someone to try and impose their narrow idea of marriage on me, to try and prevent me from marrying someone just because she's a girl? How can they not recognise that that is blatant discrimination? It gets my goat in a bad way.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-25 09:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-02 04:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-02 06:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-02 03:59 pm (UTC)As far as the sanctity of marriage, I really do believe that marriage is sacred. (I never did before, but I do now.) However, every person/couple has to define that for themselves, and I find it so disgustingly insulting for anyone to suggest that the sanctity of marriage and homosexual marriage are mutually exclusive!! Why can two men or two women not have the same kind of deep sacred bond that anyone else can have? It's so stupid! I just can't believe that we're still debating this, you know?
no subject
Date: 2004-03-02 06:30 pm (UTC)I hope I didn't cause you any offence re the sanctity of marriage. You are right when you say that everyone has to decide that for themselves.
I just can't believe that we're still debating this, you know?
Yes! The fact that we even HAVE to debate it is practically the most worrying aspect of the entire stupid thing!
no subject
Date: 2004-03-02 08:26 pm (UTC)In a totally unrelated note (except it's Australian), have you seen Puppetry of the Penis (http://www.puppetryofthepenis.com/)? I don't know if I would say I enjoyed it, but it is unique and truly bizarre.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-04 02:10 am (UTC)